Pro and Con of Anamorphic lens and scaling with New Crop of 1080P 3 chip DLP's - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Assuming one had the appropriate lumen output for the desired screen width visa vi the new 3 chip 1080P Dlp's and the additional light output from anamorphic lens and scaling "should not" be neccesary, is the use of the projectors full panel to display the 2.35 image reason enough for the additional optics and scaling required?

Is lumen output like health and money you can never have too much and the increase in lumens also comes into play?
LJG is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Lumens are good, but the crux of the question becomes:

What will the primary aspect ratio of the screen be?

I have no doubt in my mind that for constant image height the anamorphic lens is necessary. There is only one projector in existence that could zoom in and out with enough precision to properly service a CIH setup.

That would be the very large NEC digital Cinema pieces , which NEC will not have hdcp cards allowed built for them.

You could have a 1.77 primary screen of roll down type with masking and then be over with. If you really want to have a flat unity gain screen that is the correct way IMO, as a fixed 1.77 screen masked top and bottom says: This is a 1.777 screen masked down. What I call vertical masking: a top and bottom panel of black fabric to me looks apologetic when deployed over the primary 1.77 screen.

You really want 2.35 to look as cinematic as possible; for non anamorphic projection on a flat screen the above solution is the logical one, drop down masked. For anamorphic anamorphic there are overwhelming arguments in favour of the more esoteric Torus.



Then there is MTF, MTF has been dicussed ad nauseum in these forums and it is agreed that 3 chip dlp sports the most in native MTF than any other projection technology. That is one of the two reasons 3 chip dlp creams LCOS, color prceision and uniformity being the other (with proper setup linear lamp sources-THAT MEANS FILTERED IF UHP or XENON).

But MTF is all about contrast and the perception of it at very high resolutions.

Put the perforated screen out on the front lawn for Thursday pickup, because the perforations are the enemy of MTF.

In this case having a non perforated screen of unity gain is good but you will need a very large and inefficient projector. But FLAT is still ok if you are not using an anamorphic lens.

With the TORUS screen you not only get gain without hot-spotting, that elusive quality that gives you the higest reality recreation factor, however if you are using an anamorphic lens then the TORUS becomes INDISPENSABLE.

A properly implemented anamorphic TORUS projection with low angle of incidence will exhibit an optically coupled projection with perfect focus, and no light spillage from the lens attahcment's innate pincushion barrel doistortion. The screen was co-invented by the same guy that co-developed the lenses for Cinema Use and has 5 oscars at home to show for it.

I have no doubt in my mind that the TORUS will be huge in very high end home theaters, once some get out into the mainstream.

There have been a lot of pompous flat earthedness thrown around this forum about the acoustical anomalies of the torus. Yes there can be such acoustical calamities, I am intimately familiar with many such theaters, and one home theater of my creation was definetely lacking in the acoustics department due to improper speaker dispersion. But most importantly, of those AMC movie theaters that are CINEMASCOPE only the later variety of floor to ceiling TORUSSES with stadium seating sound bad.

The first batch of up on the 2/3 of the front wall TORUSSES are the formula to be emulated for home theater, when used with D'appolito far field type loudspeakers in the front, and controlled directivity (D'appolito variants) for sides and rears, then we are looking at the best of both worlds Audio Video. I have succesfully achieved one Audiophile-grade Torus home cinema with large floorstanders flanking the screen. If I can so can many.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Here is my dilema, I much prefer to go Constant Width vs Constant Height, as I would prefer to have largest 16:9 screen for HD sports.

So aside from a vertical compression lens solution I am thinking just running a 16:9 screen of 81 x 144, and masking for 2.35 at 62 x144.

So the real question is how much is lost in the above setup @ 62 x 144 masked vs a Constant Height setup of 62x144 with anamorphic lens and scaling?
LJG is online now  
post #4 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I will disagree with Peter. Most 3 chip DLPs should have enough precision and range in the focus and zoom drives to allow switching between 16:9 and 2.35:1 without use of scaling and an anamorphic lens. Also, even if focus and zoom memory is not available, using very precise timing with a Crestron or similar control system should work.

I also think that the loss of ANSI CR and MTF through the anamorphic lens and scaling artifacts outweigh any advantage.

Anamorphic 2.35 lenses are used in digital cinema, but this application has an actual 2.35 anamorphic transfer and not just scaling. The increase in vertical resolution tips the balance and outweighs the lens issues.
odyssey is offline  
post #5 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Odyssey:

Thanks, I assumed there would be negative tradeoffs when introducing an anamorhic lens and additonal scaling.

Just curious why zooming and focus would be required to go from 16:9 source to 2.35 source in a constant width setup, the black bars would be masked, I am coming from constant width CRT setup with masking so this is all somewhat new to me.
LJG is online now  
post #6 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

Here is my dilema, I much prefer to go Constant Width vs Constant Height, as I would prefer to have largest 16:9 screen for HD sports.

So aside from a vertical compression lens solution I am thinking just running a 16:9 screen of 81 x 144, and masking for 2.35 at 62 x144.

So the real question is how much is lost in the above setup @ 62 x 144 masked vs a Constant Height setup of 62x144 with anamorphic lens and scaling?

If you don't have issues with SDE, aliasing, and light output; you are not losing anything at all. At 1920x1080(812) and 3 chip DLP, these should not be problems. You don't have the appearance of an unmasked 2.35:1 screen, but you are maximizing the 16:9 area available, which is important in width limited rooms.

Also, the light output increase with use of an anamorphic lens and scaling is not as much as the theoretical calculation because of light loss in the lens.
odyssey is offline  
post #7 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

Odyssey:

Thanks, I assumed there would be negative tradeoffs when introducing an anamorhic lens and additonal scaling.

Just curious why zooming and focus would be required to go from 16:9 source to 2.35 source in a constant width setup, the black bars would be masked, I am coming from constant width CRT setup with masking so this is all somewhat new to me.

You would need zoom and focus only for constant height. I am using constant width with vertical masking because my room is width limited and about half of my viewing is 16:9. This is with a 3 chip DLP, although only the focus is motorized.
odyssey is offline  
post #8 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Odyssey:

Exactly what I am planning on doing, I assume you looked into Vertical Compression lenses and decided against?
LJG is online now  
post #9 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

I will disagree with Peter. Most 3 chip DLPs should have enough precision and range in the focus and zoom drives to allow switching between 16:9 and 2.35:1 without use of scaling and an anamorphic lens. Also, even if focus and zoom memory is not available, using very precise timing with a Crestron or similar control system should work.

Do you have this working? Everytime I've played with this suggestion I ended having to fine tune frequently. The NEC unit has ultraprecise servo memories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

I also think that the loss of ANSI CR and MTF through the anamorphic lens and scaling artifacts outweigh any advantage.
Anamorphic 2.35 lenses are used in digital cinema, but this application has an actual 2.35 anamorphic transfer and not just scaling. The increase in vertical resolution tips the balance and outweighs the lens issues

You know how highly I value your opinion, it's good knowing someone more knowledgeable than oneself on this subject matter. A rare commodity in this forum. However I saw a superb Ben Hur presentation in Sam Runco's SC-1 Kitchen setup that was transported to CEDIA on a 22 foot wide 2.45 ar screen (off DVD no less), when they switched to a 4:2:2 clip of King Kong, wow, even you would re-evaluate this postulate. Mind you they were using the Gargantuan Isco 1.25x adapter which may have minimal impact on contrast.

So I will qualify my statement until I do a/b testing with the isco 3.

Incidentaly there are new 2048 x 1080 digital cinema chips coming out this year,
there will be a new wave of more affordable digital cinema projectors. Hopefully with higher cr.

Odyssey I am talking to Schott about that glass substrate, they recommended the AMIRAN INSTEAD.

Even though it is a glazing product, it is low iron white water type.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I did not consider a vertical compression lens because of the issues I mentioned. Without an actual 2.35 enhanced transfer with 1080 vertical resolution, the net result is worse than displaying at masked 1920x812 native.
odyssey is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:18 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Great, Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the subject, what 3 Chip DLP are you using in your setup
LJG is online now  
post #12 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I think he's got a hot-rodded version of this big bad boy:
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Peter,

I played with the zoom and focus of the NEC 1280x1024 3 chip DLP that I had a few years ago and it seemed to have enough range to switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1. I can't remember if it had memory capability for zoom and focus positions. I have not done the motor run timing method using a Crestron controller. It would take only about 30 minutes to try this with a current projector with motorized zoom and focus. I would do it, but as I mentioned, I have only manual zoom. In any case, I am sure that it will work with most 3 chip DLPs.

Was the Runco King Kong demo with a digital cinema transfer? You mentioned 4:2:2, so it likely was digital cinema. In that case, it's 2048x1080 anamorphic content, and it should look very good with an anamorphic lens.

I am actually using Schott Amiran (water white, low iron). The optical coating on my Schott B-270 was done incorrectly and I had to trash it. This is after I had it ground optically flat in Germany. The B-270 is better, but it probably doesn't matter for projection port use, especially if the calibration corrects for any slight colorimetry shift.
odyssey is offline  
post #14 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:39 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
While I agree the increase in light benefits using an anamorphic lens are minimal and hard to detect I would like to hear more discussion about the scaling artifacts. Using a top scaler choosing letterbox mode I have looked, used test patterns and I do cannot detect any such artifacts but its possible I do not know what Im looking for.
Using an alternating line pattern in both vertical and horizontal direction will exhibit frequency errors in the way setting up a pcs scan rate to a projector but this only affects overlay text etc.

Ive been a fan of using anamorphics for a long time. I can understand the loss of ANSI CR and MTF but when projecting film we have to add an anamorphic lens as well.
Its the scaling artifacts people mention id like to hear more about.

Thanks!!
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It is the Barco DP100. A funny thing about this threadwhen I bought the projector three years ago, I had Barco delete the anamorphic lens and it's motorized turret to save a few dollars. I think that they took off $10K, but it may have been only $5K. But I outsmarted myself. When upgrade time comes, I will have to buy these at a much higher price to be able to sell the projector. Barco has now upgraded the projector, both hardware and firmware, several times at no cost, and it's fully equivalent to a current brand new unit. There is an active resale market for these in South America and other places and it has good value, but not without the anamorphic lens system which is essential for digital cinema.
odyssey is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:46 AM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Barco DP100 nice!!
LJG is online now  
post #17 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
odyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Alan,

As you mentioned, vertical and horizontal frequency response is a good test for some scaling problems. The problem I would be most concerned about is image softening, some of which you will have for any scaling, almost by definition.
odyssey is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
That Runco scaler's presentation of Ben Hur on the SC-1 was anything but soft, it had a Teranex like granularity to it that was quite pleasant. I don't remember Ben Hur in 70mmm from when I was a kid, and later in 35mm at the cinemas that well, but this Runco presentation must be the best looking Ben Hur I have seen in a long time.

Now we have new scaling and frame processing technologies designed to sharpen and smoothen out the dynamic content of the 108p24 presentatition . (ie. Motion Corrected Temporal Interpolation). We should be open minded to such benefits.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #19 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mburnstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bloomfield Twp., MI
Posts: 1,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

Here is my dilema, I much prefer to go Constant Width vs Constant Height, as I would prefer to have largest 16:9 screen for HD sports.

So aside from a vertical compression lens solution I am thinking just running a 16:9 screen of 81 x 144, and masking for 2.35 at 62 x144.

So the real question is how much is lost in the above setup @ 62 x 144 masked vs a Constant Height setup of 62x144 with anamorphic lens and scaling?

Lon, what size room and seating position do you have that would allow a
144 wide x 81H screen for HDTV???

mark

Top Home Theater's I hope to see: The Bland's
Art's and my buddy Steve Bruzonsky! And Oneobgyn if I ever make it to NorCal!
mburnstein is offline  
post #20 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mburnstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bloomfield Twp., MI
Posts: 1,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I guess I'll be watch at least 50% HDTV 16:9 Dishnetwork. Viewing distances will be between 12 and 16 feet. if doing constant width, you still need a lens like panamorph for 2.35:1, correct?? Projector may be the new JVC RS-1. Room is totally dark.

 

T-1 THEATER PLAN v2.pdf 163.8154296875k . file

 

T-1 THEATER PLAN v2.pdf 163.8154296875k . file

mark

Top Home Theater's I hope to see: The Bland's
Art's and my buddy Steve Bruzonsky! And Oneobgyn if I ever make it to NorCal!
mburnstein is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Room is 18 x 18, probably could go 14' wide at a little over 1.2 viewing distance, I have experimented by sitting 8' from my current 8' wide screen and was comfortable.

RS1 has limited lumens and that will be your constraint.

As far as Constant width vs Constant height it comes down to preferences, assuming you are restricted to a maximum width due to room constraints it comes down to do you prefer to have 2.35 as your widest, or do you prefer to have the largest 16x9 picture possible?
LJG is online now  
post #22 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mburnstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bloomfield Twp., MI
Posts: 1,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If I get a 12 foot wide 16:9 screen, can I still use the panamorph UH380 for constant height and have the 2.35:1 picture placed inside the 16:9 screen, resulting in top and bottom black bars? I guess the panamorph would be in front of lens for 2.35;1 and slid away for HDTV. Anyone have a set where they move a lens away from the projector?

I reconsidered and I will get the 12 foot 2.35:1 screen. A similar width in 16:9 is about 80 inches tall!!!

mark

Top Home Theater's I hope to see: The Bland's
Art's and my buddy Steve Bruzonsky! And Oneobgyn if I ever make it to NorCal!
mburnstein is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 02:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Mark,

I chose my screen as a constant width. You can certainly use a lens with a 16:9 and you will get black bars.

To eliminate the black bars, I got a masking system. Then you can properly mask any aspect.

Just an option.

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 online now  
post #24 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 02:39 PM - Thread Starter
LJG
AVS Special Member
 
LJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brookville, NY
Posts: 3,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburnstein View Post

If I get a 12 foot wide 16:9 screen, can I still use the panamorph UH380 for constant height and have the 2.35:1 picture placed inside the 16:9 screen, resulting in top and bottom black bars? I guess the panamorph would be in front of lens for 2.35;1 and slid away for HDTV. Anyone have a set where they move a lens away from the projector?

That would be constant width not constant height, you could use only a vertical compression lens for that.

I think I am with the Bland on this one constant width without a lens
LJG is online now  
post #25 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 05:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene-L View Post

I see you have put the VIDABOX MAX MEDIA CENTER SUPER-SERVER on your site. Did you used it already?

Regards, Rene

I am a quick learner Thanks. I met with them at CES. I am waiting for the hdtv cable card update in order to be a ble to record HDTV movies.

Also exiciting is the Vista SPK2 which will alow for multiroom Vblue Ray and HD DVD pver media center extenders.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 05:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I endorse the constant width method as the best method fro non anamorphic projection.

But in a room like Mark's that is soo wide, I WOULD GO CONSTANT HEIGHT.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #27 of 27 Old 01-27-2007, 06:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mburnstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bloomfield Twp., MI
Posts: 1,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks Peter, I will be doing that!!! But I'll do the 12 foot 2.35:1 CIH
That will give me 144" x 62" 2.35:1 picture and for HDTV 1.78:1 I'll get 110" x62" with 17" black bars on the sides.

mark

Top Home Theater's I hope to see: The Bland's
Art's and my buddy Steve Bruzonsky! And Oneobgyn if I ever make it to NorCal!
mburnstein is offline  
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