AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Thinking of Changing to 2.35:1? Now May Be the Time - Panamorph
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking of Changing to 2.35:1? Now May Be the Time - Panamorph - Page 2

post #31 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

This cinevista a-lens is already discussed in another section long time ago:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1431259/new-panamorph-lens-coming-soon

Thanks for sharing the link Skylinestar. I was aware there was another thread about it, however in less your in the market for a lens, not many people roam in that section. I simply wanted people to be aware of the new lens. wink.gif
post #32 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor2010 View Post

It's optics, so resolution isn't affected by linearity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z91QpyCKAqw

Optics also have resolving resolution, not all glass are created equal, just like any lens.
post #33 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Optics also have resolving resolution, not all glass are created equal, just like any lens.

I know, my point was that linear resolution isn't limited by optics. It can be degraded by the quality of the optics, thus it can't resolve detail of the image as well. You can use a 4K projector with a low quality lens, which can degrade the image quality more than we'd like, but it is still at 4K resolution.
post #34 of 75
Aha! I misunderstood your post. Thank you for explaining it to me... And yes I'm 100% in agreement with you
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Adding an anamorphic lens will yield higher pixel density and brightness. Those are true. But at the same time the process of anamorphic stretch (stretching 21:9 area to the 16:9 sensor) loses some of the resolution because the pixel is no longer in 1:1 ratio. Add to the fact that adding any lens of even the highest quality one will decrease some sharpness to the image and will add some level of distortion especially at the edges.

So, having tried both (zoom method vs the same projector using Panamorph lens), other than the brightness, I still prefer zoom mode than adding a lens.

I appreciate your use of the term "prefer." I understand why you might prefer the zoomed image, as you are concerned about the loss of 1:1 pixel mapping in order to create the anamorphic stretch. As you say, the brightness increase is a true advantage of the anamorphic method, which - depending on screen size, gain and projector light output - can make or break a particular installation, especially if 3D is involved.

As I mentioned earlier, much of this comes down to what is noticeable, or preferable, in real world situations with actual video content. When shot out side by side in a blind test, we have never had anyone choose the zoomed image over the anamorphic. Of course, we are a manufacturer with a stake in the outcome, so you are free to be skeptical of that assertion. However, I think anyone who cares to recreate our tests would come up with the same result. My argument would be that, although what you are saying about loss of 1:1 pixel mapping is true, how noticeable is this with actual video content? In fact, most people comment that the higher density pixel structure results in an image they see as "more solid" or "less coarse" than the zoomed image. Much the same can be said about the sharpness / distortion issues you point out. How noticeable are they in real world situations, and do their negatives outweigh the positives in the overall experience?

As many have noted, there are positives and negatives to either method, zoom or anamorphic. What the CineVista offers is simplicity in installation and use plus a dynamic, involving experience. The lens is a one time attachment, and all one needs to do to adjust aspect ratios is hit one simple button on their remote. There are no black bars or menu options projecting onto the wall, no need for light absorption above and below the screen, and no need to wait while the projector takes its time to make the necessary zoom adjustments.
post #36 of 75
I agree with most of what you mentioned. Also agree that most people will prefer anamorphic setup but at the same time have to pointout that people WILL gravitate towards brighter image versus a dimmer one. With that in mind, the company I used to work for tried a side-by-side test between zoomed vs anamorphic lens (actually we used Panamorph for the test, Stewart Firehawk screen, can't name the projector due to NDA playing the company's demo disc) with brightness level being matched. From the 30 or so sales rep and managers, nearly all of them can tell which one is using the anamorphic lens because (I paraphrase) "the edges are soft" and/or "the edge have weird colours" (they are referring to chromatic abberation). Their preference is 50:50 smack dab in the middle. As in statistics we conclude that a 50:50 result equals to to no preference going one way or another, we opted to do the demo without the anamorphic lens (although we have purchased the lens and the sled) for ease of tour installation.

So what I'm trying to get at is that given the brightness level can be made to be equal, there is no preference from the (extremely tiny) sampling of viewers.

I, for one, am very susceptible in seeing chromatic abberation, convergence error, purple fringing etc so I prefer to not use the anamorphic lens.

Yes, I deliberately choose the term "prefer" because there is no right and wrong and my choice is purely subjective.

Cheers!

PS: I still am interested to read or even maybe review the anamorphic lens, though. Because at that low price, many entry level projectors will benefit from the extra brightness it can bring especially in 3D presentation!
post #37 of 75
Thanks, David, for your fair-minded assessment. I am curious, though, which Panamorph lens was being used, since the UH480 and DC1 are corrected for chromatic aberration. Only the CineVista and UV200 are not (and, in defense of the UV200, since it is a vertical compression lens the chromatic aberration is limited to the vertical and only about one pixel at the extremes). The only thing I can think of from my own experience is that an anamorphic lens tends to "spread out" any chromatic aberration present in the projector lens itself. There have been a few occasions where I have seen some of the "purple fringing" you mention, only to find you could see the same aberration when the anamorphic lens was removed, just less obvious.
post #38 of 75
A few points about brightness:

The gain of using all of the pixels is partially offset by transmission losses in the lens itself, which IIRC are ~ 10%.

If the lens uses horizontal expansion, a further loss is incurred on most pj's because the image has to be zoomed down.

For that reason I'd only consider a lens using vertical compression.
post #39 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Thanks, David, for your fair-minded assessment. I am curious, though, which Panamorph lens was being used, since the UH480 and DC1 are corrected for chromatic aberration. Only the CineVista and UV200 are not (and, in defense of the UV200, since it is a vertical compression lens the chromatic aberration is limited to the vertical and only about one pixel at the extremes). The only thing I can think of from my own experience is that an anamorphic lens tends to "spread out" any chromatic aberration present in the projector lens itself. There have been a few occasions where I have seen some of the "purple fringing" you mention, only to find you could see the same aberration when the anamorphic lens was removed, just less obvious.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had to dig my old notes to find out which model we used for testing, it was the CineVista. Also thank you for the explanation of the possibility of fringing and CA being possibly exagerrated due to the spreading done by the unsqueezing and not necessarily cuased by the anamorphic lens itself.
post #40 of 75
Ideally, for PC gaming, you should be able to specify the FOVY / AR and render the game at 1920x1080 but with the perspective in 2:35:1 (or whatever you want). That's been supported for years in games like Quake using opengl and a console prompt, but sadly quite often the only way to get 'scope aspect ratio is by explicitly lowering the vertical pixel count. (which requires the projector to upscale it back up...and sometimes causes problems, e.g. my BenQ will not vertically stretch frame packed 3D 1080p/24 content properly).

If the Cinevista supports 4K without lowering the quality too much, I might consider it, otherwise I'll stick to DIY. However, I think the zoom method is crap, not because the black area is too bright, but because it requires me to move the projector backward to get the same vertical height as I do with my 16:9 footage. I also think being able to slide out the lens is much better than squeezing 16:9 content to 4:3 to get it unsqueezed. Then again, since I use my PC for everything, when I set up my resolution as 1920x816 it will use the 816 height as the new height for 1080p 16:9 content, then I can use the digital zoom on my remote to "un squeeze" it back up to using the full height. Probably what I'd do for 16:9 content if I couldn't remove the lens easily would be to use "auto fill" option and just toggle the res in my HTPC, from 1920x816 to 1920*3/4 x 1080
post #41 of 75
With all this talk of resolution vs. aberration, etc, I thought I would put up a few pics to describe what we are talking about. Yes, the CineVista should resolve 4K when placed into its sweet spot at around a 12 foot throw. It will resolve 1080P within a much wider range of throws, within about 8 - 18 feet. As I mentioned previously, the to hit the $1500 price point of the CineVista, we had to eliminate the chromatic correction you find in our UH480 and DC1 lens systems. If you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. This is an entirely separate issue from focus, as all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned. It is our experience that most people will never notice the aberration with video content, however if your projector Electronic Color Correction (ECC) capabilities,you can dial out this misalignment pretty effectively. Most LCD and LCOS projectors have this feature, such as most JVC models of the last two years, Sony SXRD projectors starting at the HW50 and moving up the line, and almost all Epson projectors.

I have attached a few pics that show the aberration and how I was able to dial it out using the ECC on a Sony HW50. Please excuse the poor pics; they were taken with a camera phone sans tripod. However, you can pretty clearly see what is happening.





post #42 of 75
Thread Starter 
That's fantastic John. Thank you so much for your results as well as the photos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

With all this talk of resolution vs. aberration, etc, I thought I would put up a few pics to describe what we are talking about. Yes, the CineVista should resolve 4K when placed into its sweet spot at around a 12 foot throw. It will resolve 1080P within a much wider range of throws, within about 8 - 18 feet. As I mentioned previously, the to hit the $1500 price point of the CineVista, we had to eliminate the chromatic correction you find in our UH480 and DC1 lens systems. If you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. This is an entirely separate issue from focus, as all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned. It is our experience that most people will never notice the aberration with video content, however if your projector Electronic Color Correction (ECC) capabilities,you can dial out this misalignment pretty effectively. Most LCD and LCOS projectors have this feature, such as most JVC models of the last two years, Sony SXRD projectors starting at the HW50 and moving up the line, and almost all Epson projectors.

I have attached a few pics that show the aberration and how I was able to dial it out using the ECC on a Sony HW50. Please excuse the poor pics; they were taken with a camera phone sans tripod. However, you can pretty clearly see what is happening.
post #43 of 75
[quote name="John Schuermann" url="/t/1455501/thinking-of-changing-to-2-35-1-now-may-be-the-time-panamorph/0_50#post_22940303"... all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned... if your projector Electronic Color Correction (ECC) capabilities,you can dial out this misalignment pretty effectively.[/quote]

Is it really called ECC?

Because it doesn't correct colors, it shifts pixels associated with each color's display chip.
post #44 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Is it really called ECC?

Because it doesn't correct colors, it shifts pixels associated with each color's display chip.

It is when associated with the function described above. It is also used to correct convergence errors in the projector's display chips, as you mention.
post #45 of 75
John, what's the best way to correct this if my projector doesn't support ECC? I really want to hop on the 'scope bandwagon soon, but want to make sure I'm getting the best PQ as well as the extra size
post #46 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

John, what's the best way to correct this if my projector doesn't support ECC? I really want to hop on the 'scope bandwagon soon, but want to make sure I'm getting the best PQ as well as the extra size

There really is no way to correct this without ECC, other than to step up to our UH480 lens (which is almost the same as the CineVista with the crucial difference that it has optics that correct for chromatic aberration). The UH480 is available in a fixed configuration just like the CineVista but of course it has a higher price.

In our experience most people don't see the chromatic aberration unless looking for it, but of course that all depends on how critical a viewer you are. What projector do you have?
post #47 of 75
BenQ w1070...I paid $850 for it, but I consider a good a-lens a long-term investment and since I've gotten the projector bug, I think I'll get many years use out of it.

Can you explain to me why the subpixel alignment must be done only at the projector and can't be done electronically upstream? (say, by my PC's videocard or shader). I'd be willing to put in the time to write a custom shader if there isn't one out there in cyberspace already. Honestly, if it can be done as a postprocessing step I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't already.

Thanks though! I'll consider the Cinevista if I can't find a used UH480. If someone out there finds a link to such a deal, forward it to me, please!
post #48 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

BenQ w1070...I paid $850 for it, but I consider a good a-lens a long-term investment and since I've gotten the projector bug, I think I'll get many years use out of it.

Can you explain to me why the subpixel alignment must be done only at the projector and can't be done electronically upstream? (say, by my PC's videocard or shader). I'd be willing to put in the time to write a custom shader if there isn't one out there in cyberspace already. Honestly, if it can be done as a postprocessing step I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't already.

Thanks though! I'll consider the Cinevista if I can't find a used UH480. If someone out there finds a link to such a deal, forward it to me, please!

Actually, ECC CAN be accomplished by a good quality scaler or HTPC. We have talked to a couple of scaler manufacturers about adding the capability, but have not pursued it aggressively since the CineVista is more specifically aimed at the general HT enthusiast who would not likely buy an external scaler (or understand how to use it). However, you obviously do understand all of this stuff and if you can create a way to do it in your PC that would be great. My understanding about what is required is the ability to scale RGB values separately for each pixel and the ability to control this by dividing up the image into zones (which is what is illustrated in the pics I uploaded previously).

Thanks for posting the above - it has caused me to re-think the scaler approach. I will pass this along to the "powers that be."
post #49 of 75
I'll be happy to help my good sir, I write shaders and 3d code for games for a living, although to be honest there are probably kids in russia who have far more indepth knowledge about video shaders than I do! Like the SVP project, I find it super neat. I don't think writing a postprocessing shader that shifts subpixels proportionally to the X distance from the center of the movie image would be very hard to do or add much in the way of GPU overhead from an HTPC.

Surely, it will need tweaking for a given projector's aberration and throw distance, etc, but there's an easy app I found on the net in 2010 written in C# that I used to rapid prototype some shaders for a kinect title I was worked on.

(quick google search....)

Here's another toy that would probably take only a few minutes to figure out something workable that gradually realigns the green or red pixels towards the blue (or whatever) more as you approach the edges, similar to your diagram above. Select the postprocessing one from the 2D shaders list to see an example.

http://www.iquilezles.org/apps/shadertoy/
post #50 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

I'll be happy to help my good sir, I write shaders and 3d code for games for a living, although to be honest there are probably kids in russia who have far more indepth knowledge about video shaders than I do! Like the SVP project, I find it super neat. I don't think writing a postprocessing shader that shifts subpixels proportionally to the X distance from the center of the movie image would be very hard to do or add much in the way of GPU overhead from an HTPC.

Surely, it will need tweaking for a given projector's aberration and throw distance, etc, but there's an easy app I found on the net in 2010 written in C# that I used to rapid prototype some shaders for a kinect title I was worked on.

(quick google search....)

Here's another toy that would probably take only a few minutes to figure out something workable that gradually realigns the green or red pixels towards the blue (or whatever) more as you approach the edges, similar to your diagram above. Select the postprocessing one from the 2D shaders list to see an example.

http://www.iquilezles.org/apps/shadertoy/

Very interesting! Thanks for the link. Let us know how things go smile.gif
post #51 of 75


This shader code should do the trick, and it's pretty apparent that anything more than 2-3 pixels of aberration in any of the colors, at the very edges of the screen, is distracting and noticeable. (of course that depends on the resolution, the lens' aberattion is obviously resolution independent, so the units would be better in relative terms, but anyway the same code that I can artificially induce aberattion closer to the edges can be used to remove it as a postprocessing step). Now, the only question is, how to enable that generally in the control panel of your videocard, if that's even possible. (I think it is, I haven't mucked around too much in my AMD driver settings to see if / where you can set your own shader to be used all the time)
#ifdef GL_ES
precision highp float;
#endif

uniform vec2 resolution;
uniform float time;
uniform sampler2D tex0;
uniform sampler2D tex1;
uniform sampler2D tex2;

void main(void)
{
vec2 uv = gl_FragCoord.xy / resolution.xy;
float timeFactorR = 0.5 + 0.5*sin(0.6*time);
float timeFactorG = 0.5 + 0.5*sin(0.2*time);
float timeFactorB = 0.3 + 0.8*sin(0.8*time);

// maximum aberration in number of pixels at uv.x == 0 or 1 (left or right edge)
const float redAberration = 10.0;
const float greenAberration = 0.0;
const float blueAberration = -10.0;

float pctEffect = abs(uv.x - 0.5) * 2.0 / resolution.x;

vec3 aberration = vec3(redAberration * timeFactorR,
greenAberration * timeFactorG,
blueAberration * timeFactorB);
aberration *= pctEffect;

vec3 col;
col.r = texture2D(tex0,vec2(clamp(uv.x+aberration.x, 0.0, 1.0),-uv.y)).x;
col.g = texture2D(tex0,vec2(clamp(uv.x+aberration.y, 0.0, 1.0),-uv.y)).y;
col.b = texture2D(tex0,vec2(clamp(uv.x+aberration.z, 0.0, 1.0),-uv.y)).z;

gl_FragColor = vec4(col,1.0);
}

Just paste it into shadertoy and try out different textures (first slot only), and values for red / green / blue aberration in the shader code, then hit the compile button. if you put the same aberration value for all three, it will just squeeze/stretch the image horizontally. Yeah, there should be some kind of clamping in there, but I'm very rusty on GLSL and quite tired after a long 12 hour day at work coding this neat after effects realtime animation plugin for unity
Edited by RLBURNSIDE - 2/20/13 at 10:43pm
post #52 of 75
First review of the Panamorph CineVista is out, from Andrew Robinson of Home Theater Review:

http://hometheaterreview.com/panamorph-cinevista-anamorphic-lens-reviewed/
post #53 of 75
John (or someone) would you mind confirming something for me? I am going to need to be moving my JVC DLA-X35 into a new, shorter room. I'm planning ahead for getting the CineVista and think I've got my head around what the lens, coupled with the internal projector scaling is doing.

If I understand correctly, as a horizontal expansion anamorphic lens the CineVista is correcting the image that the projector is making when its anamorphic mode is invoked (i.e. the scaling correction carried out in the projector forces the image to make use of the full 1920 x 1080 pixels from the panel but because this is not the original signal AR the image looks thin and stretched). The correction applied by the lens is an optical magnification, working only in the horizontal direction.

This would mean that the "tall skinny" 1920 x 1080 image coming out of the projector lens before it hits the anamorphic lens is horizontally expanded to an effective resolution of 2538 x 1080 pixels (even if no new pixels are created). So the width of the projected image on the screen is 1.32 times wider than it would have been without the anamorphic lens.

I think that's all correct. Now here's my question:

I've got a fairly short throw in the new room - just about 10.5 feet. The wall area I am going to be projecting on is quite wide at about 12 feet.

When I go to the elite projector calculator and plug in my RS45 (the equivalent model to the DLA-X35) it tells me that at maximum zoom with a throw of 10.5 feet I will be projecting an image that is 92" wide (and 39" high for a 2.35 screen). So....if I have the CineVista in front of my DLA-X35 I am assuming that the actual projected width at maximum zoom for a throw of 10.5 feet would be 1.32 x 92" = 121.4 inches, and that this would require a screen height of 51.7" to be a 2.35 AR screen. Is that correct?

Second part of the question - if I am correct above, then given that I could probably then bring down the zoom a bit and still have a respectable width projected image (our seating will be 11.5 feet away), do you have a recommendation for a better zoom factor? I've noticed you've mentioned previously that the sweet spot throw distance for the CineVista is a little longer than what I have in my set up so that's a concern.

Last comment is to confirm this is in a fully light controlled home theater.

Thanks and best wishes,

Dave M
post #54 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave in gva View Post

...This would mean that the "tall skinny" 1920 x 1080 image coming out of the projector lens before it hits the anamorphic lens is horizontally expanded to an effective resolution of 2538 x 1080 pixels (even if no new pixels are created). So the width of the projected image on the screen is 1.32 times wider than it would have been without the anamorphic lens

No, the horizontal resolution is still 1920. Some would claim the vertical resolution is now 1080 (instead of just over 800 when the black bars are still present), but nobody would claim the extra lens adds horizontal resolution.
post #55 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave in gva View Post

John (or someone) would you mind confirming something for me? I am going to need to be moving my JVC DLA-X35 into a new, shorter room. I'm planning ahead for getting the CineVista and think I've got my head around what the lens, coupled with the internal projector scaling is doing.

If I understand correctly, as a horizontal expansion anamorphic lens the CineVista is correcting the image that the projector is making when its anamorphic mode is invoked (i.e. the scaling correction carried out in the projector forces the image to make use of the full 1920 x 1080 pixels from the panel but because this is not the original signal AR the image looks thin and stretched). The correction applied by the lens is an optical magnification, working only in the horizontal direction.

This would mean that the "tall skinny" 1920 x 1080 image coming out of the projector lens before it hits the anamorphic lens is horizontally expanded to an effective resolution of 2538 x 1080 pixels (even if no new pixels are created). So the width of the projected image on the screen is 1.32 times wider than it would have been without the anamorphic lens.

I think that's all correct. Now here's my question:

I've got a fairly short throw in the new room - just about 10.5 feet. The wall area I am going to be projecting on is quite wide at about 12 feet.

When I go to the elite projector calculator and plug in my RS45 (the equivalent model to the DLA-X35) it tells me that at maximum zoom with a throw of 10.5 feet I will be projecting an image that is 92" wide (and 39" high for a 2.35 screen). So....if I have the CineVista in front of my DLA-X35 I am assuming that the actual projected width at maximum zoom for a throw of 10.5 feet would be 1.32 x 92" = 121.4 inches, and that this would require a screen height of 51.7" to be a 2.35 AR screen. Is that correct?

Second part of the question - if I am correct above, then given that I could probably then bring down the zoom a bit and still have a respectable width projected image (our seating will be 11.5 feet away), do you have a recommendation for a better zoom factor? I've noticed you've mentioned previously that the sweet spot throw distance for the CineVista is a little longer than what I have in my set up so that's a concern.

Last comment is to confirm this is in a fully light controlled home theater.

Thanks and best wishes,

Dave M

Hello Dave -

Based upon your throw distance (10.5' if I understand you correctly), the ideal screen dimension for the CineVista would be about 3X the screen height in relation to throw distance to minimize pincushion. That equates to a screen about 42" tall, or about 42" x 100" for a 2.35:1 screen. You can decrease the height to distance ratio to about 2.5x if you want a larger screen, but you will have a bit more pincushion as a result (but still within the realm of what most people would consider acceptable). Using 2.5X screen height as your throw ratio will allow you to use a screen 50" x 120". At the shorter throw ratio we would recommend a 2.40:1 screen, since short throw ratios create a slightly wider aspect.
post #56 of 75
FYI, here are the CineVista install specs:

• Range of focal distance from screen to projector: 8 - 18 feet (2.4 to 5.4 meters).

• Ratio of projector throw distance to screen height: 2.5 x screen height minimum installation distance. Optimal installation range of 3 to 3.5 times screen height. It is not recommended to place your projector further back than a throw ratio of 4.5 times screen height.

• Recommended projector mount: Chief Mount or the Omnimount 3N1-PJT

• The CineVista is designed to be used in a fixed configuration, where the lens remains in front of the projector at all times. (In our view, the best way to think of this is that a fixed lens changes the projector from 16:9 native to 2.35:1 native.) Changes in aspect ratio are handled by simply changing the scaling mode using the projector’s remote (anamorphic stretch for 2.35:1 material, 4:3 mode for 16:9 material). The CineVista can be also be removed for 16:9 material if desired.
post #57 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

...The CineVista is designed to be used in a fixed configuration, where the lens remains in front of the projector at all times. (In our view, the best way to think of this is that a fixed lens changes the projector from 16:9 native to 2.35:1 native.) Changes in aspect ratio are handled by simply changing the scaling mode using the projector’s remote (anamorphic stretch for 2.35:1 material, 4:3 mode for 16:9 material). The CineVista can be also be removed for 16:9 material if desired.

Odd advice. If you don't remove it for 16:9 and just shrink the image, then you're throwing away real resolution. Plus you introduce the dreaded grey (because they are now projected) bars at the sides of 16:9 material that you didn't have before on a scope screen. Kind of an admission that it's purely a convenience feature and nothing to do with image quality.
post #58 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriktsemaj99 View Post

Odd advice. If you don't remove it for 16:9 and just shrink the image, then you're throwing away real resolution. Plus you introduce the dreaded grey (because they are now projected) bars at the sides of 16:9 material that you didn't have before on a scope screen. Kind of an admission that it's purely a convenience feature and nothing to do with image quality.

+1
post #59 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Hello Dave -

Based upon your throw distance (10.5' if I understand you correctly), the ideal screen dimension for the CineVista would be about 3X the screen height in relation to throw distance to minimize pincushion. That equates to a screen about 42" tall, or about 42" x 100" for a 2.35:1 screen. You can decrease the height to distance ratio to about 2.5x if you want a larger screen, but you will have a bit more pincushion as a result (but still within the realm of what most people would consider acceptable). Using 2.5X screen height as your throw ratio will allow you to use a screen 50" x 120". At the shorter throw ratio we would recommend a 2.40:1 screen, since short throw ratios create a slightly wider aspect.

Thanks John, that's very helpful. Maybe I wasn't clear but one thing I want to understand in advance is what zoom setting I will be working at on my projector.

So if I am wanting to fill the entire width of a 100" screen the projector calculator I linked to before shows me that for my JVC RS45 projector even at maximum zoom I would need a minimum throw distance of 11 feet 5" to project 100" wide. I don't have that in my room. BUT....if I understand correctly to fill a 100" wide screen with the CineVista attached I only need my projector to be projecting an image that would be 100/1.32 = 75.8" wide, and the CineVista will horizontally expand that image left and right to give me the full 100" desired.

So basically my question is, when I am plonking in numbers into the projector calculator to try and plan for a 100" wide final image, do I specify 100" projected (in which case it wont work in my room), or 75.8" (in which case it will).

Hope that's clear and thanks again for your help,

Dave M
post #60 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave in gva View Post

Thanks John, that's very helpful. Maybe I wasn't clear but one thing I want to understand in advance is what zoom setting I will be working at on my projector.

So if I am wanting to fill the entire width of a 100" screen the projector calculator I linked to before shows me that for my JVC RS45 projector even at maximum zoom I would need a minimum throw distance of 11 feet 5" to project 100" wide. I don't have that in my room. BUT....if I understand correctly to fill a 100" wide screen with the CineVista attached I only need my projector to be projecting an image that would be 100/1.32 = 75.8" wide, and the CineVista will horizontally expand that image left and right to give me the full 100" desired.

So basically my question is, when I am plonking in numbers into the projector calculator to try and plan for a 100" wide final image, do I specify 100" projected (in which case it wont work in my room), or 75.8" (in which case it will).

Hope that's clear and thanks again for your help,

Dave M

Sorry if I misunderstood. Yes, the CineVista (or our UH480 and DC1) work by horizontally expanding the image by 33% (not 32%, but close enough). So you simply take the 16:9 width and multiply by 133% to get your 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen width. Yes, that means if you want a 100" wide 2.35:1 image, your 16:9 image should be about 76" wide. The 76" measurement is the only one you need to worry about when calculating the throw for that particular projector.

I hope that makes sense smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Thinking of Changing to 2.35:1? Now May Be the Time - Panamorph