Rich's Variable Image Size System - Page 3

taffman,

Google colored LED lights and you can find them sold many places on the web (which is how I bought them). For instance:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/831e/

http://www.chinavasion.com/product_i...reless-remote/

http://www.amazon.com/Multi-Color-E2.../dp/B001JHZSEG

For the price I can't imagine anything more bang-for-the-buck in terms of adding mood and "pizazz" to the room.

I'm not sure exactly what you want.

If you buy a 16:9 screen, whatever the width (e.g. 10 feet wide) then you don't need any special projector or lens memory for scope to fill that width - scope automatically fills that width.

Normally this would leave you with the standard black bars above/beneath the scope image. But with masking like the Carada, you just make those bars invisible.

But this is really just a normal Constant Image Width concept, the type most people have when buying a 16:9 screen.

Whereas some people feel 2:35:1 scope movies should be wider than 16:9 content and if you want that you have to buy a screen wider than 16:9, like a 2:35:1 ratio screen.

Or even, if you want to do something more like constant area a 2:0 screen can make that easier.

violator,

It appears you have a few misunderstandings about CIH, CIW, resolution etc, which would probably best be addressed in the CIH forum.

However, in a nutshell:

CIW (a standard 16:9 screen) does not result in any lost resolution whatsoever, no matter if you put on a 16:9 image, a 2:35:1 scope image etc. You will see ALL the pixel information encoded on your Blu-Ray or DVD disc. Hence full resolution is always maintained in a CIW system.

Where you may be getting confused concerns Anamorphic Lenses in Constant Image Height (CIH) systems. If you are using the "zoom" method to enlarge your CinemaScope images to fit your 2:35:1 CIH screen, then it's possible in some situations to notice the pixel line grids between the pixels, which is distracting to some people. You can decrease the visibility of the pixel lines by a combination of re-scaling the CinemaScope image to use your projector panel's full pixel resolution (many projectors have such a function) and then adding an anamorphic lens to expand the image on your screen, rather than zooming.

On this issue it helps to understand the differences between "Source Resolution" (the resolution contained for instance on a Blu-Ray disc) and your Projector's Resolution (how many pixels it is capable of displaying at once).

A more in depth explanation would probably best occur in the CIH forum so I'd suggest taking your question there.

Cheers,

If that is a 1.1 gain screen, then I'd think you'll do fine. I have a 1.3 gain screen and it is plenty bright for 110" diagonal 16:9 images.

I don't see why not. My projector is mostly above screen height. The JP screens as far as I know are regular angular reflective designs, with wide viewing angles, so I don't see why ceiling mounting would make any difference. Most screen makers expect a ceiling mounted projection angle.

But you can always ask Da-Lite to make sure.

Perhaps no one has mentioned it because most understand that screen shots taken of a projected image usually are compromised versions of the projected image.

The "crushed" areas you speak of are a result of the camera used to take the shots, not the projected image. Most consumer cameras do not have the dynamic range capable of capturing the full dynamics of a projector like the JVC. Hence if you expose the camera for the mid tones in a contrasty scene, the brightest and darkest areas will often go outside the range of the camera, losing detail.

The actual projected image retains the detail in the bright/dark areas.

Hope that helps.

Thanks again for the comments.

I know a 4-way masking variable image size system is simply over-board for most people, but I can barely express how happy I am having this system! I use the variable masking virtually every time I watch in my room (because it is so easy and the results are so compelling). Sometimes I might watch some content at around 86" to 94" (16:9) diagonal and it will feel like I've got an incredible, but really huge, plasma on the wall. Just super sharp and vivid.

Other times I'll blow the image up to 136" diagonal (source quality permitting) and it feels like I'm at IMAX. Especially with my new "4k" (lite) RS55 projector, Avatar-type content can be projected huge but it remains so sharp and detailed it's like you could fall into the picture. And every movie, no matter how different or quirky it's aspect ratio, is always perfectly masked against a black background. I don't even know what black bars on a movie look like anymore Actually, that's not quite true. I've occasionally on a CinemaScope 2:35:1 film opened the top/bottom masking, to remind myself of what the image looked like with the projected "black bars" visible. My JVC projector has amazing black levels for a projector, but even so, the difference between the projected "black" and the pure pitch darkness of a real velvet masking is quite pronounced. I find myself somewhat shocked at just what a difference it makes with the masking off and then deployed - without the masking the image just looks to me "unfinished" and more washed out. With the masking the image gets that "professional cinema" look and the image pops, and looks much more complete and less washed out. It then takes on a sort of "magic window" effect, which you get when you only see pure image information against a pitch black background.

Anyone intrigued by masking (even non-electric versions)...give it a whirl. It's hard to go back once you've seen it on your system.

No my screen doesn't automatically change per movie (that would be quite a neat trick).

But my RTI universal remote control makes it pretty effortless to change image sizes. If I'm at a 105" diagonal 16:9 image and want to watch a CinemaScope movie in 2:35:1, I might choose the 118" wide setting.

So on my "screen size" page I choose the "118 WIDE" button. That macro starts the masking system automatically going to that image shape/size. At the same time it throws up my projector's lens pattern and goes into "zoom" mode. I just press the zoom button and while my screen is changing shape, I'm zooming the image out to the new size. By the time the screen masking has stopped, I've usually got to the new image size.

So, a couple of button presses and not too many seconds later I'm watching a new screen size/shape.

This actually looks so cool when it's happening that guests ooh and aah at the process, which is always fun.

BTW, my new JVC RS55 projector has some automatic lens control settings, so 3 separate screen size zoom/shift/focus settings can be stored as pre-sets. So I'll likely set those up for some common image sizes that I use, which will mean a single button press or so, and all done automatically.

However, it won't be a big help in my particular situation, since I vary the image size so much only having 3 options on the JVC doesn't cover a lot.

UPDATE ON MY SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:

ADDITION 1 - JVC RS55 PROJECTOR WITH E-shift

This replaces my JVC RS20 projector. The new RS55 does "4k-lite" by doubling up the pixels to a 4K resolution count, and then upscaling images to that resolution. This has the benefits of making pixel structure invisible at any image size, and also allows for some cool new processing that can make for an even more detailed, clearer looking image from Blu-Rays. The contrast has also improved so the image is super dynamic. All things combined makes for an eye-popping new image!

ADDITION 2 - ANAMORPHIC LENS

I just added a Panamorph UH480 Anamorphic Lens. This helps me get an even larger image, given my limited throw distance. The image through the UH480 lens, via the JVC RS55 projector at about 124" wide for CinemaScope
is absolutely killer! I will still be using my zooming system extensively, though, as I like to vary the image size for various reasons.










ADDITION 3: NEW HIDDEN BLACK CURTAIN SYSTEM

This is at least as important an addition as the Panamorph Anamorphic lens. I have tried to keep my room welcoming and cheery by day, but able to go into "bat-cave" like performance for watching movies, to maintain maximum image contrast (killing wall reflections) and to make the room "disappear" leaving only the image visible. This has succeeded wildly. Here's one image with the black curtains drawn around the room:



More can be found here, with descriptions on how I did it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post21997678

Thank you for stopping by

Cool. Thanks.

It's about 3 years since I finished and if anything I find myself more giddy about using the room than ever. Soooo glad I did it.

It's been interesting watching the high end Home Theater installation business touting more and more new systems that employ the variable image size concept, where one is not stuck only with a fixed image height (CIH) or fixed image width (standard set up). Instead the image is to be varied in size either to maintain a constant image size impact throughout aspect ratios (somewhat like Constant Image Area) and/or to vary the image size depending on the source content being used. Here's yet another example, this time the venerable Stewart Filmscreen touting their new Director's Choice "infinite masking" system:

http://akhomecinema.azexis.com/blog/2013/02/14/directors-choice-demo-at-ise-2013

I felt like the odd-ball out on this issue, skipping even CIH to use a wall-filling screen and employ 4-way automated masking with zooming to simply vary the image size to maximize the impact of any particular movie or source quality. It's been the single best decision I made of all for my home theater. I never grow used to any single image size as it's so often changing so the thrill of going to the largest image size, or even using a smaller but super-sharp and punchy image size, never wears off. And never any black bars, always the image floating in a field of jet black.

What gets me shaking my head is the EXPENSE of these systems, aimed as they are at the ultra high end clients. And the way these systems are touted they are the newest, state of the art concept "vary the image size TO THE SOURCE! YOU ONLY CAN GET THAT WITH THIS PRODUCT!" to justify these systems - some in the over $100K price range. Meanwhile, I'm thinking "Hey, I've got pretty much that...completely variable masking, automated via macros with as many pre-sets as I want, even some automated zooming now...and the masking system making this possible I did for around $4,500."

But..salesmen gotta sell...

Just dropping into this thread for a moment...

This comment made me LOL the most. I think it's my favorite comment on my system because it feels the most accurate to the designing and building experience . It was like a complex math problem, or more like a rubik's cube, in which I was trying to "have it all" and get every piece into place, but every time in my design I had to tweak one parameter, it affected all the others and I had to re-design everything back into place so nothing in the end felt compromised. And 3 years later it still feels successful, thank goodness.

I'm sure many others here can empathize with trying to solve the HT math problem.