or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Why not a native 2.35 projector?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why not a native 2.35 projector? - Page 2

post #31 of 127
I'm still waiting for a 2:1 projector so I can run constant area -- 16:9 using the entire panel vertically, or 2:35:1 using the entire panel horizontally -- without zooming. Guess I'm probably gonna have to wait a long time
post #32 of 127
Yep and in the meantime we will continue to enjoy CIH...

Mark
post #33 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeli662 View Post

I found this interesting article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen

I wrote its section on anamorphic lens for DVDs and also drew the picture.
post #34 of 127
whoever started this thread was a genius! im having the same thoughts but over a year later. in the CE world that's like a century. anyway, a native 2.35:1 pj really is the solution. does anyone out there have an idea about what percentage of dvd's are 2.35:1? it seems to me like over 50%! ive noticed most animated movies are 16:9, and some not-so-action movies are as well, and also 1.85:1. but especially when you get into the action genre (which i love), it is saturated w/ 2.35:1.

so lets say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of movies are 2.35:1, then its a no brainer that that should be the native aspect ratio of your display. especially w/ my setup, the area that is available for a screen is much wider than tall. id even estimate the area (a wall at the end of a basement) as having an aspect ratio near 2.35:1. so when watching narrower content on my imaginary 2.35:1 pj & screen, i wouldnt be losing a thing to a setup dedicated to those aspect ratios! my image size would be just as big (tall) as it would have been with a 16:9 screen & pj!

yeah, i hear ya, "youd be losing brightness". sure, its true. also, unless elaborate masking were employed, the entire presentation would suffer. but we're talking about the minority of the time, and id be willing to put up with those two MINOR things. well, im in a basement, so ive got light control up the wazoo. maybe id be more obsessed w/ brightness if the pj were upstairs. but they are pretty darn bright these days, w/ a plethora of (pricy) screens available to brighten up the image and reduce reflection of ambient light.

also, if my screen area had a taller composition to it, i might be singing a different tune. in addition, i dont watch too much tv. for tv watchers, its all about 16:9 hd. i just think theres a huge market for native 2.35:1 pjs. i started a similar thread on eggxpert: http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/39790.aspx

one more thing, whoever was talking about having lenses on pjs back there is crazy. to support their point, people were comparing our home theaters to commercial theaters. ridiculous! i dont have that kind of cash! id never buy a lense for my pj, id live w/ the smaller 2.35:1 image first. those things are expensive! sure, movie theaters may always use them, but then again, movie theaters have customer expections to meet. no matter what aspect ratio they are presenting, it should be shown at its absolute best. in order to do that simply, theyd need a projector for each aspect ratio. absurd. instead they use lenses. now tell me, are any of you out there such perfectionists that you must have individual add-on lenses so that your pj always presents its content optimally, using every pixel and square mm of the chip? you people are crazy, and good luck when your kids need money for school.

instead, i move to develop a more practical method. pick a pj with a given aspect ratio, chosen b/c it represents the majority of content that you view, and stick with it. of course, the screen's AR matches the pj's native AR. now take the bad w/ the good, and the good will be great when your favorite aspect ratio comes along. for me, right now, im happiest when watching ice age, and i frown at lord of the rings, b/c the overall image is smaller.

the above method is what most pj users employ today, except they don't get to pick the aspect ratio, b/c the only (viable) option is freaking 16:9! and when observing dvds' ARs, 16:9 is far too rare! and 2.35:1 far to prevalent! i love the wide picture, except that it costs me 24% of my screen size! hey, i have fptv system for a reason! i want a huge picture! aahhhhh! cmon, infocus! focus on whats the best, most of the time! aaaahhhhhhh!
post #35 of 127
i shouldnt have yelled at infocus, if i hadnt been in the middle of a temper-tantrum, id have directed my misgiving towards texas instruments, and also all the lcd manufacturers. gee whiz, it seems like itd be a breeze for those lcd people to whip up a 2.35:1 system. prolly wouldnt be much more expensive either, although hopefully there would be a little more resolution to pay for. 1692x720, anybody??? might as well, itd work for scaling current dvds, and be real nice (i imagine) for cutting edge hd-dvds & blu-rays.

can someone answer this: are current "2.35:1" dvds truly 2.35:1, or 2.40:1?
post #36 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockton86 View Post

can someone answer this: are current "2.35:1" dvds truly 2.35:1, or 2.40:1?


They vary...

Mark
post #37 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Do you have a link? 2.6:1???

Now why would they make it 1000 and not go with the HD standard of 1080?

Mark

I thought the same thing, so wonder if it would really be 2600 x 1080 which is 2.4:1.

Gary
post #38 of 127
i'd love to see the 2.35:1 FP as well...

although, i'm not sure i would want to give up any brightness using a constant height setup

and is it just me, or does anyone else think that these lenses added on the front of these FP's are the ugliest thing ever?

my FP will hang right over my viewing area, and my ceiling is only 8' high
post #39 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhitmore View Post

although, i'm not sure i would want to give up any brightness using a constant height setup


mr. whitmore, im an amateur when it comes to fp and CIH and anamorphic lenses and stuff. so could you please explain what you meant here?

thanks
post #40 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhitmore View Post

it just me, or does anyone else think that these lenses added on the front of these FP's are the ugliest thing ever?

Must be you

I think an anamorphic lens looks cool in front of a projector, but that is just me

Mark
post #41 of 127
I see no disadvantage with going to a 2.35:1 pj. 1080 by 2538 native resolution would sure be nice especially if we could get a source that was that rez.

IMHO 16:9 HD discs should be 1080 by 1920 and 2.35:1 discs should be encoded as 1080 by 2538 but thats just a pipe dream I'm sure.

Mr. Puff
post #42 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockton86 View Post

mr. whitmore, im an amateur when it comes to fp and CIH and anamorphic lenses and stuff. so could you please explain what you meant here?

thanks

jared

i'm an amateur too...

i thought i read somewhere that as you pass the picture through a lens you can lose some brightness...upon further review i could be dead wrong

this CIH stuff takes some time to figure out i guess...

brad
post #43 of 127
I measured approximately a 2% drop when moving the Prismasonic lens in front of my pj. The lens was in pass through mode, so the before and after image was still 16:9. You will of course reduce the reflectance when in 2.35:1 because you're spreading the light over a 33% larger image.
post #44 of 127
Newbie here too. When you move the lense out of the way for 1.78:1 movies, the projected image will still fit height-wise, but just have the bars on the sides correct? Are side curtains to cover that up pretty easy to construct?
post #45 of 127
That's correct.

I used an ordinary curtain track and my girlfriend made some black velvet curtains which which work perfectly. The only difference between these curtains and any other curtains is that she made provision for a small piece of wood to be slide down the leading edge of the curtains so that there was a nice hard edge against the projected image.

Gary
post #46 of 127
Gary,

Cool idea so long as it hangs straight

Mark
post #47 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Gary,

Cool idea so long as it hangs straight

Mark


That is what Hem weights are for! You can also use various stiffening products in the very edge of the side hem to give you a very straight stiff edge.
post #48 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Gary,

Cool idea so long as it hangs straight

Mark

Well it's a very cheap and simple system that needs a little tweaking when you pull the curtains across so that the edge is vertical against the projected image (it's nice and straight). Since it's a single adjustment before I start the movie, it's no big deal to do.

If I were to do something automated, I would have to do something different with the bottom edge since it wouldn't hang vertical enough without a little adjustment.

Gary
post #49 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall View Post

That is what Hem weights are for! You can also use various stiffening products in the very edge of the side hem to give you a very straight stiff edge.

Good to have a well informed lady on board that know's all these things

Mark
post #50 of 127
Quote:
1080 by 2538 native resolution would sure be nice especially if we could get a source that was that rez.

You already upscale the 800 lines of horizontal to 1080, so horizontal strecthing to 2538 (2600) is not a big deal.

I don't think you need to call a 2600x1080 projector a native 2.4 projector or such... It is native for 1920x1080 in the vertical sense. Not using the extra width is not a big deal IMO. Getting rid of the degradation of the anamorphic lens would be a huge advantage. I already own an ISCO 3, so its not money that motivates me but increased quality.
post #51 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximumPuffer View Post

I see no disadvantage with going to a 2.35:1 pj. 1080 by 2538 native resolution would sure be nice especially if we could get a source that was that rez.

IMHO 16:9 HD discs should be 1080 by 1920 and 2.35:1 discs should be encoded as 1080 by 2538 but thats just a pipe dream I'm sure.

Mr. Puff

Actually I would prefer if the discs were 1920 x 1080 with the image horizontally squeezed...

Mark
post #52 of 127
Well yes, that would be better of course!! If you can get Hollywood to do that.... At that point I would like the projector to have an anamorphic lens at the stop position (to remove the degradation from multiple lenses).
post #53 of 127
If the ISCO III is dialed in correctly, your only restrictions would the primary lens of the projector...

Mark
post #54 of 127
Hi,

Fascinating thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Actually I would prefer if the discs were 1920 x 1080 with the image horizontally squeezed...

Mark

I second this opinion particularly with the fact that as HD-DVD/BR discs are already here with their 1920*1080p24 (cinema like ) encoding, why add something else to this present reality.

Now concerning the native resolution I would vote for a 2560*1080 as this "simply" gives a 1.3333 linear expansion ratio for all the formats (sorry for the maths):

4/3 -> (4/3 *1.3333) = 16/9 = 1920/1080 -> (16/9*1.3333) = (1920/1080*1.3333) = 2560/1080

With this 2560*1080 type of native resolution there would be just one single, and already known, scaling progression. Old/proven/cheap algorithms could be immediately used.

Seems natural, no? So when do we start the push?

Hugo
post #55 of 127
Now, start all kinds of threads and have everyone email Sony, JVC and lots of manufacturers... They need to deliver 2.35 products in general, of course, Hollywood should do anamorphic 2.35 movies!!! so we can get full vertical resolution....
post #56 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post


Now concerning the native resolution I would vote for a 2560*1080 as this "simply" gives a 1.3333 linear expansion ratio for all the formats (sorry for the maths):

4/3 -> (4/3 *1.3333) = 16/9 = 1920/1080 -> (16/9*1.3333) = (1920/1080*1.3333) = 2560/1080

No need for apologies, your maths are good

Mark
post #57 of 127
Maybe that's why my Dell monitor is 2560 x 1600...

Not sure why they picked 1600 off the top of my head, but maybe that is just the proper aspect for 1.78 ... I cannot do simple math today. Too busy...
post #58 of 127
2560 / 1600 = 1.6

Note sure why either...

Mark
post #59 of 127
Yea, I never thought if it before, strange:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...9&sku=222-7175

I'll tell you though, I could not go back to another lesser monitor after using it!!! Love it as a computer monitor... 8800GTX and this monitor are a nice combo...
post #60 of 127
Hi,

In my opinion another decisive bonus for a 2560*1080 native resolution would be to clearly identify FPs as multipurpose, but cinema-bound products.

As where those new huge plasmas/LCDs/RP would clearly be TV type-bound products, as one can't even imagine a 2.35 format "monster" plasma/LCD/RP.

Now let's have a dream: 2.35 format LCOS/tri DLP laser projection on a BLACK screen and in 3D.

My 2()c,

Hugo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Why not a native 2.35 projector?