Native Scope projectors finally here ! - Page 2

My normal ISCO installation is not complex to operate. One hits one button and the screen unmasks, the slide slides, the vertical scaling happens.

Now the lenses can be rotated 90 deg and be used for 16:9 material.

Yes. The lenses can be put into place manually by rotating on a hinged device, being placed in front by a shelf etc, or the placement can be automated by a slide. NOAH my comment was directed to a comment about complexity of operation. With automation its so simple any wife could do it if she can operate the theater without it. Really, this thread is beyond being an intro to the use and installation of anamorphics.

Exactly for all those that want to see the end of anamorphic lenses. Whist there has only been a select range of titles, a "Scope" projector combined with an anamorphic lens (now turned 90 degrees to become a vertical expansion lens) will allow films like The Dark Night, Transformers 2 and AVATAR to be shown the way they were seen in IMAX at home.

What AR screen will be required for this?

Given this is a native '235' projector, it might sound like a step backwards going back to a taller 16:9 screen.

So you would have a 16:9 screen at the same width as the Scope screen with a top horizontal mask that equates to 25% of the total height. So with the mask in place, you would operate the system like a conventional CIH set up. When wanting to watch films like those I've mentioned, you would move the anamorphic lens into the light path and open the mask.

And this concept is not just limited to the select 'special IMAX films'. HD Rock Concerts would really benefit as well.

Everybody's pocket has a bottom...

Is this masked version of the F32 (or was it 35), that launched at ISE?

Why not just the same 2.35 or 2.40 wide screen you boys have now. For a 1.78 source, one would have side black bars just like one has for 1.33 now.

Sure. Just some are much deeper than others and don't consider a call out service fee that big a deal. You pay to get your car serviced don't you?

I thought I'd never see the day. You make me proud, CAVX.

I'm not sure if your earlier question got answered:


I think I saw earlier that it was a 2560x1600 chip masked to 2538x1080 (2.35). I still think the full 2560x1600 chip unmasked would be awesome. I love that resolution/density on my Dell 3007WFP-HC.

Exactly for those wanting CIH and no anamorphic lens.

There are a few threads in the CIH section questioning how to project films with mutli AR like TDK, TF2 or like AVATAR which is supposed to be shown as wide as scope, just taller. There also seems to be a believe system in place that this projector now makes all anamorphic lenses obsolete and I was simply pointing out that these lenses still have life left in them yet.

Why mask it down for this product? Way not make it a dedicated 2560 x 1080?

Got a good look at this PJ at CES at the ADA booth. Best picture I have ever seen from a PJ period. It runs circles around my RS25.

I had a couple of good looks at this unit now.


I agree, It certainly would, but that should not be surprising.


Thats where we part company very rapidly. PQ consideration was also the reason for one of TIs development partners to decline the implementation of this initial iteration. Improvements are already being worked on.

I heard the same. If not mistaken the chip used is not the 235 chip manufactures were looking forward to. This substitution chip yields performance loss. Regardless a few companies took the bait while others decided to wait for the real thing.

What I saw was not perfect, but I was impressed.

I was sitting right next to Ivan during the demo. They did mention that improvements were coming, both to the projector as well as the chip. Still, I have to agree with Ivan: it was probably the sharpest, clearest picture I've seen from any projector. I was seeing details I'd never seen before. From what the rep was saying, a good chunk of that was due to the optics. Unfortunately, I guess I'm sensetive to rainbowing, so any single chip solution (no matter how good) is a little distracting to me.

How about the horrible rainbows within 10 seconds of sitting down in front of it?

I'll be kind and shut up.

Well, it is hard to separate such information from company not wanting to invest in a new design in a down economy. Now, if we had the specifics of what is wrong and a statement from TI, that would be another matter....

BTW, I did ask one of the major projector companies whether they were doing a design with this chip and they simply said no. There was no commentary about it not being good or anything. Just that they were not doing it.

Indeed. As we well know, it can be pretty easy to mitigate limitations when one has complete control over a demo. I remember, recently, many people declaring a certain machine had a significant performance leap in a specific area, they saw it with their own eyes. I also remember explaining that it was physically impossible for that to have been the case, given the technology involved. What they were seeing was a well orchestrated demo using a particular screen that lead them to believe they were seeing something they were not.

I wont go too far down this road or I'll end up on a Meridian rant again.

You are 100% on the money, as usual.

And that... is saying far more than you may imagine.

so many of the machines have optics that are nowhere near where they could be. just taking a wrecking ball to almost any tier 1 projector and severely renovating the optics could potentially yield image improvements that would seem staggering.

not saying they suck or anything like that... but just that we have so far to go inside the projector before we need to worry about things like 4k.

I just don't get this (which is not to say that it isn't true).

Even cheap pj's have lenses that allow seeing every pixel clearly.

Anyone who can discern each pixel from viewing distance is either too close or has extraordinary visual acuity; leaving those folks aside, how much better can sharper optics make it?

Noah, Im only addressing the pixel discernibility issue here as its one I see brought up often. I have see many reviews that state the pixels to be individually resolved and thus the PJ has no sharpness issue.

The fact that each pixel can be clearly resolved is not a guarantee that you have a sharp image, let alone the sharpest possible on any particular machine.

If you call up your focus pattern, defocus to the point where the pixels are just still clearly resolvable you will find that the impact on the image is very significant.

A lower MTF lens can certainly impact sharpness but still allow individual pixels to be clearly discerned.

Then there is the difference between machines that have a poor sub pixel noise performance and those that perform well. The difference between the 2 is easily seen, yet the pixels are still clear. Its also clearly seen at normal seating distance, despite the individual pixels being indiscernible. A machine with very low pixel noise will require a superior lens to allow that performance advantage to be fully realized. Also worth bearing in mind is that bigger chips start with an advantage. A DCI DMD will start cleaner than a .95", that doesn't always translate to the screen as a poorly engineered DCI engine can end up noisier than a well engineered domestic unit. This is one of Peters favourite points to labour.

All Im saying is that image sharpness does not end with discernible pixels, and quality optics have a major part to play.

my point also was not just the lens, but the entire optical path.

even with the lens, take a proj where you can afford light loss, drop the lens by a few stops to 5.6 or maybe f8... contrast, dynamics all just went up.

my intention was to point out that more pixels are not a panacea. we have lots of areas to improve before that is our only avenue. and just adding more pixels is also not always going to make things better.

Thats a great point. I think, in most cases, the damage has already been done by the time you get to the lens. A great lens cant make up for that.

You can put a cherry on top of a dog turd, but you'll still end up with Halitosis.

take a pic with a 12 mega pixel DSLR with the stock lens. now go get the top of the line 12 megapixel DSLR with a top of the line PRIME lens...

two totally different pics. unless of course, we are taking a pic of a dog turd with a cherry on top...