Can I get 2.35 without an A-lens?

Recently it has become more popular to use a 16:9 projector on a 2.35 screen without an anamorphic lens. We posted a new technical tip, for the Radiance video processor, on this subject. See "Tip 16 - Setting up 2.35 widescreen with out using an anamorphic lens".

We also updated the two technical tips for setting up a Radiance video processor with a fixed or movable anamorphic lens.

http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=manuals

Randy Freeman
Lumagen

Just curious to hear your objections to an Anamorphic Lens.
Cost, PQ, Curved display?
I build mine out of $125 prisms and I love it.

Valid points.
Here's what I used. Its very popular amongst lots of AL users because of the low cost and ease of use.
I just measured it out and stuck the prisms between two pieces of board with double-sided tape. My PJ is on a table, not mounted, so its easy for me to plunk the lens in front of the PJ without any special mounts.
I never move my lens since my PJ has settings for 16:9 and 2.35:1 AR.
I looked at video processors but they always involve some sort of zooming and I don't like that.
With an AL, the panel doesn't have to work to block out the lamp light to display the black bars. Approximately 33% of the light output is lost in the black bars.
The Radiance is basically not used when a 2.35 image is displayed, the PJ is simply zoomed in to fill the screen (at least that's what I understood after reading the link).
I would advise you to spend $135 to get the prisms (even if you have a VP) and see how you like it. Its not a lot compared to the cost of a VP.
Also, here's a link to a DIY AL. The guy did a great DIY job, very professional. I never got to that level of DIY but it just makes for great reading.

You are welcome.
This hobby is a never-ending endeavor; the more you know, the more you end up spending. Sometimes ignorance is bliss...he he!

Very interesting.

How is the quality compared to the better AL's as far as chromatic aberration, pincushion, and light loss?

Is there a user thread for these?

Regarding the latter, depending on the setup, a horiz exp AL doesn't ofer as much as you might think.

I have a 2:1 screen and zoom out to make a 16:9 fit vertically, and zoom in to make a 2.35 fit horizontally.

The latter increases the light output on most all pj's; I don't notice a brightness difference between either setting.

A vertical compression lens would allow using a bigger aperture and getting more light.

I suppose that could be done by rotating a hor exp AL back to front and 90n deg about the projection axis, if it's big enough to allow the full image through.

This might annoy some people here since a bunch of people do that, but... why? There's not that much 2.35:1 material, and TV material is almost never 2.35:1. Are you limited by your ceiling height? I just don't really see the benefit here. Build a screen of the same width, but taller height, so that 16:9 material takes advantage but you don't lose width with Cinemascope. I feel that width is usually the limiting factor of a non-4:3 screen (except when you get to REALLY large screens), not height. (Well, also excluding those exceedingly smart people who put their TV over their fireplace. Part of that was sarcasm )

But anyway, yes, it could be done digitally as well, but the only possible benefit is realized when using a proper lens. That way, you get the full resolution. It's basically anamorphic Cinemascope. Digitally doing it is like using digital zoom on a camera over lens zoom. Works, but wastes some resolution and isn't as good. As for whether it is worth it or not, my opinion is 'no' from the previous paragraph, but you're free to make your own decision on that one.

You're still left with the fundamental problem that any episode of 2 Broke Girls will be displayed larger and more immersive than the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, Indiana Jones or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Does that really seem right to you?

To the o/p, there is a 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site. I would recommend browsing the threads there.

Here also is a tutorial on the subject with illustrations that may help.

LOL. I'm just thinking of the most efficient use of space. Basically my point is to not waste space above (and possibly under, if your electronics are not taking that space up) the screen by going Cinemascope, when you could actually use that space by sticking with 16:9. If your screen is so large that a Cinemascope setup is not wasting space above the screen like that then... damn. heh. Either way, I did give some relevant advice in the previous post even if one were to disagree with my opinion of the lack of spacial efficiency in a home Cinemascope setup