JVC RS1 - any sensible way to go to 2.40:1?

You would need an external processor, or simply invest in an Oppo Blu-ray player since it does the necessary vertical stretch scaling. Of course, that would limit you to Blu-ray and DVD (no anamorphic cable or satellite). And of course you need a lens.

The main issue here is screen size. Do you want to keep the same image height as your current 100" screen? The RS1 will have a fairly hard time lighting up an equivalent height 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen, especially if you have many hours on the bulb.

Actually projector centrals RS1 calculator is spot on for throw distance and screen size. After I installed my RS1 my measurements were very near identical to what the calculator said. Just remember by the time you get to 1000 hours you could be down another 35-40% or even as high as 55% drop from new readings. I had one bulb that dropped lumens really quickly. Over 20% in the first 100 hours. But the bulb I have now is near 500 hours and still only lost around 20% which is pretty good.

As far as a processor you can use a Radiance 3D mini to do what you want or cheaper option is a used Lumagen HDQ but the image will be softer with the HDQ. Radiance is the way to go.

One sensible (cost effective) way is to get just a VP and do the shrink method. This is downscaling or "shrinking" 16:9 so it fits the height of a 2.35:1 screen. I had great success pairing a Lumagen HDP with my RS1. The scaling is virtually as good as the newer Lumagens but a fraction of the cost.The one button AR changes was well worth a very minor loss of quality for 16:9 vs zooming. As a bonus the basic CMS greatly improved the colors and it could fully calibrate greyscale and gamma. I've since upgraded to an RS55 with lens memory, but I kept the VP and still shrink some material, depending on the content.

Since you appear to be in my area, I'd be happy to show you how well it can work.

BTW, the Oppo players actually have a built in version of the shrink method called 1/2 zoom. But again the downside is it would only work on that source.

You have a couple choices. The cheapest choice - and the one I started with - is to make a cheap transport using some 100 lb drawer slides from your local hardware store. You'll then manually slide the lens in or out of the way depending upon what you're watching. The next least expensive option is to leave the lens in place all the time, in which case you'd need a video processor capable of squeezing the picture horizontally for any AR less than 2.35:1. The most expensive - but most elegant and convenient solution - is to buy motorized sled that is remote-controlled. GetGray's CineSlide™ is a phenomenal solution that will handle just about any lens, and Panamorph sells a motorized slide for their lenses as well.

Bottom line is that there is a real difference, but the difference is small. Back before 1971, the AR was actually 2.35:1. After that time it was changed (for various reasons) to approximately 2.39:1 - the width actually stayed the same but the height was reduced slightly. However 2.35:1 had been in common usage for some time by then, so the term stuck even though it wasn't technically accurate. To complicate matters more, 2.39:1 is often rounded to 2.40:1, so you'll see that used as well. In the end you're talking about a 1.7% difference in picture height.

If you're doing a zoom-based 'scope setup and wanted to gnat's-ass your screen, you'd want a 2.39:1 screen. For lens setups, the AR that results from putting a 1.33x lens in front of a 1.78:1 display is actually 2.37:1. In reality, any difference between the 3 ratios (2.35:1, 2.37:1, and 2.39:1) is easily compensated for by masking off the image onto the black border of your screen. But any screen manufacturer will produce a custom AR screen for you for no extra charge, so if you're ordering your screen or making it yourself, you might as well go with the AR that you'll actually be producing with your system.

1 and 2. The whole point of the lens is to expand (not zoom) the image for you.

Contrast and brightness are simply picture adjustments that actually adjust white level and black level, respectively. They do nothing to increase light output. Light output is simply a matter of how much light is created by the projector lamp and then passed through the projector optics. There are also picture modes that allow more light output (usually called things like "bright room" or "vivid"), but those modes generally are wildly inaccurate when it comes to color accuracy, gamma and other picture parameters.

Keep in mind too that most of the brightness calculators use the manufacturer's maximum rated light output, which is not a very reliable figure. Usually that figure is taken when the projector is in "torch mode," with the picture adjusted like how I mentioned above. IIRC, the RS1 in one of its more accurate picture modes puts out about 400 lumens, so you might want to use that for your calculations.

Keep in mind too that "bright enough" is partially a personal call. Here's a quick way to determine if the image will be bright enough for you:

Load up a letterboxed Blu-ray.

Zoom the image in on your projector so that the image within the letterbox bars fills the height of the screen (the sides of the image will fall onto the wall on either side of the screen)

Watch the movie for a good 30 minutes or so, concentrating on how bright the image is and if you find it adequate enough (try to ignore the extra picture information falling onto the wall)

If you are satisfied with that brightness, you should be satisfied with the brightness of the 2.35:1 image (HogPilot's answer about aspect ratios was dead on, btw). As a bonus, if you use a good quality anamorphic lens your actual 2.35:1 image will be about 20 - 30% brighter than what you get with the method described above (since anamorphic lens systems take advantage of all of the projectors pixels being lit up vs. the method above only using 75% of the projector's pixels).

Good Luck!

This is great advice. Although one could argue that if the brightness is satisfactory, an A-lens may not be needed and the zoom or shrink methods are possible options. When doing the experiment, you can also get a feel for how you like the PQ and greater immersion from your seating position (using a little imagination with the image bleeding off the sides) Also notice if pixel visibility becomes a problem, especially in bright/sky type scenes. Experiment with seating distance if possible. If you find you enjoy viewing close enough to see pixel structure, then an A-lens may be called for. Or you could just upgrade to an RS55...

I was half kidding. But along with lens memory, the RS55 and its upscaling e-shift technology completely eliminates pixel visibility and allows for very close viewing while maintaining excellent PQ.

And all the Lumagen VPs will let you keep an A-lens in place for 16:9, even the older ones. Keep in mind that this envolves scaling and losing some horizontal resolution. Keeping the lens in place will also result in pincushion (and possibly other artifacts if an inexpensive lens is used), just like on the 2.35 image.
Edited by 5mark - 6/12/12 at 12:17pm

Well I just got my rs1 and lumagen mini 3d and also a prismasonic a-lens. I paid less than 3k for all of it and I wouldnt trade it. I watch on a 8 feet wide 2:40:1 screen. The bulb has over 1000hrs and is plenty of bright in my bat cave.

Actually, what you are seeing is almost certainly loss of brightness. Resolution is not as important as contrast and brightness when determining perceived picture quality, esp. "pop" and "sharpness." In other words, what makes a picture pop is the combination of high brightness and high contrast. Your RS1 excels at the high contrast part of the equation, and does quite well in the brightness part too as long as you don't go too large in screen size.

The resolution when zoomed in (like you tried) is exactly the same as zoomed out. Even adding an anamorphic lens, which means using all 1920 x 1080 pixels, does not really add any additional picture detail, since the original Blu-ray source is still 1920 x 810 (typically). The vertical scaling process just scales the 1920 x 810 image to 1920 x 1080 to light up all the pixels. No additional picture detail is added, you just get a higher pixel count and about a 33% increase in brightness because all of the imaging chip is now turned on. That is the main advantage of anamorphic lenses - more brightness reaches the screen vs. the zoom method, which as I mentioned above, is far more important to perceived picture quality than actual resolution.

However, the loss of brightness is more readily apparent if you have some light pollution, which you obviously have during the day. You will get a much better read on things tonight

Something else to keep in mind. Since you are going to get a new screen, you can purchase a screen with a higher gain to get a brighter image. However, since a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 image is so much wider than 16:9, hotspotting becomes more of an issue with this aspect ratio. What screen material do you have now?

If you get a radiance you can calibrate both lamp settings if you want. Don't worry about color accuracy only over all brightness. Don't forget the image will be 30% brighter at that width after you squeeze the image.

The Firehawk is a great material, and I would suggest sticking with it if you have ambient light issues or light colored walls and ceiling. If you can black out your room and paint it dark as well, the StudioTek 130 would give you a slightly brighter image and less hotspotting. I recently replaced my Firehawk with StudioTek 130 material, and I have noticed that the image looks overall brighter especially out to the edges. I only considered switching to the StudioTek, though, after I painted my walls and ceiling a dark color.

As mentioned above, adding an anamorphic lens will increase the brightness by approx. 20 - 30% over what you are seeing with the zoom method.

Going to the high lamp mode will not dramatically affect color accuracy, etc - it's changing the picture mode to something like "Vivid" that totally messes with the colors.

Good luck!