or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › How to Display AR's Other Than 1.78 And 2.35
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to Display AR's Other Than 1.78 And 2.35

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
My question is how do you display aspect ratios other than the native 1.78 or 2.35?

Zoom Method: no problem, just zoom to any AR.

A-Lens with sled: 1.78 doesn't use the A-lens; 2.35 uses A-lens with standard vertical stretch. How would other aspect ratios be set-up? Would the A-lens be used?

Fixed A-Lens: 1.78 with custom resolution needed (1440x1080); 2.35 uses standard vertical stretch. For other aspect ratios I assume that you still use the standard vertical stretch and set-up other horizontal resolutions (????x1080)?

So, what is the preferred method to show other aspect ratios?

Thanks
post #2 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

My question is how do you display aspect ratios other than the native 1.78 or 2.35?

Zoom Method: no problem, just zoom to any AR.

A-Lens with sled: 1.78 doesn't use the A-lens; 2.35 uses A-lens with standard vertical stretch. How would other aspect ratios be set-up? Would the A-lens be used?

Fixed A-Lens: 1.78 with custom resolution needed (1440x1080); 2.35 uses standard vertical stretch. For other aspect ratios I assume that you still use the standard vertical stretch and set-up other horizontal resolutions (????x1080)?
So, what is the preferred method to show other aspect ratios?

Thanks

For any ratio wider than 2.35:1

Only if you want to fill the 2.35:1 screen with an image cropped width ways. But that would be throwing image info away and the OAR out the window!

Do it correctly and you will have black bars top and bottom of the 2.35:1 screen, for any ratio wider than 2.35:1.
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

My question is how do you display aspect ratios other than the native 1.78 or 2.35?

Fixed A-Lens: 1.78 with custom resolution needed (1440x1080); 2.35 uses standard vertical stretch. For other aspect ratios I assume that you still use the standard vertical stretch and set-up other horizontal resolutions (????x1080)?

So, what is the preferred method to show other aspect ratios?

Thanks

When I use the PC, I use Media Player Classic which allows custom scaling on the fly. It is useful for both odd ball ARs like 2.00:1 ~ 2.20:1 or if I want to view captured footage in Scope. I've recently been doing a bit of HD video capture and just because the camera is 1.78:1, who says my artistic intent is not for another AR? The software allows me to display it on my system however I want.

The original 1.78:1 capture. So when viewed on my system, I have pillars at the sides.



By applying a degree of vertical stretch + horizontal squeeze and some vertical image shift, I can transform the video into 2.00:1 or


even Scope

I had to shift the image down quite a bit to keep the shark 'centered', but it does look awesome on screen.

I would have to agree with HJ on letter-boxing anything wider than the screen as the 1.33x A-lens I use can only stretch the image to 2.37:1.
LL
LL
LL
post #4 of 31
Thread Starter 
I'm still a little confused. I don't want to change the AR, crop or anything like that........just present the image correctly using constant height.

So, for instance, if I wanted to project a 1.85 or a 2.00 with no black bars on the top and bottom, would I leave the lens in place, vertically stretch and just scale it horizontally.........or some other method? I know I can remove the lens and zoom.

I understand that AR's greater than 2.35 will have black bars top and bottom and anything less than 1.78 will have pillars left and right.

Basically, do I leave the lens in place and scale or some other method?

Cool shark blown up like that!

Thanks
post #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

I'm still a little confused. I don't want to change the AR, crop or anything like that........just present the image correctly using constant height.

So, for instance, if I wanted to project a 1.85 or a 2.00 with no black bars on the top and bottom, would I leave the lens in place, vertically stretch and just scale it horizontally.........or some other method? I know I can remove the lens and zoom.

Basically, do I leave the lens in place and scale or some other method?

This really comes down to personal preference, and the details of your specific system.

By removing the lens and reducing zoom, you can project the 16:9 image at full 1080p resolution. However, if your projector is ceiling mounted, this means that you'll need to install the lens on a slide mount, which can be both expensive and a hassle.

If you plan to leave the lens in place at all times, you'll need to scale and pillarbox the image. I'm not sure how many projectors offer this ability. The most surefire way is to use an external video processor such as the Lumagen Radiance series. The downside to this is that the active picture area will be reduced to 1440x1080, with the rest of the pixels taken up by the pillarbox bars.

My own projector is shelf mounted, and I can easily remove the lens. That's what I do for 16:9 or 1.85:1 content. For a movie with an intermediary aspect ratio such as 2.0:1, I prefer to leave the lens in place and pillarbox the image slightly.
post #6 of 31
If you want CIH with all AR's, you need a screen as wide as the widest AR(say 2.77:1), and even with an A-lens a bit of zooming will be required to get rid of the top and bottom bars on any thing over 2.35:1.......fiddley!
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

I'm still a little confused. I don't want to change the AR, crop or anything like that........just present the image correctly using constant height.

OK, just imagine that the images came from 3 different shark films and all had their own AR. On a CIH system, the way I have shown the images is how they look on screen - ie all at the same height.


Quote:


Cool shark blown up like that!

You should see it in motion on screen I captured the images from Sea World's "Shark Bay" using a HD 1080P camera. Because the footage was originally 1.78:1, I actually like watching the shark at about 2.00:1. A good compromise between 1.78:1 and Scope.
post #8 of 31
This is the main reason that I like zooming. Combined with a 3-way or 4-way powered masking system the whole problem of the multitude of film aspect ratios becomes a non-issue. You can present the films as intended by zooming up to the maximum width/height of your screen and then powering the side masking or top/bottom masking to perfectly frame the picture. If you have a projector with programmable lens memory, such as the Panny 4000 or 7000 this is a 5 second operation. Total flexibility.
post #9 of 31
True. Then you hit movies like the dark knight and after much hate directed at the directors that use multiple ARs have to give in to one zoom or another
post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

I'm still a little confused. I don't want to change the AR, crop or anything like that........just present the image correctly using constant height.

The key in your statement is "constant height". Here's my approach.

I've always believed that a proper screen design involves putting up more screen than you think you'll ever need, then masking it down to what you want to use at different times. My screen is CIH and handles everything from "Casablanca" out to "Ben-Hur". Filling that area involves the use of my anamorphic lens as well as a touch of zooming sometimes. But it works quite well. See the link in my signature for some pictures of the setup.

Actually, my biggest challenge is spherical 65mm content ("Lawrence of Arabia"). Because I don't have a video processor, I can only rescale (using my projector) for 2.37 'Scope. My anamorphic lens is variable ... but my scaler in the projector isn't. So if I want to show 2.20 content, I have to either use zoom only (which I don't like to do) or crop it to 2.37. With a video processor (which I doubt I'll ever purchase), I could do a custom rescale and then a custom stretch. And I've actually done that with the SuperBit DVD of "Lawrence" because I have a Zenith DVD player that allows for custom stretching vertically. But alas, who wants to watch a DVD.

Anybody know if the Oppo '93 allows for custom vertical stretching to accomodate 2.20 content using the entire display panel. That might put me over the edge on buying one (or two) of those.

Good Luck.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Anybody know if the Oppo '93 allows for custom vertical stretching to accomodate 2.20 content using the entire display panel. That might put me over the edge on buying one (or two) of those.

No, it does not offer custom aspect ratio scaling. It will only zoom to 2.35:1. You need a video processor.
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

No, it does not offer custom aspect ratio scaling. It will only zoom to 2.35:1. You need a video processor.

Is there one in particular that you like.
post #13 of 31
I'm partial to the Radiance Mini3D. It offers very fine point adjustments for both HS and VS so you can set up any ARs you need and store them.
post #14 of 31
Thread Starter 
Sounds like the best and most versatile method would be an A-lens on a sled for full resolution 1.78 and 2.35 AR's, coupled with a video processor to scale all other AR's..........most expensive, too!

Next best would be a fixed A-lens for full resolution 2.35, coupled with a video processor to scale all other AR's.

Finally, zooming (no A-lens) would only give full resolution on 1.78, but is the least difficult set-up and least expensive. Lens memory would be a big benefit, but this limits the projector choices. I believe they only allow two AR's, however I thought someone had a clever solution using RS-232 for additional AR's.

Instead of a video processor an HTPC can also be used for custom H and V resolutions..............correct?

Thanks again.............good discussion!
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

Sounds like the best and most versatile method would be an A-lens on a sled for full resolution 1.78 and 2.35 AR's, coupled with a video processor to scale all other AR's..........most expensive, too!

Yes to the most expensive. As for the best? Well that depends on who you talk to.

Quote:


Next best would be a fixed A-lens for full resolution 2.35, coupled with a video processor to scale all other AR's.

I've chosen this option + curved screen because it works best for me.

Quote:


Instead of a video processor an HTPC can also be used for custom H and V resolutions..............correct?

Program pending, yes.
post #16 of 31
If one wants to maintain CIH and maintain the OAR, use the full projector panel for all AR's including & wider than 2.35:1, not only will one need a wide screen as wide as the widest AR needs, but one will need to custom scale the original image and need a whole bunch of A-lenses to cater for the the varing degree of stretch.
post #17 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Quote:
Next best would be a fixed A-lens for full resolution 2.35, coupled with a video processor to scale all other AR's.


I've chosen this option + curved screen because it works best for me.

I know the curved screen works with the 2.35 AR. How well does it work with the others.........any barrel distortion or other issues?

Thanks
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I'm partial to the Radiance Mini3D. It offers very fine point adjustments for both HS and VS so you can set up any ARs you need and store them.

Thanks.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

If one wants to maintain CIH and maintain the OAR, use the full projector panel for all AR's including & wider than 2.35:1, not only will one need a wide screen as wide as the widest AR needs, but one will need to custom scale the original image and need a whole bunch of A-lenses to cater for the the varing degree of stretch.

Whilst 1.33x is the most common, to do this "right" as you have suggested would also require at least a 1.5x if not a 1.42x as well. I don't think you'd want to use a 1.78x or 2.0x though. I don't watch anything wider (OK 2.40:1 is technically wider ) than my systems capacity, so I don't consider the need for a wider screen or lenses with greater stretch to be of need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

I know the curved screen works with the 2.35 AR. How well does it work with the others.........any barrel distortion or other issues?

The curve is there to prevent pincushion. It is set based on the throw - shorter the throw,more curve one needs. Once set, it works with all ARs from 1.33 to width limits of the Scope set up (in my case 2.37:1). All images have the same calibration settings, pixel density and geometry. Even though my optics are corrected for grid distortion, you would see some on a flat screen (all lenses do this to some degree) but the curve aids by eliminating this completely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Thanks.

Your welcome
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Whilst 1.33x is the most common, to do this "right" as you have suggested would also require at least a 1.5x if not a 1.42x as well. I don't think you'd want to use a 1.78x or 2.0x though. I don't watch anything wider (OK 2.40:1 is technically wider ) than my systems capacity, so I don't consider the need for a wider screen or lenses with greater stretch to be of need.



The curve is there to prevent pincushion. It is set based on the throw - shorter the throw,more curve one needs. Once set, it works with all ARs from 1.33 to width limits of the Scope set up (in my case 2.37:1). All images have the same calibration settings, pixel density and geometry. Even though my optics are corrected for grid distortion, you would see some on a flat screen (all lenses do this to some degree) but the curve aids by eliminating this completely.




Your welcome

My reply was to the OP wishing to maintain CIH for all AR's.......where a wider screen and several stretch A-lens would be required...as you stated too!
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

My reply was to the OP wishing to maintain CIH for all AR's.......where a wider screen and several stretch A-lens would be required...as you stated too!

Hey this might be a first for the forum. An A-Lens user and non A-lens user both in agreement
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


Yes to the most expensive. As for the best? Well that depends on who you talk to.

I've chosen this option + curved screen because it works best for me.

Program pending, yes.

Can you name the programs? Mpc anything else?
post #23 of 31
The number of movies wider than 2.40:1 is a very small minority. On Blu-ray, I believe there are only two: Ben-Hur and How the West Was Won. I personally don't see the benefit in customizing my entire home theater around that. I can deal with small letterboxing on those two movies. YMMV.
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The number of movies wider than 2.40:1 is a very small minority. On Blu-ray, I believe there are only two: Ben-Hur and How the West Was Won. I personally don't see the benefit in customizing my entire home theater around that. I can deal with small letterboxing on those two movies. YMMV.

Mutiny On The Bounty in UP70 ... plus

Bridge on the River Kwai
Sleeping Beauty
Lady And The Tramp (on Tuesday)
Picnic
A Star Is Born

And any other CinemaScope film released prior to 1957. All 2.55

And 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea ... whenever it arrives

Still a small minority. But if any of those is important to you (Ben-Hur is very important to me) it might make a difference.
post #25 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The curve is there to prevent pincushion. It is set based on the throw - shorter the throw,more curve one needs. Once set, it works with all ARs from 1.33 to width limits of the Scope set up (in my case 2.37:1). All images have the same calibration settings, pixel density and geometry. Even though my optics are corrected for grid distortion, you would see some on a flat screen (all lenses do this to some degree) but the curve aids by eliminating this completely.

Mark,

Given my planned throw ratio of ~ 2.1 how evident would the pincushion and grid distortion be on a flat screen? I understand pincushion distortion and that if my throw ratio is great enough that a small over-scan would hide the distortion.
How does grid distortion look on the screen and does it too, decrease with throw ratio.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

My reply was to the OP wishing to maintain CIH for all AR's.......where a wider screen and several stretch A-lens would be required...as you stated too!

Highjinx,

I wasn't totally accurate. I would just zoom or crop the sides on anything over 2.35. Otherwise, as you stated, I would need other A-lens and a wider screen.

Thanks, guys for all of the help!

Greg
post #26 of 31
[quote=hconwell;21596634].
And any other CinemaScope film released prior to 1957. All 2.55

QUOTE]

Considering the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, was made in 1953, there must be at least 3 years of films released at 2.55. We are talking maybe hundreds of titles here, and I seem to have quite a few of them in my collection. This is why locking yourself into a 2.35 ratio screen may not be the best way to go, and why the oversize screen with 3 or 4 way masking is the most flexible solution to this problem. I know 4 way masking is expensive but its a heck of a lot cheaper than an A-lens and sled. Plus you can DIY 4 way masking for about $500.00.
post #27 of 31
[quote=taffman;21597734]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

.
And any other CinemaScope film released prior to 1957. All 2.55

QUOTE]

Considering the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, was made in 1953, there must be at least 3 years of films released at 2.55. We are talking maybe hundreds of titles here, and I seem to have quite a few of them in my collection. This is why locking yourself into a 2.35 ratio screen may not be the best way to go, and why the oversize screen with 3 or 4 way masking is the most flexible solution to this problem. I know 4 way masking is expensive but its a heck of a lot cheaper than an A-lens and sled. Plus you can DIY 4 way masking for about $500.00.

Whether you go 2-way CIH or 4-way CIA, it's your choice. Whatever makes you happy. Josh is probably a little younger so a lack of committment to those ARs of old is completely understandable. For me, the ability to handle the oddball AR of those older films was paramount.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen_x View Post

Can you name the programs? Mpc anything else?

I am using Media Player Classic on my PC for the select titles I have ripped to an external hard drive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory View Post

Mark,

Given my planned throw ratio of ~ 2.1 how evident would the pincushion and grid distortion be on a flat screen?

I understand pincushion distortion and that if my throw ratio is great enough that a small over-scan would hide the distortion.
How does grid distortion look on the screen and does it too, decrease with throw ratio.

I've not been able to measure the distortion on a flat screen as I don't have one. I have a friend using an MK4 on a flat 150" screen with a very short TR (1.4:1) and the only time I noticed any distortions in motion video was the end credits. Given the short throw, the amount was smaller than what I have seen back in the days of my early prisms days which I felt needed correcting for back then.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Mutiny On The Bounty in UP70 ... plus

Bridge on the River Kwai
Sleeping Beauty
Lady And The Tramp (on Tuesday)
Picnic
A Star Is Born

And any other CinemaScope film released prior to 1957. All 2.55

You're right, I wasn't thinking about these early CinemaScope films. Even so, we're talking about four years of film output compared against the following fifty. If you're dedicated enough to cater your whole home theater around this in order to avoid some minimal letterboxing, by all means enjoy. I am not, however.
post #30 of 31
For Aspect ratios between 1.33 and 1.85 almost all external video processors can fill the picture to the full height of a 2:35:1 screen. My old DVDO VP50 has 1.33, 1.55, 1.66, 1.85 and of course 2.35 just by pulling up a menu. For the few movies shot and wider than 2.35 that are actually mastered on a DVD and or BD I crop a little off the edges to reduce the black bars at the top and bottom. Most of the movies filmed before 1957 are cropped to 1.33 to fit a TV set of that era. A lot of older movies and TV shows have a safe area a little larger than the aspect ratio on the disk so I can zoom up to 1.55 or 1.66 on many to obtain a little wider picture with negligible loss of information.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › How to Display AR's Other Than 1.78 And 2.35