Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content? - Page 5 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > News Forum > Community News & Polls > Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content?

View Poll Results: Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Movies?
Anamorphic lens 62 28.84%
Lens memories 113 52.56%
Neither; I'm happy with 16:9 and letterbox bars 40 18.60%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll
Community News & Polls

Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn
03:08 PM Liked: 52
post #121 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 22,316
Joined: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Can someone explain to me what's the point of the anamorphic lens? I mean, yes I understand that with the zoom mehod you lose some lumens, fair enought. But people claim tha you get more resolution with an anamorphic lens. The sales rep from panamorph said in CEDIA that you're not really getting 1080p without anamorphic lens, you're actually getting "only" 810p (it's on youtube). Excuse me, what isn't that the resolution tha the movie is encoded in on the Blu-ray Disc anyway? The rest is encoded black bars. You're not adding any pixels with an anamorphic lens, it a the exact same source. So what's the point?

Pixels aren't from the source but from utilizing the full height of the 16x9 panel in scope films.

Art
odedia's Avatar odedia
03:34 PM Liked: 24
post #122 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

The Darbee does help, but the Panny is not bright enough in "best mode" to light up a 140" scope screen. You will have to use one of the brighter settings at the expense of more accurate color.

Ohhhh, that's too bad... is this also correct for completely darkened room? I don't mind if I need to switch to a brighter setting in 3D, I'm mainly concerned about 2D.
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
03:44 PM Liked: 58
post #123 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Ohhhh, that's too bad... is this also correct for completely darkened room? I don't mind if I need to switch to a brighter setting in 3D, I'm mainly concerned about 2D.

Yes it is correct for a completely darkened room, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. I used to own a PT-AE8000 with a 133" scope screen matte white, the picture was way too dim in best modes, cinema etc. When you use best modes the filter is engaged and the lumens drop considerably. I think I had to use something like "normal" (cant remember the name) to get a brighter image, but I always hated the colour of grass being lime green.eek.gif
odedia's Avatar odedia
03:49 PM Liked: 24
post #124 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Yes it is correct for a completely darkened room, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. I used to own a PT-AE8000 with a 133" scope screen matte white, the picture was way too dim in best modes, cinema etc. When you use best modes the filter is engaged and the lumens drop considerably. I think I had to use something like "normal" (cant remember the name) to get a brighter image, but I always hated the colour of grass being lime green.eek.gif

Well, that' sure makes me pound my head against the wall smile.gif. Back to the drawing board...

What did you end up using instead of the 8000?
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
04:03 PM Liked: 58
post #125 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Well, that' sure makes me pound my head against the wall smile.gif. Back to the drawing board...

What did you end up using instead of the 8000?

JVC X95 on a 144" AT screen.
odedia's Avatar odedia
04:52 PM Liked: 24
post #126 of 150
10-19-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

JVC X95 on a 144" AT screen.

Sounds incredible. I bet it looks incredible too smile.gif
odedia's Avatar odedia
02:56 PM Liked: 24
post #127 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

JVC X95 on a 144" AT screen.

Finally saw the projector PT-AE8000 projector today. Loved the looks of it, loved the picture quality, didn't really dig the black levels. I felt it was a big washed and the shadow details were a bit lost in there.

But to take it back to the topic of this thread - man, the Lens Memory feature is just spectacular. If only Epson would have joined the party and offer it on their models as well I'll have the best of both worlds (contrast, blacks and cinemascope).

The store had a 96" 16:9 screen installed, but I still pushed the size to bleed off the screen to the walls around. Everyone were impressed just how much of a difference it makes when the 2.35 movie is showing at the entire height of the screen. I was able to max out at about 130" diagonal in 2.35 aspect ratio, at which point the projector refused to go further, probably since it wasn't far enough back. Still, at 130" the image looked great, I didn't feel any serious quality degradation. It is of course there, but definitely not a showstopper. In terms of lumens, I felt it was definitely acceptable for my eyes. I guess it could indeed get too dim when pushing towards the 140" range. Maybe I'm just too new to this projector business but I didn't feel I am losing too much brightness in Rec709 or cinema1 mode. Viewing a Pixar movie in Normal mode was very bright. I didn't try out 3D, they didn't have glasses there. I guess it won't be that great at that size since 3D needs a very bright image.

Long story short - when most projectors begin to look similar in their price categories, Lens Memory seems like the "killer feature" to look for.
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
03:39 PM Liked: 58
post #128 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Finally saw the projector PT-AE8000 projector today. Loved the looks of it, loved the picture quality, didn't really dig the black levels. I felt it was a big washed and the shadow details were a bit lost in there.

But to take it back to the topic of this thread - man, the Lens Memory feature is just spectacular. If only Epson would have joined the party and offer it on their models as well I'll have the best of both worlds (contrast, blacks and cinemascope).

The store had a 96" 16:9 screen installed, but I still pushed the size to bleed off the screen to the walls around. Everyone were impressed just how much of a difference it makes when the 2.35 movie is showing at the entire height of the screen. I was able to max out at about 130" diagonal in 2.35 aspect ratio, at which point the projector refused to go further, probably since it wasn't far enough back. Still, at 130" the image looked great, I didn't feel any serious quality degradation. It is of course there, but definitely not a showstopper. In terms of lumens, I felt it was definitely acceptable for my eyes. I guess it could indeed get too dim when pushing towards the 140" range. Maybe I'm just too new to this projector business but I didn't feel I am losing too much brightness in Rec709 or cinema1 mode. Viewing a Pixar movie in Normal mode was very bright. I didn't try out 3D, they didn't have glasses there. I guess it won't be that great at that size since 3D needs a very bright image.

Long story short - when most projectors begin to look similar in their price categories, Lens Memory seems like the "killer feature" to look for.

96" is a postage stamp. It may have looked acceptable but how far off were you from your proposed 140" scope screen? Also you don't mention what gain their screen was.
odedia's Avatar odedia
04:28 PM Liked: 24
post #129 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

96" is a postage stamp. It may have looked acceptable but how far off were you from your proposed 140" scope screen? Also you don't mention what gain their screen was.

That was some postage stamp! smile.gif

Even though it was a 96" screen (indeed pretty small), I zoomed the lens to make the picture into 130" in 1:2.35 ratio. How do I know? we took a tape measure and measured the diagonal of the 2.35 projected image biggrin.gif. Ofcourse a lot of the image was way off screen but we could still measure it. All my contrast/brightness observations were done on the 96" area of the screen in that zoomed mode.

The screen itself was a cheapo no-name brand that actually had a slight negative gain of 0.9 according to the sales rep.

I take your previous comments with a lot of respect and I'm sure many videophiles would find my observations unacceptable, but I was rather pleased. I'm sure it's no where near the quality of the X95, but for the price I can't complain much (unless you can recommend other choices with lens memory at this price range?). The experience today got me thinking that for 3D movies there's no reason why I wouldn't create a smaller sized preset if I find the brightness too bad (which I probably will). I'm not that crazy for 3D anyway.

I'm still not 100% decided, still need to see the Epson 5020 or 5030.
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
04:41 PM Liked: 58
post #130 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

That was some postage stamp! smile.gif

Even though it was a 96" screen (indeed pretty small), I zoomed the lens to make the picture into 130" in 1:2.35 ratio. How do I know? we took a tape measure and measured the diagonal of the 2.35 projected image biggrin.gif. Ofcourse a lot of the image was way off screen but we could still measure it. All my contrast/brightness observations were done on the 96" area of the screen in that zoomed mode.

The screen itself was a cheapo no-name brand that actually had a slight negative gain of 0.9 according to the sales rep.

I take your previous comments with a lot of respect and I'm sure many videophiles would find my observations unacceptable, but I was rather pleased. I'm sure it's no where near the quality of the X95, but for the price I can't complain much (unless you can recommend other choices with lens memory at this price range?). The experience today got me thinking that for 3D movies there's no reason why I wouldn't create a smaller sized preset if I find the brightness too bad (which I probably will). I'm not that crazy for 3D anyway.

I'm still not 100% decided, still need to see the Epson 5020 or 5030.

Its good that you are happy with the result, but I'm sure you wont be able to use Cin1 on the PT-AE8000 on a 140" screen with a gain of 1.0 when the lamp ages, you will find the image lacks any punch.
Best way round the 3D is to use a smaller high gain pull down screen in front of the main screen.
odedia's Avatar odedia
10:25 PM Liked: 24
post #131 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Its good that you are happy with the result, but I'm sure you wont be able to use Cin1 on the PT-AE8000 on a 140" screen with a gain of 1.0 when the lamp ages, you will find the image lacks any punch.
Best way round the 3D is to use a smaller high gain pull down screen in front of the main screen.

That may very well be true, although Cinema2 seemed ok as well. Not quite the same, but acceptable. the lumens output on cin2 is quite higher from what I've read.

Do you think going to a 130" screen will make a big difference overall in 16:9, 3d and 2.35? I'll be back to the postage stamp size for 16:9 smile.gif
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
10:32 PM Liked: 58
post #132 of 150
10-20-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

That may very well be true, although Cinema2 seemed ok as well. Not quite the same, but acceptable. the lumens output on cin2 is quite higher from what I've read.

Do you think going to a 130" screen will make a big difference overall in 16:9, 3d and 2.35? I'll be back to the postage stamp size for 16:9 smile.gif

You would be better with one of the entry level JVCs with zoom memory.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan
07:08 AM Liked: 272
post #133 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 15,423
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

You would be better with one of the entry level JVCs with zoom memory.

ANY
JVC's output compared to the Panny 8000 will be considerably less bright, in any mode. Also, JVC's lamps age too, and at what seems to be a considerably faster rate than the Panny's, which BTW have a considerably longer "stated" Lamp life.

I was a Fanboy for JVC products, even excepting the price factor, because their much greater Native Contrast actually made their lower lumen out put produce an image with more "PoP' than brighter, lower Contrast PJs. All that until they had their spate of issues both Lamp and Lens related a couple years back, resulting in my having to return and/or exchange 6 of 8 separate units. Since the advent of the far brighter Epsons and particularly the Panny 8K w/ Lens memory for my 2.35:1 projects, they have not even been a consideration. Now that is "my" choice, and not to be construed as a condemnation of JVC. But one does have to consider that the only way JVC achieves the Contrast levels they do is because the purposefully restrain the amount of Lumen output they produce. If they pumped out 2000 or more, you can bet the specs would be different.

As for the screen issue, there are solutions that can give one the ability to go up to 140"+ diagonal without overt attenuation, and they do not have to include true high gain, Retro Reflective surfaces that can result in a grainy or pixelated image.

I know this well....I make 'em all the time.

Applied "aftermarket" paint coatings on Mfg Screens are one route to take....as is the use of stretched materials that are also coated. Sadly though, you can look until your eyes fuse open and not find any 2.35:1 formatted Mfg Screens with gain over 1.0......leastwise at present.

odeda, if you can even begin to consider applying a improved finish onto the Mfg.2.35:1 Screen of your choice, or making one from scratch, I can both assure you of getting the "robust" sized 16:9 image you desire and enjoying all the gain you'll need in 3D mode, as well as receiving all the needed assistance and advice to make it happen. Just PM me,or better still, getcherself over to the DIY Screen Forum and post up a new Thread.

......and get the Panny 8K. For the price difference between it and the aforementioned JVC, you can make your Screen, get a OPPO Blue Ray Player, a free-standing refrigerated Beer Tap and Keg, and a slew of 3D DVDs. wink.gif
odedia's Avatar odedia
07:43 AM Liked: 24
post #134 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks.

I MUST use a tab-tensioned motorized screen, can't use a fixed frame since it's a living room setup. So I don't know if a paint coat would still be fitting.

Anyway, I thing I should just give it a try, use 140" for 2D and see if I can get acceptable size for 3D (around 120" diagonal 2.35:1?). If I find it unacceptable, i'll consider a paint job if it's even an option for a motorized screen.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan
08:20 AM Liked: 272
post #135 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 15,423
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Thanks.

I MUST use a tab-tensioned motorized screen, can't use a fixed frame since it's a living room setup. So I don't know if a paint coat would still be fitting.

Oh ya just gotta know I have that effectively "covered". biggrin.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1432177/painting-onto-a-106-tab-tensioned-screen-with-silver-fire-v2-5-4-0
Quote:
Anyway, I thing I should just give it a try, use 140" for 2D and see if I can get acceptable size for 3D (around 120" diagonal 2.35:1?). If I find it unacceptable, i'll consider a paint job if it's even an option for a motorized screen.

Why wait? Get'ter done right the first time, and have it be exactly what you want "out of the gate".
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
11:32 AM Liked: 58
post #136 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post


ANY
JVC's output compared to the Panny 8000 will be considerably less bright, in any mode. Also, JVC's lamps age too, and at what seems to be a considerably faster rate than the Panny's, which BTW have a considerably longer "stated" Lamp life.

I was a Fanboy for JVC products, even excepting the price factor, because their much greater Native Contrast actually made their lower lumen out put produce an image with more "PoP' than brighter, lower Contrast PJs. All that until they had their spate of issues both Lamp and Lens related a couple years back, resulting in my having to return and/or exchange 6 of 8 separate units. Since the advent of the far brighter Epsons and particularly the Panny 8K w/ Lens memory for my 2.35:1 projects, they have not even been a consideration. Now that is "my" choice, and not to be construed as a condemnation of JVC. But one does have to consider that the only way JVC achieves the Contrast levels they do is because the purposefully restrain the amount of Lumen output they produce. If they pumped out 2000 or more, you can bet the specs would be different.

wink.gif

There are no problems with the latest JVC lamps, that's a known fact, they have been replaced with a new model. The "new" JVCs are more than bright enough on large screens, as I said Im using the X95 on an AT screen that's 144" diag scope. As I mentioned I used to use a PT-AE8000 on a 140" scope and I had to use the brightest setting to get enough light on the screen, as you know the brightest setting produces horrid color.
impetigo's Avatar impetigo
12:31 PM Liked: 27
post #137 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 610
Joined: May 2006
We wouldn't need anamorphic lenses and all the shenanigans that people are resorting to get 2.35:1 without the letterbox bars while still watching 16x9 content IF ONLY some company would make a projector that could physically blocks/masks the letterbox bars from being projected at all, so that the projected image would be 2.35:1 (or 1.85:1), albeit at the 1920x817 resolution.

Of course, you couldn't easily (or at all) do lens shifting so placement would be more of a challenge (although zoom should be possible), but I would totally buy one if I could do 2.35:1 "natively" and so easily.
odedia's Avatar odedia
12:39 PM Liked: 24
post #138 of 150
10-21-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Oh ya just gotta know I have that effectively "covered". biggrin.gif
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1432177/painting-onto-a-106-tab-tensioned-screen-with-silver-fire-v2-5-4-0
Why wait? Get'ter done right the first time, and have it be exactly what you want "out of the gate".

Wow, that thread was extremely motivating.
Did you eventually take the time to do that 135" 2.35 screen with the panasonic 8000 that you mentioned in the end? Would love to see results from that.

It would be really great if you could point me at the materials needed, also maybe you could write up a quick how to guide. Please be aware that I have zero experience with these things. I would prefer and would rather pay a little more for ready materials (for example ready-to-go paint vs mixing it on my own).

Some things I'm not sure about:

1. was the viewing angle reduced? seems like a no from the shots but wanted to make sure
2. were the black levels improved or worsened due to the increased brightness?
3. does the projector need to be dead center in front of the screen similar to how the Da Lite High Power screens behave?

Thanks.
Nads's Avatar Nads
12:42 PM Liked: 10
post #139 of 150
11-01-2013 | Posts: 32
Joined: Dec 2007
I have a Sony VPL-VW60 Projector with 16:9 100" diagonal Grand View Mat White 1.0 gain screen. Also using Darbee DVP5000.

There is no Lens Memory in my projector so zooming in and out will be a big pain. It does have Anamorphic stretch.

I can't afford to buy a good quality A-Lens and the only reasonable A-Lens close to my budget is CineVista $2000 but they strongly suggest ECC (Electronic Color Correction) which my projector does not support.

Intend to replace my 16:9 with 2.35:1 Screen as I only watch movies mostly 2.35:1 and few animated movies 16:9 on my projector, no Gaming , sports or TV.

Hence Intend to buy Lumagen Mini 3D ($1500) and will use the Lumagen to display 2.35:1/16:9 content to fill my new 2.35:1 screen as shown in the videos posted by BRolicBeast.

Based on the brightness of the Sony what screen size can I go up to on a 2.35:1 screen - would the maximum be 115" or can I go up to 125" diagonal.

I know screen gain also plays a role and will appreciate if you can suggest a way forward - is a curved screen a must at these sizes to avoid geometric distortion? Will it also help brightness?

At max I can spend $1000 to 1500 for the new screen on top of the Lumagen or build one DIY but don't know from where i can order a good gain material for my set-up. This will be my first DIY screen so not sure how it will turn out.

So basically I have approx $2.5K to $3K to spend and I really / really want to watch Cinema Scope.

Please excuse my ignorance as I am very new to CIH and reading various opposing comments confuses me even more.

Maybe based on my hardware / budget / viewing material, the senior members may have some good advise for me.

Many thanks for your patience and guidance.

Nads
odedia's Avatar odedia
01:51 PM Liked: 24
post #140 of 150
11-01-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
Do you have an AVR? My onkyo 818 has the picture modes needed to support stretching, so I don't need a projector that supports it internally. Also my boxee box (or any other XBMC solution) does it out of the box.
Nads's Avatar Nads
04:46 PM Liked: 10
post #141 of 150
11-01-2013 | Posts: 32
Joined: Dec 2007
Yes Yamaha RX-V3900 but it does not have any option for 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It has a) passthrough b) 16:9 c) smart zoom which just zooms.

As source I am using Popcorn Hour A300 and it has TV type a) 4:3 b) 16:9 c) 16:10. It also has zoom which either crops the sides of the picture to fill the 16:9 screen or full screen mode which stretches the picture vertically to get rid of the black bars ( same as the projectors anamorphic mode i. e. Vertical stretch) but without any horizontal stretch, so everything looks stretched.
odedia's Avatar odedia
03:11 AM Liked: 24
post #142 of 150
11-02-2013 | Posts: 252
Joined: Jun 2007
The horizontal stretch is done optically by the lens. I think you have all you need for 2.35 viewing. To get back to 16:9 viewing you also need a 4:3 stretch mode which squeezes the image "too much" to let the lens to optically stretch it back to normal 16:9 viewing.
Romans828's Avatar Romans828
02:13 PM Liked: 34
post #143 of 150
03-24-2014 | Posts: 157
Joined: Oct 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I will say that once we get 4K consumer DLP I'm not likely to include a lens in the chain.

Art

I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated theater that will be part of a new home build next year. The house will probably be completed in early summer 2015. I'm trying to plan the best way to approach this. I want to go with a large 130 to 150 inch acoustically transparent 2.35 screen. If I plan to go with an anamorphic lens, my understanding is that I should also plan to go with a curved screen to offset the pincushion effect. If I plan to zoom, a flat screen would seem to be a better choice. Arts statement above makes me wonder if I should take the zoom/flat route and eventually the 4K stuff will make this a non issue. I understand that the picture quality will likely be better with the lens. I just hate to invest that money if it will be unnecessary soon. Some are saying that they are unnecessary now...but I'm not sure if that is the case for the really large screens. This room will be dedicated/light controlled. How would something like the JVC DLA-X500R perform using the zoom method against a 150 inch acoustically transparent screen like a Seymour Center Stage XD?


stevenjw's Avatar stevenjw
03:25 PM Liked: 29
post #144 of 150
03-24-2014 | Posts: 2,186
Joined: Jul 2001
I voted for A-lens as I preferred that method for years. Of course, my projectors of choice were JVCs and then an Epson and they didn't offer zoom. I believe it's included with current JVC models, but still not with the Epsons. Regardless, I found an A-lens to work well and take advantage of the projector's entire capability on my 2.35:1 screen. I'd still be using an A-lens, but have moved to the Sony 1000ES and watch everything at 4K, so I don't want to degrade the resolution with a lens that was designed for 2K. An A-lens for 4K is too expensive. The lens in the 1000/1100 is top of the line. If I owned a 500/600, I might consider still using my A-lens.

The cost of a good, used 2K A-lens isn't that expensive and will last through multiple projectors. And there's practically nothing that will wear out on it either. Anyway, mine's up for sale under the Displays section in the AVS Classified. It needs a new home. wink.gif
b curry's Avatar b curry
04:27 PM Liked: 40
post #145 of 150
03-24-2014 | Posts: 2,689
Joined: Feb 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans828 View Post
 

I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated theater that will be part of a new home build next year. The house will probably be completed in early summer 2015. I'm trying to plan the best way to approach this. I want to go with a large 130 to 150 inch acoustically transparent 2.35 screen. If I plan to go with an anamorphic lens, my understanding is that I should also plan to go with a curved screen to offset the pincushion effect. If I plan to zoom, a flat screen would seem to be a better choice. Arts statement above makes me wonder if I should take the zoom/flat route and eventually the 4K stuff will make this a non issue. I understand that the picture quality will likely be better with the lens. I just hate to invest that money if it will be unnecessary soon. Some are saying that they are unnecessary now...but I'm not sure if that is the case for the really large screens. This room will be dedicated/light controlled. How would something like the JVC DLA-X500R perform using the zoom method against a 150 inch acoustically transparent screen like a Seymour Center Stage XD?

 

FWIW I use a 130" scope screen with an ISCOlllL lens.  The screen is flat, I have no noticeable pincushion.  Your throw distance will come into play in regards to pincushion and the quality of the lens you select.  If your building new, you can take throw distance into consideration.  Not to speak for Art, but I don't think he's using a curved screen either.

 

You might be wanting more light using a 150" acoustically transparent screen with the JVC.  I would use an A-lens in that situation for sure.

 

I'm not so sure that I would give up my lens even if/when 4K is available.  I don't consider Sony's 4K push a mainstream product yet.  I'd like to see a commitment from other studio's for 4K content before I invest in a 4K projector.  Although I do see the value of 4K up scaling.  The other issue is the stadards for a 4K disc format have yet to be published and there is a chance for disapointment regarding the purchase of the current Sony 4K projectors regarding a 4K Blu-ray offering.

 

Summer 2015 is at least one more product cycle away.  If it were me, I would not make a decision on a projector until after the first of the year; CEDIA/CES.


Franin's Avatar Franin
04:18 AM Liked: 337
post #146 of 150
05-16-2014 | Posts: 17,762
Joined: Aug 2007
Know that I have a projector that has lens memory I definitely prefer the anamorphic lens route.
LDizzle's Avatar LDizzle
11:54 PM Liked: 20
post #147 of 150
05-27-2014 | Posts: 117
Joined: Jun 2013
Haven't been privileged enough to experience the glory of either method as of yet, so I suppose I'm more or less ok with letterbox bars for the time being.
John Schuermann's Avatar John Schuermann
10:44 AM Liked: 76
post #148 of 150
07-16-2014 | Posts: 2,355
Joined: Apr 2003
FWIW, we (Folded Space / Panamorph) are getting some real traction for true anamorphic (horizontally squeezed) content delivered via Multi-Format Blu-ray. The good news is that anyone with an anamorphic lens will be able to take advantage of the extra 33% resolution that this provides. The bad news is that zoomers will not. However zoomers are definitely on the right path, as they already have 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screens and in most cases can add a lens if they want to get the additional true resolution and brightness It's taken a while, but we are finally getting some real interest in this idea, so keep your fingers crossed.

We are also lobbying for anamorphic to be an intrinsic part of UHD delivery formats. We were already successful in getting support for anamorphic built into the HDMI spec.
cardoski's Avatar cardoski
11:01 AM Liked: 120
post #149 of 150
07-16-2014 | Posts: 981
Joined: Feb 2011
I like masking, cheap and easy, well mine are DIY made from the box my screen came in. They work great and turn my 16X9 screen into a 2.35 screen with out any manipulation of the image. If I had the funds I guess I would get a lens.


DIY masking.
Soul_Reaper_SKN's Avatar Soul_Reaper_SKN
06:15 AM Liked: 0
post #150 of 150
12-03-2014 | Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2014
Is the price of anamorphic lens worth and is there any in picture quality between using zoom and anamorphic lens ?
Tags: Polls

Reply Community News & Polls

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3