CIH Native PJ soon? - Page 3

There was a show called The West Wing that ran for a number of years earlier this decade. It was broadcast as 16:9 letterbox on the SD channels, so there is a bit of precedence. But I can't see any 2.35:1 shows being likely since that AR is much more of a niche market. I think the ads are done that way to make them look unique and catch the viewer's eye as a differentiation from the 16:9 show.

So in the US, are the SD channels 4 x 3? Here all DTV channels regardless if they are SD or HD are 16:9. If programing is sourced from the US, sometimes it features side pillars. Everything shot locally is now 16:9. Only analogue is 4 x 3 here and that is about to be turned off sometime early next year.

I can't remember seeing SD in full 16:9 - it's always 4:3, as far as I can tell, but I'm new to digital TV and 16:9 displays.

What's more, there are 16:9 programs syndicated and rebroadcast in SD, so while the geometry and full frame are preserved, they are not only low resolution, but also window-boxed. Thankfully, the zoom function on my TV takes care of some of that... For instance, there's a late-night talk program (Tavis Smiley) that my local public television channel broadcasts in HD. The next day it's rebroadcast to fill a daytime slot, but window-boxed. That's mostly an exception, however. There's a local network syndicating "Bones" and several "CSI" programs, which are all (or at least mostly) originally 16:9 and HD. The rebroadcast in syndication is usually cropped 4:3 (not sure of the resolution, to be honest).

I'm not sure what those smaller stations are doing with their bandwidth - some of them may be multi-casting several other SD channels as well - mostly infomercials. Seems like nonsense, but for now at least, that's the way it is.

The local news programs got all excited when they went HD in the studios (prior to the DTV transition), but the cameras they take on location are still generally SD. So, they put up some logo or other screen fillers to take the place of pillars, but it's painfully obvious they're SD.

WOW. Thanks for that. In Australia, it seems regardless if the broadcast is HD or SD it is all 16:9. Sometimes adds are window boxed, but generally most things fill the screen. Some stuff is side pillar boxed and of course there has been this new "letterboxing" for some adds.

I got to look through the view finder of a TV location camera a few years back. The camera (some $100K) was SD and the frame was 4 x 3, howere the camera man said that the camera was 16:9 through interpolation. He said that the frame was 4 x 3 simply to allow framing that is backwards compatible with 4 x 3 TVs, and that those with 16:9 TVs get a bonus 33% extra width.

SBS and ABC both don't seem to care about this as they often frame their program hosts right on the 4 x 3 edges, so when watching these programs in DTV (SD) on a 4 x 3 TV, half of each host is cut off. Often the host's names are cut as well. TV logos are positoned (as a watermark) so that regardless of the type of display, the channel numbers are always visible.

The reason I don't like DTV is the data rates are too low to support a clean image on a large screen. Whilst the image is static or has little motion, the image is great, however during a sports broadcase that has lots of action, there is simply not enough data to support the image and as result, the image pixelates. It might still look OK on a 42" LCD TV, however not very good when using front projection and I have been very disappointed in the HD quality for major sporting for this reason.

Also the OTA broadcasts in general seem to drop out so you get pixel perfect image one minute, then the image freezes the next. I just rather not watch it.

It's really a mixed bag. I've seen some 16:9 SD, but that's not typical.

All of our local program is 16:9. We only have 5 major stations in Australia, and each runs both SD and HD versions of the same program. The stations have multiple channel capability, however at this time, most run the same programing on both SD and HD. And I was told by a reliable source that most programing is upscaled SD anyway. This is apparent on shows like "Judge Judy" that is 4 x 3, so pillar boxed even on HD and a local cooking program (is 16:9) which looks only marginally better on HD than the SD channel, so I would say it is upscaled.

The pick of the programing is the true HD stuff like CSI Miami which is 1080i. Other than that, it is the test loops that are the only programming that actually look good.

Anyway, we probably should get this thread back on topic and discuss the possibility of a 2560 x 1080 chipped projector.

Projection Design's "Scope" projector was at CEDIA, however at a reported $45K, I doubt it will be main stream anytime soon.

I took a photo of it and posted it HERE. It is not a 'native' 2560 x 1080, rather a masked 2560 x 1600 projector.

Am I being realistic to think that a projector could be produced with an anamorphic lens internally that can be mechanically inserted into the light path before the final lens? Rather than a digital stretch as in the Panasonics you would have a true anamorphic feature. I would pay for that.

I do not see great value in producing a chip that natively does 2.35:1 because there is a large body of work in both 2.35 and 16:9. A hybrid with internal anamorphic would be more useful.

Just as in external anamorphic setups, would you be able to have CIH and very wide 2.35 screens from a close throw distance if the anamorphic lens came before the final lens in the projector.

It could be, but I wouldn't expect it. And for the record, the Panny's don't do any stretching (if you're referring to their zooming abilities).


Why? With a native chip you get full resolution for 16:9 and even more resolution for scope. You don't have any real sacrifices for either.


With a native setup you'd be able to get a lot shorter throw than you could ever do with a lens.

And as I understand it, a large portion of the cost is due to the changeable lens option allow a short throw.

What I was meaning is that with a lens you really need at least 1.7x throw, ideal is 2.0x or greater, I don't see how this would be affected by having the lens internal to the projector. With a native projector (no anamorphics) I don't see a reason why you couldn't do something much shorter than that like we have with other projectors today.

I am sure image chip size is still going to be the restrictive element here.

Possible, but there are DLPs with <1.0x throw lenses. There's no way you'd be able to do that with practical anamorphic optics and retain reasonable levels of distortion.

I'd like to see 2.35 that uses something better than a .65 data chip.

Why would you want a TR at 1:1 anyway?

I am days away from receiving my HD250 and I am considering adding an anamorphic lens and a 2.35 screen. My current setup is a panasonic ax100 shooting to a 135" 16:9 screen at 14'6" in a dark theater room using low light setting on an 1800 hour bulb.

Are there any anamorphic lens setups that I could buy that come without a motorized sled that I could later upgrade to a motorized sled to spread out the cost?

What is a ballpark cost for an anamorphic lens without powered sled that is acceptable but not super expensive? I know that's a relative question, so I guess I was wondering if there are any plug and play lens setups for around 1k?

My current screen is 66" high so I would either buy a 158" Elite cinema 235 screen or get a custom 66" high 2.35 screen.

Any thoughts/information would help.

As far as I know, all lenses can be bought without a lens transport. Since there are quite a few transports around, you then have a choice. So to start you can buy the lens, then go for a sled later. A manual one is cheaper of course, but not always practical.

Gary

I wouldn't personally, I actually like very long throws. But I've seen enough people complain about some DLPs and their "limiting" 1.5x throw, or just in general people complaining about projectors not having short enough throw to know that people use projectors well under the 1.7x that's recommended for a lens.

A native scope projector would allow quality CIH in these setups.


The best deal around right now, IMO is AVS's B-stock Prismasonic HD5000R offer.

No doubt there, however given the size of the thing, I would not want it in the room if used in my set up.