Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content? - 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 56 28.00%
Lens memories 106 53.00%
Neither; I'm happy with 16:9 and letterbox bars 38 19.00%
Voters: 200. You may not vote on this poll
Community News & Polls

Scott Wilkinson's Avatar Scott Wilkinson
02:37 PM Liked: 979
post #1 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 1,228
Joined: Sep 2001

As many AVS readers know, there are two ways to project a 2.35:1 movie onto a 2.35:1 screen without black letterbox bars. One way is to place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector's primary lens to stretch the image horizontally while electronic processing upscales the image vertically. This uses the projector's entire pixel resolution to reproduce the active image instead of "wasting" pixels at the top and bottom on black bars, which many claim increases the overall brightness. However, this approach can also introduce optical distortion and scaling artifacts.

 

The other way is to use a projector with motorized zoom, focus, and lens shift and several lens memories to store and recall the settings for different aspect ratios. With 2.35:1 movies, the black bars are simply "pushed" out of the way above and below the screen. This avoids optical distortion and scaling artifacts at the expense of lower brightness and vertical resolution.

 

If you have a 2.35:1 projection system—or you only dream about having one—which approach do you prefer? Or are you happy with a 16:9 screen and black letterbox bars framing movies?


fierce_gt's Avatar fierce_gt
02:56 PM Liked: 816
post #2 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 3,826
Joined: Sep 2008
I haven't actually tried an A-lens because of the cost and complications, but I've never had a desire too either...

lens memory is super easy, provides 100% of the source's image quality, and I don't have an issue with brightness(my projector currently has the iris closed all the way on low lamp and eco mode)

whatever the reason is for using an A-lens, my theatre doesn't require it.
Viche's Avatar Viche
03:02 PM Liked: 30
post #3 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 1,056
Joined: Jan 2005
Scott thanks for starting this discussion. You might have noticed that I was the one asking the questions on this subject in the Video Demos at CEDIA Expo 2013 thread. wink.gif

When you say, regarding the anamorphic solution, "this uses the projector's entire pixel resolution to reproduce the active image instead of "wasting" pixels at the top and bottom on black bars," I assume you mean that the entire "surface" of the projector's chip is being used (pixels of light), correct? From what I have gathered, the resolution is still knocked down to 810 horizontal lines of information with either solution because that's all that exists on anamorphic blu-rays.
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness
03:19 PM Liked: 325
post #4 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 11,988
Joined: May 2001
I've used the zoom method for years on my JVC projectors, in a Variable Size Image system, and I introduced an A-lens into my system a while back (Panamorph UH480 and remote controlled sled).
Pretty much the only reason I got the lens was 1. My throw distance was just a wee bit too short to allow full zoom out to fill my entire screen, hence the A-lens and 2. I found wicked deals on both the lens and the sled.

I do very much like having the A-lens mostly for being able to now view movies at the very widest setting for my screen masking. And it's kinda neat when the A-lens stretch and lens slides in. Aside from that, I'd be perfectly happy zooming (and I still zoom for most content on my screen). In my situation with the A-lens I have a bit of barrel distortion to contend with and if zoom had filled the screen I would have used that to just avoid A-lens issues.

(My projector does have 3 lens memory settings but for a couple reasons I haven't employed it - one being I zoom to so many different image sizes that only 3 settings isn't much help).
THE TRUE ONE's Avatar THE TRUE ONE
03:58 PM Liked: 10
post #5 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 24
Joined: Jul 2007
Isn't there a third way? Video processors like the lumagens. Or is that the same as the projector process?
William L Carman's Avatar William L Carman
04:10 PM Liked: 10
post #6 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2002
I use the "fourth way." (Isn't it actually the first way?) I simply manually zoom and focus my Epson
8700 UB projector on my 2.0:1 aspect ratio screen. I have been doing this for years, using a total of
three different projectors. I don't find it to be THAT much of an inconvenience.

As for the letter box bars being moved off screen, no problem. I simply painted the wall surrounding
my screen flat black.
blastermaster's Avatar blastermaster
05:06 PM Liked: 122
post #7 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 1,002
Joined: May 2005
I don't think brightness is as big an issue these days as it once was, but it was when I first got into projection. Hence, I bought a lens. Having a lens now is great as I get to watch all the best movies in scope (for me, all my favourites tend to be in scope). Also, it gave me a reason to build a curved screen which is the coolest looking thing if I do say so myself. I also tend to favour DLP technology which doesn't lend itself well to vast amounts of zoom like the lcd projectors.
BrolicBeast's Avatar BrolicBeast
05:26 PM Liked: 312
post #8 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 2,938
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE TRUE ONE View Post

Isn't there a third way? Video processors like the lumagens. Or is that the same as the projector process?

I skipped the lens and wen Lumagen! 100% 2:35:1 all the time biggrin.gif See below:

and

Lazarus Dark's Avatar Lazarus Dark
06:35 PM Liked: 14
post #9 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 240
Joined: Dec 2006
I'm hoping to get my dedicated room going very soon, but I've been planning it for years.
I'm going to go with a combo projection size using zoom memory.
I'm going to get a 16:9 120" screen, BUT I will be masking it to 2.40 for 99% of the time.
Most of my blurays are 2.40, so I will keep it masked to that ratio most of the time.
Most 1.78/1.85 etc movies, I will use the zoom memory to zoom in to keep a constant height on the 2.40 masked screen (and possibly have curtains to bring in on the sides to cover the exposed white screen area).
However, on rare occasions I will take off the masking for what I will refer to as "Imax-lite" size. For instance, when watching The Dark Knight or TDKR, I don't want to lose anything, I want to see everything available. Or perhaps for Inception, which was filmed on 65mm for parts and I feel was intended for larger screens (I never go to Imax for non-70mm films, but I made the exception for Inception and saw it on Imax). There may be just a few others, but not many, this will be a rare occasion. Pacific Rim comes to mind, Del Toro very much intended for it to be as big as life (in fact, I saw it twice, once on a grand screen and again in a normal sized theater, and I found the impact was definitely lessened in the smaller theater).

Additionally, and I know I wouldn't notice on my screen, but the idea of upscaling perfectly good blurays for anamorphic projection just disturbs me. I am perfectly aware that it is almost irrational, but I'm just not going to do that. Upscaling is for dvds or at best blurays on 4k screens.
If, and only if, the new 4k bluray format allows 4k to be downscaled to anamorphic 1080p for 2.40 films, then I would get a 4k bluray player and an anamorphic lens to watch downscaled 4k but using the full 1920x1080 pixels available (and hopefully better color).
Spaceman's Avatar Spaceman
07:03 PM Liked: 98
post #10 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 1,965
Joined: Nov 2009
Haven't had the opportunity to use a lens, so I can't compare it to my current zoom setup. All I can say is I'm perfectly happy with the zoom method and could think of lots of other ways to spend the extra $$.
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
07:05 PM Liked: 45
post #11 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 1,801
Joined: Jan 2008
I Still prefer my Schneider M lens over using the zoom memory on my JVC X95. I hate to see the overspill on the black masking of 16.9 menus etc etc before the start of a scope film when zooming, + its never 100% accurate. Using my cineslide I can change from 16.9 to scope including the masking change within seconds, + its 100% accurate every single time. Its all about presentation and for me an "A" lens is the only way I will ever implement multiple film ratios.




roxiedog13's Avatar roxiedog13
08:42 PM Liked: 32
post #12 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 446
Joined: Dec 2011
Some projectors do the same zoom to 2.35 but the action is manual not motorized such as my HW50ES. I believe I can do it faster manually than I can electronically to be honest.

My setup is a SI Solar 4K 120" diagonal 2.35 and I manually zoom between this and 16:9. Lots of light 2D for wide, the odd 3D that is 2.35 aspect will loose some lumens because of the loss of pixels in the black bar.
16:9 for 2D and 3D is good on my screen. 3D could always be better and nothing will change that until lumens hit 4000. Nothing under 30,000 will get you there so the only other option is stacking PJ's or going High
Gain and that opens up another topic so will end here.

I am going to add the A lens and higher gain curved screen first and see how that goes. Well, maybe a motorized dual screen instead of the curved the decision is not final yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

As many AVS readers know, there are two ways to project a 2.35:1 movie onto a 2.35:1 screen without black letterbox bars. One way is to place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector's primary lens to stretch the image horizontally while electronic processing upscales the image vertically. This uses the projector's entire pixel resolution to reproduce the active image instead of "wasting" pixels at the top and bottom on black bars, which many claim increases the overall brightness. However, this approach can also introduce optical distortion and scaling artifacts.

The other way is to use a projector with motorized zoom, focus, and lens shift and several lens memories to store and recall the settings for different aspect ratios. With 2.35:1 movies, the black bars are simply "pushed" out of the way above and below the screen. This avoids optical distortion and scaling artifacts at the expense of lower brightness and vertical resolution.

If you have a 2.35:1 projection system—or you only dream about having one—which approach do you prefer? Or are you happy with a 16:9 screen and black letterbox bars framing movies?

Orbitron's Avatar Orbitron
10:20 PM Liked: 116
post #13 of 149
10-11-2013 | Posts: 457
Joined: Jul 2012
I have a Runco Q-750d with StudioTek 130 G3 in 2.35:1 that was calibrated by Kevin. We removed the anamorphic lens that attached to the projector as it was causing a diminishment in sharpness. The picture is awesome after calibration.
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex
03:43 AM Liked: 220
post #14 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 4,360
Joined: May 2007
2008 Sony VW60 + Panamorph 380 on simple manual DIY aluminum slide, works great for limited lumens PJ's of the late 2000's.

IMG_9289.JPG

Possible for the higher 4k lumens PJ's of the later 2010's, a-lens not needed, tbc.
I'll be looking around 2015 to replace my VW60, letting technology mature, till then 2008 Sony VW60 + Panamorph 380 with 11.2 audio works for me and the family.
HT%252011.3%2520cover%2520off%2520Pano-b.jpg
Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn
06:25 AM Liked: 48
post #15 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 22,307
Joined: Jun 2000
NewTheater1.jpg





I've seen two nice 3 chip DLPs (SIM2 HT5000 and Display Development HD5) in both zooming and through the ISCOIIIL I have and it isn't a contest really. The pixel loss without the lens leaves a very coarse looking image that results in pixel visibility pretty far back from the screen. I looked at both with my HD5 quite a bit and chose to keep the ISCOIII after seeing the difference.

Art
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex
06:58 AM Liked: 220
post #16 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 4,360
Joined: May 2007
Art - Their website is DOA, is the HD5 a 4k PJ?
http://www.displaydevelopment.com/hd5.html
Quote:
The HD 5 will be introduced in 2012

Art Sonneborn's Avatar Art Sonneborn
07:30 AM Liked: 48
post #17 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 22,307
Joined: Jun 2000
No, the HD5 is a 1080p unit. I think if I were getting a 4K DLP I likely would let go of the lens.

Art
rmaddog's Avatar rmaddog
07:34 AM Liked: 18
post #18 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 131
Joined: May 2009
I have a JVC RS46 in my theater room and love the lens memory feature. I have a room that is 8' in height so I went with a CIH 138" 2.35 screen. I am now finding myself basing my viewing on the aspect ratio - 16:9 is almost a let down because I want the movie to fill the whole screen. JVC's lens memory does the job for me.
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness
07:47 AM Liked: 325
post #19 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 11,988
Joined: May 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmaddog View Post

I have a JVC RS46 in my theater room and love the lens memory feature. I have a room that is 8' in height so I went with a CIH 138" 2.35 screen. I am now finding myself basing my viewing on the aspect ratio - 16:9 is almost a let down because I want the movie to fill the whole screen. JVC's lens memory does the job for me.

That's one big reason why I didn't go CIH, but rather used a wall-sized screen with 4-way masking and zooming for a variable size system. Any aspect ratio can be the size I want (relative to my wall space) so there's never a sense of disappointment or ever wishing a film were in some other aspect ratio. This is also very helpful due to variations in source quality.
(Though it's clear few others have gone this route).
David Susilo's Avatar David Susilo
09:31 AM Liked: 412
post #20 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 9,614
Joined: Aug 2002
Which Lumagen is that?
Socio's Avatar Socio
10:04 AM Liked: 16
post #21 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 2,264
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

I skipped the lens and wen Lumagen! 100% 2:35:1 all the time biggrin.gif See below:


I love the 2.35 aspect but just use the memory zoom method now with the idea of getting an anamorphic lens in the future but after watching those vids I really like what you were able to do, especially with Dark Knight.

Now I think going with a Lumagen might be the better option, thanks for posting those vids..
d james's Avatar d james
11:44 AM Liked: 16
post #22 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 848
Joined: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmaddog View Post

I have a JVC RS46 in my theater room and love the lens memory feature. I have a room that is 8' in height so I went with a CIH 138" 2.35 screen. I am now finding myself basing my viewing on the aspect ratio - 16:9 is almost a let down because I want the movie to fill the whole screen. JVC's lens memory does the job for me.
Lol, I always feel the same way about 16x9, its just not as immersive. I also hate it for when I have people over to watch a movie because then they don't understand why the movie doesn't fill the entire screen, like other movies do. The only thing I like 16x9 for is the full resolution, and being slightly brighter.
JlgLaw's Avatar JlgLaw
12:48 PM Liked: 14
post #23 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 1,505
Joined: Nov 2005
I'll echo Art's comments above, there is a noticeable benefit to using the Isco A-lens with the DPI Titan Ref 660 3D in my setup. Not being a 3D fan before bringing in the Titan, I now admit that with the right gear and high lumen output, 3D can actually be fun to watch, and better still in 2.35.




Jim
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
12:59 PM Liked: 45
post #24 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 1,801
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socio View Post

I love the 2.35 aspect but just use the memory zoom method now with the idea of getting an anamorphic lens in the future but after watching those vids I really like what you were able to do, especially with Dark Knight.

Now I think going with a Lumagen might be the better option, thanks for posting those vids..

I have a lot of friends who have gone the Lumagen way due to the cost of a good lens. They all prefer to use the Lumagen even though all their projectors have zoom memory. Using the Lumagen the ratio change is instant, even faster than using a lens.
David Susilo's Avatar David Susilo
01:09 PM Liked: 412
post #25 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 9,614
Joined: Aug 2002
Again, which Lumagen is it?
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness
01:30 PM Liked: 325
post #26 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 11,988
Joined: May 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I have a lot of friends who have gone the Lumagen way due to the cost of a good lens. They all prefer to use the Lumagen even though all their projectors have zoom memory. Using the Lumagen the ratio change is instant, even faster than using a lens.

As I understand it, using the Lumagen method you've zoomed your projector to fill your 2:35:1 screen. To view 16:9 material on the screen you use the Lumagen to re-scale down, losing some resolution for 16:9 material.
And if you want to view 16:9 material at 2:35:1 you likewise lose resolution (if not distorting the image) or you distort the image.

Me no likey.

But, home theater tends to be about compromise somewhere - we've all made ours somehow including me so I understand how that solution can work for others, with other priorities.
RapalloAV's Avatar RapalloAV
01:45 PM Liked: 45
post #27 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 1,801
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As I understand it, using the Lumagen method you've zoomed your projector to fill your 2:35:1 screen. To view 16:9 material on the screen you use the Lumagen to re-scale down, losing some resolution for 16:9 material.
And if you want to view 16:9 material at 2:35:1 you likewise lose resolution (if not distorting the image) or you distort the image.

Me no likey.

But, home theater tends to be about compromise somewhere - we've all made ours somehow including me so I understand how that solution can work for others, with other priorities.

With the Lumagen you first setup with the image zoomed up to scope and leave it there. The Lumagen then rescales the image for 16:9 material back to its original ratio, the black bars are then on the sides of the image. There is no distortion of the image. Many seem to leave the 16:9 films on the scope ratio all the time as they want the large screen, but I would never show my films in the wrong ratio and clip the heads.

If I didn't have my Schneider M lens I would use my Lumagen for scope, it is far better than zooming, the change from one format to the next is super fast, and much faster than a cinema!
David Susilo's Avatar David Susilo
01:47 PM Liked: 412
post #28 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 9,614
Joined: Aug 2002
I must be on everybody's ignore list. Once again: which Lumagen processor are we talking about?
Jeff Krogue's Avatar Jeff Krogue
02:15 PM Liked: 10
post #29 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 59
Joined: Oct 2013

I just want a 2.35:1 curved computer monitor that covers my entire computer desk.  :)


Socio's Avatar Socio
02:16 PM Liked: 16
post #30 of 149
10-12-2013 | Posts: 2,264
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

I must be on everybody's ignore list. Once again: which Lumagen processor are we talking about?

I believe it is the Lumagen Radiance Mini at least that is the one I am looking in to.
Tags: Polls

Reply Community News & Polls

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3