or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content? - Page 4

Poll Results: Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Movies?

 
  • 27% (51)
    Anamorphic lens
  • 53% (98)
    Lens memories
  • 19% (35)
    Neither; I'm happy with 16:9 and letterbox bars
184 Total Votes  
post #91 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

LCOS is less sharp or has lower MTF not only from the technology itself but, in the case of less expensive projectors, lower quality optics. Because of this along with the higher lumens does make the higher end 3chip DLP units better able to maximize the effect of the A lens and to better utilize it's advantages.

Art

makes sense. guess I've been looking at them all wrong this whole time. thinking that at a certain level of performance, a projector wouldn't 'need' an a-lens to maintain brightness and resolution. and if i'd already hit that level with an entry model jvc, then there was no more need(why would somebody spend 2k on a lens for a 1k projector when less than 3k would get them a projector good enough to not need the lens at all). I can accept that you need to get into a higher class of projector for an a-lens to show it's benefits.

i'm still going to question the guys using them on 2k projectors though tongue.gif

thanks
post #92 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I don't know what copy you have of Life of Pi, but my BD copy is 16:9 throughout the entire film.

Dark Knight was designed to be also shown entirely in Scope, and was done so in most cinemas throughout the world. The 16:9 portions have the important information centred on the screen, so when you display it in Scope you don't crop heads etc....

Mind you I would hate to watch it without an "A" lens, if it was zoomed up to Scope all the 16:9 portions would be all over the walls on most projectors. Thank God for "A" lenses!biggrin.gif

that was kind of my point. when zoomed, I love scope stuff. I still get 100% detail, and the black bars are more than black enough to disappear on the dark wall. but if something other than black pops up, well obviously i'd see that. and seeing 'extra' content off screen would totally take me out of the movie. so the only option I have is to watch the movie letterboxed on a 16:9 screen. this isn't a big deal for me right now because I have a 16:9 screen. but after getting the jvc, and seeing how easy and awesome the lens memory feature is, I really want my next screen to be scope and fully commit to the CIH lifestyle, haha.

I just hope directors don't follow suit, cause it's be a REAL shame trying to watch one of these movies on a scope screen, with blacks bars top/bottom AND on the sides for the majority of the film.

on the flip side, i'm thinking back to the life of pi movie, and since 99% of it was 16:9, it's not a huge deal anyway, but if it was scope format the whole way through, but still used that 'off the screen' effect for the flying fish, it might actually be really cool watching the fish jump onto my wall off the screen. probably wouldn't work so well since the fish would get super dark, but it kind of reminds me of that projector/tv combo effect xbox(I think) tried a while back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1EatGRV0w
post #93 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

that was kind of my point. when zoomed, I love scope stuff. I still get 100% detail, and the black bars are more than black enough to disappear on the dark wall. but if something other than black pops up, well obviously i'd see that. and seeing 'extra' content off screen would totally take me out of the movie. so the only option I have is to watch the movie letterboxed on a 16:9 screen. this isn't a big deal for me right now because I have a 16:9 screen. but after getting the jvc, and seeing how easy and awesome the lens memory feature is, I really want my next screen to be scope and fully commit to the CIH lifestyle, haha.

I just hope directors don't follow suit, cause it's be a REAL shame trying to watch one of these movies on a scope screen, with blacks bars top/bottom AND on the sides for the majority of the film.

on the flip side, i'm thinking back to the life of pi movie, and since 99% of it was 16:9, it's not a huge deal anyway, but if it was scope format the whole way through, but still used that 'off the screen' effect for the flying fish, it might actually be really cool watching the fish jump onto my wall off the screen. probably wouldn't work so well since the fish would get super dark, but it kind of reminds me of that projector/tv combo effect xbox(I think) tried a while back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1EatGRV0w

That's the great thing about "good" "A" lenses, you have NO overspill above and below the screen as the whole panel of the projector is being used. Clean clean all the way round the screen and that's exactly the way I like it.

We progress to these things....
We don't usually start this hobby with an "A" lens, we gradually progress to it as we move on in the hobby and discover through trial and error what better way there is to do it.....

I don't think there are too many people out there who just bought an "A" lens because the could afford it, usually like me they had read heaps and experimented first.
post #94 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

That's the great thing about "good" "A" lenses, you have NO overspill above and below the screen as the whole panel of the projector is being used. Clean clean all the way round the screen and that's exactly the way I like it.

We progress to these things....
We don't usually start this hobby with an "A" lens, we gradually progress to it as we move on in the hobby and discover through trial and error what better way there is to do it.....

I don't think there are too many people out there who just bought an "A" lens because the could afford it, usually like me they had read heaps and experimented first.

well, I don't have any 'spill' as long as there's nothing but black in the letterbox bars. so that's not something I need to fix. as long as your projector can produce good blacks, it's a non-issue.

you'll have to forgive me and my skepticism, you must understand that this hobby as a whole has a LOT of snake oil. whether it's crazy cables, or supra-aural speakers, or whatever. there's a lot more fluff out there than substance. this has taught me to always test things personally before I believe they are superior and from my experience they rarely are. it does appear that a-lens do have their place, but i'm not going to create problems that aren't present with zooming just to justify using one. I've been in the 'hobby' long enough to know about progression. but I've always been around long enough to reach a point my progression is to move on to something else. for example, I haven't bought new speakers in over 10yrs. I reached my 'good enough' point and started working on other weak areas of my system instead. maybe if I go with a bigger and better screen, but for now my jvc is 'good enough' and I don't think an a-lens would help it.
post #95 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

well, I don't have any 'spill' as long as there's nothing but black in the letterbox bars. so that's not something I need to fix. as long as your projector can produce good blacks, it's a non-issue.

you'll have to forgive me and my skepticism, you must understand that this hobby as a whole has a LOT of snake oil. whether it's crazy cables, or supra-aural speakers, or whatever. there's a lot more fluff out there than substance. this has taught me to always test things personally before I believe they are superior and from my experience they rarely are. it does appear that a-lens do have their place, but i'm not going to create problems that aren't present with zooming just to justify using one. I've been in the 'hobby' long enough to know about progression. but I've always been around long enough to reach a point my progression is to move on to something else. for example, I haven't bought new speakers in over 10yrs. I reached my 'good enough' point and started working on other weak areas of my system instead. maybe if I go with a bigger and better screen, but for now my jvc is 'good enough' and I don't think an a-lens would help it.

So you don't have 16:9 menus that spill over your zoomed image? rolleyes.gif

No one here is trying to convince you on anything, that's not what the thread is about, if you like zooming good on you, that's great!

Great that you also test things before you believe in them, but its obvious you haven't done so with anamorphic lenses so I'm not sure you are qualified to comment. I mentioned that I too was once like you, criticized and put down anamorphic projection, changed though after I tested with and without.

I have heaps of friends that are still running 480/720p projectors with low contrast ratios and they think they are incredible. They put down those that spend 15k or so on great projectors with amazing resolutions and blacks, I think they call that the 'tall poppy syndrome"

Different strokes for different folks.rolleyes.gif
post #96 of 145
Essentially fierce_gt I agree with you.

Not that A-lenses are "snake oil" because of course they have tended to serve some very real needs for CIH. But....these days...

Especially if you have the JVC with E-shift (removing any pixel visibility), so long as it goes wide and bright enough from your throw and the lens memory is reliable enough, I think it gets all that much harder to justify the expense (and possible issues) of an A-lens.
post #97 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

So you don't have 16:9 menus that spill over your zoomed image? rolleyes.gif
are we watching movies? if i have 16:9 content, i use 16:9 lens memory setting. if i'm watching scope stuff, then i use that setting. i don't understand why you'd be in the menus at all, and if you are, then it's 16:9. i'm curious, but when you go into these 16:9 menus, do you move the a-lens out of the way, and turn off the anamorphic stretch? i really feel the 'work' involved with either method is about the same. maybe two button clicks.
Quote:
No one here is trying to convince you on anything, that's not what the thread is about, if you like zooming good on you, that's great!

Great that you also test things before you believe in them, but its obvious you haven't done so with anamorphic lenses so I'm not sure you are qualified to comment. I mentioned that I too was once like you, criticized and put down anamorphic projection, changed though after I tested with and without.
i haven't a/b'd in my own home, or on the same projector, but I've seen a-lens before. i happen to like the look of my jvc zoomed, better than that other projector with a-lens. i now it's not apples to apples, but it was dollars to dollars(actually the a-lens setup was about 2k more). maybe it's more than i feel there's so many other things that are more necessary of improvement. i still feel that on the projectors I've had experience with, brightness and pixel structure weren't things that needed to be fixed. and zooming isn't inconvenient either. the a-lens fixes problems i don't have. maybe it's like buying high quality headphones while i'm still listening to mp3's...
Quote:
I have heaps of friends that are still running 480/720p projectors with low contrast ratios and they think they are incredible. They put down those that spend 15k or so on great projectors with amazing resolutions and blacks, I think they call that the 'tall poppy syndrome"

Different strokes for different folks.rolleyes.gif
i am not that guy. in my circle of friends i'm the one that's known to 'overspend' because i have to have 'the best'. i don't think i'm truly deserving of that though, because i hate spending money if there's no substance behind it. i don't like buying into brand names, or because somebody else said it was the best, or simply because it's the most expensive. but i also hate buying crap. there's no bigger waste of money then cheaping out on something. but i suppose we all find our place in the market and think anybody who spends more/less is dumb tongue.gif

i'm just debating some of the 'problems' of zooming with you. if you want to say you need the extra brightness, or you want the extra resolution, i can accept that as your preferences and equipment are different than mine. but i will argue that zooming is precise, accurate, still maintains 100% of the source's detail, is quick and easy, and looks professional. if you've experienced otherwise, chances are that was the quality, not the technique. you wouldn't accept me saying anamorphic is crap because i tried it with a 300 lens i bought off ebay.
post #98 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Fighting over this subject is nuts, its been going on and on for years..........

I agree with this sentiment Murray really is horses for courses, but I'd argue if there was free scope setup as a choice everyone would have one, but there isn't so peoples preference is associated with affordability from there they will make justifications about cost difference is not worth the return.
post #99 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Essentially fierce_gt I agree with you.

Not that A-lenses are "snake oil" because of course they have tended to serve some very real needs for CIH. But....these days...

Especially if you have the JVC with E-shift (removing any pixel visibility), so long as it goes wide and bright enough from your throw and the lens memory is reliable enough, I think it gets all that much harder to justify the expense (and possible issues) of an A-lens.

that's what I've been saying. for non-fixed pixel displays it made a lot of sense. for projectors that were too dim or had less resolution than the source, it made a lot of sense.

the a-lens MADE sense, but with digital projectors i feel a 1:1 pixel mapping is as good as it gets and when i'm viewing blurays on a 1080p projector were really debating upscaling vs native resolution, and I've always liked native better. now if they released scope movies in 'anamorphic' aspects that actually gave you 1920x1080 natively, then i'd consider it the pinnacle of bluray watching.
post #100 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by <^..^>Smokey Joe View Post

I agree with this sentiment Murray really is horses for courses, but I'd argue if there was free scope setup as a choice everyone would have one, but there isn't so peoples preference is associated with affordability from there they will make justifications about cost difference is not worth the return.

Bingo, I agree 100%!
post #101 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

are we watching movies? if i have 16:9 content, i use 16:9 lens memory setting. if i'm watching scope stuff, then i use that setting. i don't understand why you'd be in the menus at all, and if you are, then it's 16:9. i'm curious, but when you go into these 16:9 menus, do you move the a-lens out of the way, and turn off the anamorphic stretch? i really feel the 'work' involved with either method is about the same. maybe two button clicks


i haven't a/b'd in my own home, or on the same projector, but I've seen a-lens before. i happen to like the look of my jvc zoomed, better than that other projector with a-lens. i now it's not apples to apples, but it was dollars to dollars(actually the a-lens setup was about 2k more). maybe it's more than i feel there's so many other things that are more necessary of improvement. i still feel that on the projectors I've had experience with, brightness and pixel structure weren't things that needed to be fixed. and zooming isn't inconvenient either. the a-lens fixes problems i don't have. maybe it's like buying high quality headphones while i'm still listening to mp3's...
i am not that guy. in my circle of friends i'm the one that's known to 'overspend' because i have to have 'the best'. i don't think i'm truly deserving of that though, because i hate spending money if there's no substance behind it. i don't like buying into brand names, or because somebody else said it was the best, or simply because it's the most expensive. but i also hate buying crap. there's no bigger waste of money then cheaping out on something. but i suppose we all find our place in the market and think anybody who spends more/less is dumb tongue.gif

i'm just debating some of the 'problems' of zooming with you. if you want to say you need the extra brightness, or you want the extra resolution, i can accept that as your preferences and equipment are different than mine. but i will argue that zooming is precise, accurate, still maintains 100% of the source's detail, is quick and easy, and looks professional. if you've experienced otherwise, chances are that was the quality, not the technique. you wouldn't accept me saying anamorphic is crap because i tried it with a 300 lens i bought off ebay.

I don't have any menus, logos, trailers etc etc as I don't use a BD player. I transfer all my BDs I buy onto the Nas, this removes all that stuff at the front. If I change ratios one button press on my ipad moves the lens slide in or out of the way, the Lumagen does the correct stretch and the masking moves to the appropriate present position. 3 secs.

A JVC will do zoom memory better than some other projectors which don't have a memory. I have the JVC X95 and have tested the zoom memory, still my Schneider M lens does it better for me. The industry is full of Snake Oil, anamorphic lenses are not!

If one has a small screen zooming is fine. I have an acoustic screen, I need as much light as you can get. My screen is 145" again you need a small pixel structure and all the light you can get, an "A" lens certainly improves my cinema experience over the X95 zoom memory.

If I only had 2K to buy an "A" lens I would zoom any day, the result would be better.

Good "A" lenses are expensive, they are not right for everyone and certainly not the average guy on the street.

I sell projectors to the public, never "A" lenses though, most don't know what they are or even care....
Edited by RapalloAV - 10/14/13 at 10:05pm
post #102 of 145
Rapallo,

I believe I read your review of your time with the Sony 4K projector a while back. I enjoyed your review! You didn't keep it I guess?

If you had that projector would you still use an A-lens for the professional-approach you are used to?
post #103 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by <^..^>Smokey Joe View Post

I agree with this sentiment Murray really is horses for courses, but I'd argue if there was free scope setup as a choice everyone would have one, but there isn't so peoples preference is associated with affordability from there they will make justifications about cost difference is not worth the return.

Welll...I have a wonderful A-lens system but I'm using it mostly because I need a bit more image width for my throw. (My JVC's zoom range doesn't quite fill my screen at it's largest, so I use the A-lens when viewing scope films in the largest image setting). If I had the Sony 4K 1000ES projector, I wouldn't use my A-lens anymore as it would be easily bright enough and could also fill my screen via zoom method. (In fact if my JVC filled the screen I probably wouldn't use the A-lens).
post #104 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Rapallo,

I believe I read your review of your time with the Sony 4K projector a while back. I enjoyed your review! You didn't keep it I guess?

If you had that projector would you still use an A-lens for the professional-approach you are used to?

Hi Rich,

I never wrote a review on the Sony VW1000 sorry to say. I cant use one in my projection area as it wont fit with my Schneider in front of it, its a huge projector.
Many have tested a number of lenses with the 1000 with good results, but the Sony lens is recessed somewhat so you do need an "A" lens with large elements.
The Sony would fit for me if I didn't use the lens, but the type of presentations I do would be dramatically different and that's not the path I want to follow......

I have measured the new much smaller "new" 4K Sony and it would fit in my space with an "A" lens in front, but I feel I just may hold off for another year until the 4K thing is resolved.

I am however considering upgrading my JVC X95 to its replacement where I know I have no issues with using my lens.
post #105 of 145
Whoops, obviously I got mixed up there.

I'm in a similar position to you, Murray. I've been contemplating an upgrade to the new Sony 4K 500ES or a new JVC. I know the Panamorph UH480 lens has been used successfully with the larger 1000ES and passed 4K content fine (Cine4home tested this), but I'm wondering if the recessed lens of the Sony would make it more difficult to set up with my automated lens sled. (The smaller 500ES doesn't have quite the zoom range as the bigger 1000ES, so I'd still want to employ my A-lens some times). Or...I stick with upgrading JVC knowing it will work in my set up. Interesting times.
post #106 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Whoops, obviously I got mixed up there.

I'm in a similar position to you, Murray. I've been contemplating an upgrade to the new Sony 4K 500ES or a new JVC. I know the Panamorph UH480 lens has been used successfully with the larger 1000ES and passed 4K content fine (Cine4home tested this), but I'm wondering if the recessed lens of the Sony would make it more difficult to set up with my automated lens sled. (The smaller 500ES doesn't have quite the zoom range as the bigger 1000ES, so I'd still want to employ my A-lens some times). Or...I stick with upgrading JVC knowing it will work in my set up. Interesting times.

Yes Rich you are right, it is a problem with the recessed lens on both Sonys. If one was to leave the lens in place for all ratios it would be fine (many do) but that's not for me, I want to use my cineslide.

For now I think I stay with the new JVC for the next year and see what they bring to the table in a year or two. Im sure JVC will be more competitive over Sony when they do get their 4K act together....
post #107 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post


True ,except this is exactly what Scott must have had in mind (or would have known would happen)when he started the thread.

Art

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Yes I wonder what his thoughts are on the subject!
Funny how some start controversial threads on this forum and never come back. cool.gif


Art is correct, I wanted to stimulate a lively debate on the subject. In fact, that is my motivation for all of my polls. And while I generally don't weigh in on the polls, I come back often to read the debate. I applaud everyone who has endeavored to keep the discussion civil!

post #108 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Whoops, obviously I got mixed up there.

I'm in a similar position to you, Murray. I've been contemplating an upgrade to the new Sony 4K 500ES or a new JVC. I know the Panamorph UH480 lens has been used successfully with the larger 1000ES and passed 4K content fine (Cine4home tested this), but I'm wondering if the recessed lens of the Sony would make it more difficult to set up with my automated lens sled. (The smaller 500ES doesn't have quite the zoom range as the bigger 1000ES, so I'd still want to employ my A-lens some times). Or...I stick with upgrading JVC knowing it will work in my set up. Interesting times.

Hello Rich!

Just wanted to fill everyone in on your automated question. We have done many of our automated systems with the 1000ES projector from Sony. The recessed lens makes it a little challenging nothing our DC1 or UH480 can't handle. If I remember correctly, the DC1 or UH480 will work down to a 1.7/1.6 throw ratio with our automated transport when paired with the Sony 1000/1100ES.

You bring up an interesting point with throw ratios. We have seen come instances where the projector is placed too close or too far back and the zoom method won't work. In this instance, the projector can zoom out to fill the width of your 2.35:1 screen but can't zoom back in to fill the height for 16:9. This is where our (FVX200) vertical compression works great. The other issue is being to short like in your case where the lens brings the image out slightly wider than the zoom method.
post #109 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by russelliht View Post

Hello Rich!

Just wanted to fill everyone in on your automated question. We have done many of our automated systems with the 1000ES projector from Sony. The recessed lens makes it a little challenging nothing our DC1 or UH480 can't handle. If I remember correctly, the DC1 or UH480 will work down to a 1.7/1.6 throw ratio with our automated transport when paired with the Sony 1000/1100ES.

You bring up an interesting point with throw ratios. We have seen come instances where the projector is placed too close or too far back and the zoom method won't work. In this instance, the projector can zoom out to fill the width of your 2.35:1 screen but can't zoom back in to fill the height for 16:9. This is where our (FVX200) vertical compression works great. The other issue is being to short like in your case where the lens brings the image out slightly wider than the zoom method.

That's great, thanks for bringing that info!
I believe with my JVC I'm just under a 1.8 throw ratio. I think it would be similar with the Sony.

I also want to give another thumbs up to Panamorph, who have been great to deal with - very helpful! - in terms of communicating and advising me about employing my UH480 lens/sled.
post #110 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's great, thanks for bringing that info!
I believe with my JVC I'm just under a 1.8 throw ratio. I think it would be similar with the Sony.

I also want to give another thumbs up to Panamorph, who have been great to deal with - very helpful! - in terms of communicating and advising me about employing my UH480 lens/sled.

Good stuff Rich so it looks like it might work ok for you. I see a Sony in the wings for you. rolleyes.gif
post #111 of 145
I will take the option that doesn't require spending more money.
post #112 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepyourgameup View Post

I will take the option that doesn't require spending more money.

I have yet to find that one.
post #113 of 145
I have always used the zoom method. My challenge is in my latest theater I have 100% light control. So even on my flat black wall I can still see the over shoot areas above and below the screen on very dark scenes and when the credits roll. I have an AE 4000 which I love and the auto switch between aspect ratios is cool so I don't want to change PJs.
For 6:9 movies and the Dark Knight series I have a 120" screen that drops down in front of my 2.35:1 screen.

I'm going to try putting velvet on the wall above and below the 2.35 screen to see if that helps.
post #114 of 145
I'm looking for a new projector, and this thread has re-inspired me to go with a 2.35:1 screen using the Zoom method. I was gravitating towards the new Epson 5030, but it doesn't have a zoom memory feature. I know there's the Panasonic AE8000, but I'm not really sure what else has that feature. What are some other projectors with good Zoom memory I should be looking at in the ~$3000 category?
post #115 of 145
Zoom a zoom zoom, zoom a zoom zoom zoom and a boom boom.

JVC HD250 110" 2.35:1

The overspill doesn't really bother me at all. I have a "charcoal gray" wall that does a pretty good job of hiding it. What annoys me is the white pillars when I'm watching 16:9 content. One of these days i'll mask it off. That's been on the todo list for a while, so I guess it can't be bothering me that much. rolleyes.gif

-- jaydillyo
post #116 of 145
Can someone explain to me what's the point of the anamorphic lens? I mean, yes I understand that with the zoom mehod you lose some lumens, fair enought. But people claim tha you get more resolution with an anamorphic lens. The sales rep from panamorph said in CEDIA that you're not really getting 1080p without anamorphic lens, you're actually getting "only" 810p (it's on youtube). Excuse me, what isn't that the resolution tha the movie is encoded in on the Blu-ray Disc anyway? The rest is encoded black bars. You're not adding any pixels with an anamorphic lens, it a the exact same source. So what's the point?
post #117 of 145
As someone who has recently done several 2.35:1 Painted Screens paired with the Panny 8000, I can attest to both the value and performance of that choice. I've used 'Morph' lenses and in no way do they amount to being worth the trouble, and certainly not the additional expense. Only if you "MUST" convert a high end 16:9 Projector to CIH screen can they be remotely justified
(....can you guess how I voted? wink.gif )

All those projects have been at minimum 119" diagonal and above, on surfaces ranging from Poly Acrylic sheets, Spandex, painted Drywall, Matte White FlexiWhite screen material (painted upon) , and expanded PVC sheeting.

Currently I'm finishing up a 145" diagonal Drywall Screen @ 2.39:1.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1491489/another-2-35-1-silver-fire-on-drywall-project-taking-off

All my efforts combine with the use of a Darbee Darblet, which sharpens the Panny's image and provides a noticeable contrast boost. The Darbee is the answer to the Panny's Smooth Screen tech which many feel softens the image.
http://shop.avscience.com/DarbeeVision--Darblet-DVP5000_p_351.html

Here are some examples:





post #118 of 145
16:9 for me :-) - with a light controlled room, black ceiling and screen wall, and a screen that is big enough in my room size to feel like i am part of the film and i am all set - plus i want my kids to be able to turn on the system and not worry about lenses or zooms and i figure that there will be more movies that use multiple aspects and that would annoy me to no end seeing a film image overflow on to my wall....
post #119 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

As someone who has recently done several 2.35:1 Painted Screens paired with the Panny 8000, I can attest to both the value and performance of that choice. I've used 'Morph' lenses and in no way do they amount to being worth the trouble, and certainly not the additional expense. Only if you "MUST" convert a high end 16:9 Projector to CIH screen can they be remotely justified
(....can you guess how I voted? wink.gif )

All those projects have been at minimum 119" diagonal and above, on surfaces ranging from Poly Acrylic sheets, Spandex, painted Drywall, Matte White FlexiWhite screen material (painted upon) , and expanded PVC sheeting.

Currently I'm finishing up a 145" diagonal Drywall Screen @ 2.39:1.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1491489/another-2-35-1-silver-fire-on-drywall-project-taking-off

All my efforts combine with the use of a Darbee Darblet, which sharpens the Panny's image and provides a noticeable contrast boost. The Darbee is the answer to the Panny's Smooth Screen tech which many feel softens the image.
http://shop.avscience.com/DarbeeVision--Darblet-DVP5000_p_351.html

Here are some examples:






Wow... This really makes me lean towards the Panasonic 8000 in favor of the Epson 5030. It looks so tremendous! I consider a 140 inch 2.35:1 screen which will make it a 112 screen for 16:9, pretty good setup I think for a 4 meters distance viewing. Will the panasonic have enough juice to light up the 140" screen? It's almost 150 inch in 16:9 ratios. I'm doing this in my living room with a tensioned Grandview screen, 1.1 gain.

Any tips would be appreciated. For example, will the Darbee really be that big of an improvement? I have an Onkyo 818 which has some nice video processing as well, but am willing to add up the Darbee if it's noticable and doesn't add up too much lag time.

Thanks.
post #120 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Wow... This really makes me lean towards the Panasonic 8000 in favor of the Epson 5030. It looks so tremendous! I consider a 140 inch 2.35:1 screen which will make it a 112 screen for 16:9, pretty good setup I think for a 4 meters distance viewing. Will the panasonic have enough juice to light up the 140" screen? It's almost 150 inch in 16:9 ratios. I'm doing this in my living room with a tensioned Grandview screen, 1.1 gain.

Any tips would be appreciated. For example, will the Darbee really be that big of an improvement? I have an Onkyo 818 which has some nice video processing as well, but am willing to add up the Darbee if it's noticable and doesn't add up too much lag time.

Thanks.

The Darbee does help, but the Panny is not bright enough in "best mode" to light up a 140" scope screen. You will have to use one of the brighter settings at the expense of more accurate color.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Do You Prefer an Anamorphic Lens or Lens Memories for 2.35:1 Content?