2.35 A-morp lenses soon to be obsolete...

Help me understand your point.....Pleeeease.

This has been discussed many times over the past 5 years. If they have finally managed to pull it off, great, it will be another 5 years before it hits the 'affordable' end of the HT market so anamorphic lenses will be around for a while yet.

A 2560 x 1080 native display is actually a good thing as it means true anamorphic titles may actually become a reality and it means the beginning of the end for 16:9 as the main format. Display manufactures (particularly projector manufactures) will continue to make 16:9 and I bet that a good quality 16:9 + A-Lens is cheaper than a native Scope projector when they launch.

There was a thread in the 20K+ section that went off to 3D and 4K, however it was on track for the first 2 pages at least anyway.

Not only is it an image chip issue, it is also projector lens issue.

Take BenQ (affordable DLPs) which used a 0.9" chip in their W5000/W20000 range and were limited to a 1.2x zoom because of the 0.9" DLP chip used.

The next series W6000/W6500 now use a 0.65" chip with the same lens (now manually controlled to further cut costs or more to the point, to keep the projector at the same price point as the last models) they now offer 1.5x zoom.

If they were to go from a 0.65" 1920 x 1080 chip to a 2560 x 1080 chip, that chip has to increase in size, so they stand to lose the zoom they gained with the smaller chip.

Whilst zoom range may be seem trivial, it is important to consumers and they know this. So whilst the 2560 x 1080 chip could be doable for them, would they be able to sell them in the numbers that want?

The other thing is of course programing for the new format. So far native Scope program = 0

Exactly. When I read the anti-lens banta here, it turns out that Scaling artifacts present more of a challenge than aberrations introduced by an A-Lens (quality like ISCO III). If we simply go from 1920 x 1080 to 2560 x 1080, not only do we have Scaling in the vertical direction, we now have Scaling in the horizontal to correct geometry.

Is that also the case for lower tier lenses like the Prismasonics and Panamorphs?

I have both the Prismasonic and Smaller Schneider lenses. Yes the Schneider has slightly better performance but at normal viewing distances they are minimal. In the case of 2560x1080 since this is not the native format of BD and most likely not for some time I don't see a large advantage. Again I have to agree with Mark Techer. I wouldn't consider Mark's MK3, the Prismasonic or the Panamorph a lower tier lens. Maybe someone should consider a 1920x800 chip? That might work better as one would would only need a scaler and not an additional lens

Both of those prism lenses have correction elements included as a part of their design, so whilst they are fixed elements, when used at their intended operating range, they are no sloths when it comes to PQ.

I say lower, as in lower than the ISCO; not saying they are the lowest.

The main concern I have for lenses (ones that have CA correction) is the price.


The reason I asked about prism lenses is that I had the impression that scaling is a very minor concern for all lenses (i.e. the limiting factor is the optical quality of the lens, not the scaling). Many have posted (yourself included) that it's a non-issue with a good scaler.

It sounds like you're concerned about scaling now; are you qualifying it for the ISCO only?

This is potentially going to affect the market, but I think it will be sometime, especially since only DLP's are in prototype (that we know of) and not everyone is a fan of the DLP technology (especially if these grab a premium price).

Still...good to see something new for once.

Give me a 2560x1080 LED lit DLP for under $10k and I'll be in line with my credit card handy

I'm not holding my breath yet. Aren't these 2.35:1 DMDs targetted at DCI applications?

2560x1080 wouldn't do anything to make anamorphic titles become a reality. In fact, I don't know how anamorphic could possibly be a part of this at all.

If a new format, the source material for 2.35 titles would be native 2.35 aspect ratio- not anamorphically encoded. The whole point of anamorphic is rendered obsolete by a 2560x1080 format. 2.35 would no longer need to be optically corrected.

Using Blu-ray as source, all you would be doing is zooming the 1920x810 active source area up to 2560x1080, and then project without an A-lens. This is similar to what we do with those crappy non-anamorphic DVDs. Not good.

The 2560x1080 thing is an interesting concept, but we'll never see our Blu-ray titles replaced by this format. If anything, 4K or similar would be a viable replacement someday.

If anamorphic titles are what you're interested in (and I am), then you would want future 4K (4096×2160) spec'd titles to be anamorphically encoded so that 1.85 and 2.35 titles both have full source resolution, instead of 2.35 getting 3/4 resolution, as it is now.

In the end, I think everyone can agree that we want 1.85 & 2.35 to both have the same source resolution (or close to it), and both be able to be presented at that resolution, in the proper aspect ratio.

I guess what I'm wondering is why the lens crowd is so fixated on this "solution", when it doesn't seem to solve anything at all.

I'd be good with current Blu-ray's being encoded anamorphically. This would cause me to purchase an A-lens, without a doubt- and I'd be happy to do it for the increased source resolution. Of course this isn't in Blu-ray's specs, and won't happen- which is why I think 4K is the next chance for us to have this "solved".

There are some people that think 4K will make lenses obsolete- and from a pixel resolvability standpoint I understand. I believe the primary function for an anamorphic lens is to optically correct anamorphically encoded material. Anything else that people use it for with Blu-ray are just minor conveniences (brightness, pixel size, projected black bars, easy AR switching, etc...).

I believe 4K and front projection, assuming they include anamorphic encodes in the spec, is what will cause A-lenses to be a near requirement for home theaters.

Depends if you had LD or not I guess.

LD was a 4 x 3 format.

DVD was also 4 x 3 based with 16:9 enhancement.

BD is native 16:9

The next step is anamorphic enhancement to the native 16:9 format.

Call it a technology progression if you will.

There are two ways to do this. Lets assume BD gets enhanced and not simply replaced by a new format.

21:9 via anamorphic enhancement.

Like every upgrade (3D for example), it would mean a new player, not just new Firm Ware (PS 3 excluded).

This could mean using 1920 x 1080 pixels containing a scaled (horizontally squeezed) image. A standard 16:9 player does not have the "new" chip to output the full vertical rez and simply strips away every fourth line and compresses the image for compatibility for 16:9 displays - AKA Letterboxing which is what we have at this time. A 16:9 user does not gain or lose anything.

Native 2560 x 1080

The disc is formatted for full Scope 2560 x 1080 which can be 1:1 mapped on a 2560 x 1080 display. The player has modes listed as 21:9, 16:9 and 4 x 3. Whilst 4 x 3 is kind of redundant, did you ever see DVD players like select Deno upscaliers that had 4 x 3 HS? What it did was to horizontally squeeze 4 x 3 discs to be compatible with 16:9 displays so you didn't have to change from 16:9 back to 4 x 3 on the display.

There is no reason (apart from the designers not knowing about this) why a new 21:9 player could not have a HS mode built in, maybe calling 16:9E (E for enhanced) or 21:9HS.

Simply put, it applys the same thing allowing the output to look like this
The immediate problem here is 16:9 backwards compatibility where the V rez would also have to be reduced, however on a 16:9 display, the image would still be mapped 1:1 and look very good, identical to the current letter boxed BDs we already have.

So what end up with is a system, that is 2560 x 1080 native as well as A-Lens friendly and fully backwards compatible with 16:9.

Yes, this is what I said above. Anamorphic BDs, or anamorphic 4K.

The progression would be to anamorphically enhanced 16:9 format as you say. 2560x1080 is not a 16:9 format.


This is the anamorphic process I referenced above for either Blu-rays or future 4K titles.


Again, this is exactly what I said above. This 2560x1080 native format makes anamorphic obsolete. You 1:1 map the 2.35 source to the display, and thus no optical correction is needed. But now 1.85 titles are 1998x1080 and are less resolution than the 2.35 format, the reverse of the problem we have now. Oh, and an A-lens is obsolete with no anamorphic source. Unless you plan on using a horiztonal expansion 1.33x scaler to "fill the panel" and then use a 1.33x lens to squeeze back to proper AR.

It seems like you may be suggesting that 1.85 titles be anamorphically encoded in this 2560x1080 format, and then use a 1.33x horizontal squeeze lens for optical correction? This is what you call "anamorphically enchanced" 2.35 format? Bringing the lens out only when you need to squeeze 1.85 material?

Otherwise, the "modes" you are referencing only serve to downscale the source data to be correct AR on the display, reducing resolution.


A-lens friendly? You would have a system that requires no lens to be used for full 2560x1080 2.35 material. Backwards comparability is a given for any system due to software scaling.

No 2560 x 1080 is called 21:9 even though it is 2.37:1 where 21/9 is 2.33:1.


Only if you have a 2560 x 1080 display. Given that there are NO 2560 x 1080 projector on the market yet means that 16:9 projector using an anamorphic lens is the only viable option for this.


Do you know what happens when you map 2560 x 1080 1:1 to a 16:9 display? It clips the edges. Been there, done that already.


It only becomes a problems when you allow it to be one. It will still be mapped 1:1 on these new displays and therefore will have the same pixel density. The ONLY difference is that it does not fill the full width of the panel. This is no different to 4 x 3 on a 16:9 display.


If 2560 x 1080 becomes the new HD, then you've got that all about face. I would use a scaler to electrically squeeze 2560 to 1920, then optically expand that out to restore the geometry.


Why would I want to use a HS lens when I have a perfect HE lens and Scaling is the answer. No different to what I am already doing.


If anythng, it will be an improvement as Scope will be true 1080 and 1.85:1 will also be 1080 vertically. No more 4% slivers.



At this time, there are no 2560 x 1080 projectors, so yes an A-Lens in the light path of a 16:9 projector is a very workable solution. Even if they do come out, not everyone is going to be able to afford one straight away. So I don't see it as the end of the anamorphic lens at all. If anything, these new formats make them essential for HT projection when using 16:9.

Not the resolution per say, but an increase in native "21:9" machines would increase motivation to create content to better support it.


Simple, "21:9" anamorphic enhanced, scope encoded into a 16:9 frame.


I think it's more likely we will see anamorphic encoding than 2560x1080 encoding. I think more players could be updated to do the requisite letterboxing, than to support 2560x1080 resolution content.


I take it you don't scale 480i DVDs up to 1920x1080 either?


I don't think anybody's talking about a new 2560x1080 format.


"Lens crowd"? I'm confused. What are you talking about? I'd think everyone on this forum would be interested in a native scope solution. Or did you completely miss the OP talking about native scope DMDs expected to be shown at CEDIA 2011?


3D wasn't in the Blu-ray specs either.

I'm interested in scope panels as well as other members, but will that make a A-Lens obsolete is the question. but what is the answer? I think that's the reason why members spoke to V-squeeze. If I bought one of these projector I would still keep my Lens I would just V-squeeze 16:9 and keep my HE in place. my two cents worth.

CAVX, everything you're saying now is exactly what I said. The correct solution here is the same 16:9 format we have with Blu-ray, but 2.35 material anamorphically encoded in the 16:9 area.

So my point is, 2560x1080 is not a solution at all; either format or native displays.

What you would do with the anamorphic 16:9 format is optically expand the anamorphic 16:9 frame to 2.37 and you are now taking advantage of the increased resolution.

This would be superior to software scaling the anamorphic 16:9 frame out to a display's native 2560x1080 pixels, so this native display is pointless.

If you would argue the 2560x1080 native display is useful, and would somehow trigger the release of 16:9 anamorphic Blu-rays- the A-lens is no longer needed as you expand the 1920x1080 16:9 anamorphic frame to fill the 2560x1080 native panel via scaler, and you have the correct AR, with no optical correction needed.

I can see that- I'm just not seeing how 2560x1080 panels are a useful solution without 2560x1080 source material. And if that material exists, the A-lens is no longer needed.


Yes, I agree with this.


Absolutely. But now the 2560x1080 display is no longer needed. You just optically expand the anamorphic encoding.


I avoid SD- it really irritates me.


If not, there is no point in a 2560x1080 native panel. A 16:9 anamorphic 1920x1080 format would be better optically expanded than digitally.


I don't know that I'm specifically referring to you, or anyone in this thread; but I've heard often lens users gushing over this 2560x1080 panel as a solution of some sort. But as I've pointed out, a 16:9 anamorphic BD would be a better solution, unless 2560x1080 source material actually appeared. As you've pointed out, the former is more likely to happen.


Very true, and I hope you're right that anamorphic content could someday become part of the Blu-ray spec. It just seems late in the game with this many titles out for them to do this.

Who knows where this is all going. Ive been told of 3D projectors to hit soon which are all 16x9( and we know 3D is being pushed everywhere) I dont know if there if there is a big enough market for a native 2:35:1 projector.

True but all projectors for now are 16x9 so any about to hit, and those during 2011 also, based on the OP, are going to be 16x9. Who know how this will pan out but I for one would like to see it.

The thing for me is I just hope there is continued push for improvements throughout the performnace spectrum including projectors color,contrast,lens quality etc also.

Art

Definitley agree there.

Simple, it's the only realistic way to make a simple self contained display that can do the "21:9" ratio. Think down the road, you really think Panasonic would implement a removable, internal anamorphic lens in the AE6000? No.

The two primary reasons people don't go CIH is cost and complexity. Only way to reduce those is to use native scope imaging devices. If there's any hope of native scope displays becoming common it will be with native scope (non anamorphic) imaging devices.

If we're going to limit CIH to the high end then yeah, no point to a 2560x1080 panel (no more than a 4k panel) since the high end is happy to use a lens.


I don't understand why you think it's "just" lens users. Or if you don't think it's "just" lens users why even mention them? I think it's just "users" in general wishing for a simpler, cheaper scope solution (which this won't be in the beginning).


We need both IMO. Just like the Panny has brought more people into CIH due to it's low entry cost and decreased complexity, a native scope projector would do the same, only moreso (less pixel density problems, and being a DLP no "settling" for an LCD).

But the source material is also important. Not seeing 4k or any other higher resolution source in the near future, anamorphic scope seems to be the most realistic way of increasing "resolution".


If there's anything you should have confidence in, it's the studios propencity for double/tripple/quadruple dipping. What better way than to resell all the "letterboxed" BDs than as "Anamorphic Enhanced". Heck they'd probably get a bunch of 16:9 display owner "suckers" to rebuy too since "anamorphic is better" has been conditioned it to so many with DVD.

I think I understand what you're saying now. I had focused on a 2560x1080 native panel being a replacement for most mid-high end systems. People with lens's now, looking for an upgrade. This is what didn't make sense to me.

For entry level "easy CIH", I can see the attraction. But man, we're talking a long time, if it ever becomes affordable at that level- competing with the likes of Panny AEx000 and anyone else doing memory zoom in late 2011/2012.

Formats like Blu-ray will always be targeted for the home. Anamorphic DVDs made sense because of 16:9 displays becoming the new standard from 4:3. The problem is, 2.35 displays are not becoming the new standard, so an anamorphic format for Blu-ray is not likely to happen. 2.35 panels may show up in a few projectors and boutique LCDs, but we're not going to see them replace 16:9 in the near future, if at all.

Remember how the 16:9 format came about, and is now the standard:


If anything, in the near future I could see a 16:9 replacement be somewhere in the 2.0:1 range. Take out 4:3 needing to be considered as a major format, and you're left with 1.78, 1.85 and 2.35 as primary ARs to be displayed as large as possible on a fixed pixel display.

Of course 4K as a format is close, with 1.9:1 AR. So a mid/high-end future I see 4K panels with 1.9:1 AR, and we can cross our fingers for 4K format films with 2.35 being anamorphically encoded. Backwards compatability with scalers to squeeze down to proper AR (any 16:9 1080p HDTV will need downscaling anyway), and the mid/high-end FP crowd using optical expansion to take advantage of the equal resolution between 1.85 and 2.35.

I don't think it's just "entry level" that it would be interested. People at the high end get lenses, at least in part, due to the higher pixel density vs zooming. Native scope would give another 30% boost or so in pixel density. It would also eliminate the need for (and transition time of) a motorized sled.

If you consider that this DMD (or any tech panel) will also have the standard overall increase performance (as a new panel/DMD generally does), it's just one more feature to entice an upgrade. Many in the high end upgrade for less, and I doubt many will hang onto their old projectors just because they've got a lens.


That's a tough issue. I mean Vizio and Philips aren't exactly "boutique" brands. I'd call them mass market. Philips, Vizio, TI, who's next...

Ha, maybe we'll see people expanding 16:9 IMAX Blu-ray's to fill the 2560x1080 panel, and then use a 1.33x lens to expand the image vertically. Might be enough pixel density to sit closer for that IMAX feel.

So you'd have your 2.35 panel fill a 2.35 CIH portion of your screen. 2.35 Blu-rays would be zoomed up to 2560x1080, 1.78/1.85 would be 1920x1080 in the middle of the panel, and then you expand the 1.78 frame out to fill the panel and move the lens in front to get your taller IMAX image for those titles.

Interesting approach to the CIH+IMAX concept.

On the isco site there's a projector with a iscoIIIL setup to VS. I'm not sure if this is a error in setup, but thought it looked strange when I saw it. Has anyone tried this setup with their 3L?

Where?