Originally Posted by celboy
I believe Anamorphic lenses for the most part are no longer used in d-cinema projection. DCI compliance requires flat images. But you can get anamorphics for special presentations--but I guess thats rare. I think digital anamorphics was deemed too expensive (to be added to the projector price).
I truly don't see the "cost" of an anamorphic lens being the real issue. The ISCO 1.25x lens is about $12K USD. When you consider the cost of the projector, the server and all the other hardware needed to make it run, the said $12k is but a ripple in the finance pond.
I did see Bladerunner projected anamorphically in NYC and it was one of the best presentations I've ever seen.
I bet. Running that film on my system looks pretty amazing and I only have it in BD, so one can only imagine the extra detail and colour from the DCI source.
Originally Posted by AaronMK
Yea, that is why the picture does not bother me. It looks like the BD has everything that would be in the "safe area", and on current displays, overscan is really a non-issue.
Exactly. How much "story telling" information would be stored in the (approx) 53 pixels vertically and 128 horizontally?
Originally Posted by AaronMK
Is it possible that the jaggies were caused from the H-Squeeze, and not using an anamorphic lens on digital image (as opposed to film)?
Yeah, I would guess the jaggies came as a result of scaling it back from 2560 to 1920.
I was wondering why, if anamorphic lenses worked for film (light issues and all), they would not provide the same advantages when sending light into an image sensor and out from a DLP. I take it from this experiment and posts, the bigger issue is scaling artifacts, even if uniform, that would be required between formats.
Interesting points. I ran a few experiments with a HD video camera capturing images through my A-Lens. The results varied and I was able to capture some "true anamorphic video" which I use as a demo for CIH systems. When projected back through the A-Lens, the image looks great. The catch it seems is, that because an cylindrical A-Lens has adjustable astigmatism correction that you set for the projector's throw distance, that focus is out past that point from the camera. I'm sure a better camera would have given a better result, but then again, maybe that is why parts of films shot on film with an anamorphic lens are also way out of focus.
Because the image captured by the imaging chip was optically squeezed by the A-Lens, there was no scaling artifacts. The 1920 x 1080 chip does not know if light is being bent out of shape or not. On playback, the reverse happened where the light projected was simply expanded to restore the geometry. Also because the SAME lens was used or both capture and projection, any "anamorphic mumps" issues are not present either. Even though this lens is corrected for grid distortion, you would (and I've seen this in some BDs where the film was originally captured with an A-Lens) see such an artifact on a lens that was not corrected or had a different optical expansion rate from the 1.33x of my lens.
Also because the projected image was a native 1920 x 1080 pixel, the image is dense. It has a feel to it that scaled BDs don't.