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 3

post #61 of 127
From reading this thread I gather

1. There are currently no native 2.35:1 projectors.

2. The best way to fudge one is via a lens.

So can I use one of the 2.35:1 lenses with any standard 16/9 projector (ie the Epson 1080) or is there more to it than that?
post #62 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scamps View Post

So can I use one of the 2.35:1 lenses with any standard 16/9 projector (ie the Epson 1080) or is there more to it than that?

thats pretty close, and there are a lot of other people here more knowledgable than me, but from what i've gathered you have a couple options

you could try and do the "ghetto stretch" method of just using you current 16:9 FP and stretch the image to fit a 2.35 screen with really no out of pocket expense...actually, i'm not sure why more people dont do this...??

or you can buy a nice lense from a company like Prismasonic or Panamorph combined with a scaler...my best guess on cost with this option is anywhere from $2000-$4000 to really do it right...(of course you can do it cheaper or more expensive)

so it can get pricey...i'm just a couple weeks from installation on my Constant Height system and i spent 75% of the cost of the FP on a lense, lense mount and scaler

HTH,

brad
post #63 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhitmore View Post

you could try and do the "ghetto stretch" method of just using you current 16:9 FP and stretch the image to fit a 2.35 screen with really no out of pocket expense...actually, i'm not sure why more people dont do this...??

Anyone?



So for all you current 2.35:1 viewers out there, what projector are you using and/or recommend?
post #64 of 127
The reason people go from zooming to a lens is that when you vertically scale the image and then use a lens you are using all your projectors pixels to give you the image you are not wasting 1/3 of them on projecting black bars that you then just zoom off into space. and with zooming you are making the fewer pixels you are using bigger and so the picture is not a clear/defined, whatever you want to call it. with the lens you get a much better picture.

there are many threads here on who is using what projector and what lens, try a search should bring some up.
in my case it is Optoma H77 720p projector and Panamorph UH380 lens.
post #65 of 127
I started with the zoom "Ghetto" method and it does work and looks pretty good. However, the lens is much nicer and easier to use. I am using a Sanyo Z4 with a DIY lens. The lens/prism housing isn't much to look at (gotta work on that), but the image on the screen is amazing!



post #66 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by klemsaba View Post

I started with the zoom "Ghetto" method and it does work. However, the lens is much nicer and easier to use. I am using a Sanyo Z4 with a DIY lens. The lens/prism housing isn't much to look at, but the image on the screen is amazing!

It can be not so bad looking:


That still is not done there will be curtains hanging from the bottom to the floor.
post #67 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall View Post

It can be not so bad looking:


That still is not done there will be curtains hanging from the bottom to the floor.

Okay, that makes my photo/setup look like crap! Great job. Do you have a link to more photos?
post #68 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by klemsaba View Post

Okay, that makes my photo/setup look like crap! Great job. Do you have a link to more photos?

I have them in photobucket but I am still finishing up and would prefer to wait till it is all done and the pics all up. After all it has only been a year and a quarter so far LOL
post #69 of 127
1. A different projector for each aspect ratio film - not very likely!

Why not? Having one 1980 x 810 native resolution projector stacked under your typical 1920x1080 projector would be sweet! Have it cost the same as a lens & scaler & optional lens slide-thingy ($5-6k ish?) and I'm sold.

I'm completely missing why there would be resistance to this. People build theaters with dedicated scope screens just for the purpose of 2.35/2.40 content! Just because HD's 1920x1080 square pixel content screwed CIH fans, doesn't mean they shouldn't have an option to enjoy a purist integrity of the pixels. Heck, with 50% or so movies at this aspect ratio, some people may only want to use their theaters for the more dramatic anamorphically filmed content and watch the 16:9 stuff on their large HDTVs...or go with this dual projector system with a masking 2.35:1 screen.
post #70 of 127
To do 1920x810 or similar, all they need to do is mask the chip they currently use. And, if they can mask the chip dynamically, and correct the zoom and offset, then we have the CH solution without needing drapes, etc. By my calculations, 1920x1080 is more than the eye can resolve in a typical home theater, so we don't need a higher resolution chip. All we need is better management of existing technologies.
post #71 of 127
Quote:


... all they need to do is mask the chip they currently use...

Masking needs to be done at the plane of focus. Try fitting a mask in there, what with all the prisms, polarisers and mirrors cluttering the place. Then try it on a 3-chipper.

Daydreams.
post #72 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Rankin View Post

After trying to sort through all the gyrations required to make a 16.9 projector into a 2.35 projector (scalers, anamorphic lens, etc), does no one make a native 2.35 projector?

I am probably missing something obvious and apologize in advance.

Seems like it would be cheaper to own both rather than all of the effort and cost associated with making a 16.9 projector adjust to a 2.35 projector.

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as native 2:35 content. It's a 2:35 image within a 16:9 frame that we fuss with to get our 2:35 set-ups. Also, why would anyone realistically create native 2:35 material for a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the home theater market? Well, they wouldn't because the broadcast standard is 1:78:/16:9. And that is why we must use projectors with anamorphic lenses and that can do the necessary electronic processing so that we can live happily in our much better, much wider 2:35 world.
post #73 of 127
Scott, I don't think anyone is arguing for native 2.35:1 content. But a full height 16:9 frame, squeezed anamorphically, that can be expanded out to 2.35:1 doesn't violate any standards. There'd be no need for scaling (as full height has already been achieved). The lens would do the expansion.

This would be an exact analog of squeezing a 'scope movie onto standard, full-height film stock.

C'mon Bu-Ray, seems like you've won the battle now that Warners has defected. Show off a little and use some of that extra storage space by adding an anamorphic full-height version of the movie for us poor sods out here in the CIH community.
post #74 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

Scott, I don't think anyone is arguing for native 2.35:1 content. But a full height 16:9 frame, squeezed anamorphically, that can be expanded out to 2.35:1 doesn't violate any standards. There'd be no need for scaling (as full height has already been achieved). The lens would do the expansion.

This would be an exact analog of squeezing a 'scope movie onto standard, full-height film stock.

C'mon Bu-Ray, seems like you've won the battle now that Warners has defected. Show off a little and use some of that extra storage space by adding an anamorphic full-height version of the movie for us poor sods out here in the CIH community.

Bob, IF they did accomodate us poor sods, would that mean we would no longer need the AL (BR that is)?
post #75 of 127
I think kodak 'GEMS' and sony 'GxL' technology is the solution for both 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 (or 2.66:1/1.33:1/1.25:1)
post #76 of 127
Quote:


Bob, IF they did accomodate us poor sods, would that mean we would no longer need the AL (BR that is)?

No, no... what I'm suggesting is that the movie companies use some of their much-bragged-about Blu-Ray disk space to put an anamorphic version of every 2.37:1 movie out to the public. I mean... what else are they going to use this space for? More extras? Hi-def versions of the director getting out of bed in the morning?

It would look exactly like what we call "vertically stretched", except that there'd wouldn't have been any need to vertically stretch to get the full height (as now). It'd be native, full height vertical resolution, squeezed hprizontally. No scaler. It'd work on any projector.

You'd still need an AL to optically expand it. Absolutely no change to any present setup except the vertical image would be native, full-monte 1080 pixels, not 820 stretched to 1080. Throw out those scalers! We've gone native!

This wouldn't violate any standards, or protocols. It wouldn't require special LCD or DLP panels in the 2.37:1 ratio. No special lenses or expensive hardware options. No-one who had only a 16:9 plasma (i.e. an unstretchable display device) would be forced to view the squeezed version... they could view the "traditional" letterboxed version on Layer #1... just like they do now... a simple default menu choice to avoid confusion. We CIH'ers would need to positively select "Anamorphically Squeezed Full Vertical Resolution Version". I'm sure we'd be cheering as we did.

It'd just take some recognition by the movie companies that there's a big CIH audience out there. Many projection lens designers already quite specifically design their lenses with extra zooming to fit CIH 'scope screens in mind, why don't the film corps muck in and create CIH nirvana for us?
post #77 of 127
Ahhh, I see. Now that it appears that BR maybe the de facto standard for HD movie discs, they probably (out of the goodness of their corporate hearts) will go ahead and put an anamorphic version layered on the disc. Let's see, no competition but go ahead anyway and put more content on it- yeah right He,he next thing you know were going to get a tax break!
post #78 of 127
Quote:


Let's see, no competition but go ahead anyway and put more content on it- yeah right

Yeah, there is that.

Hoping that movie companies will do something out of the goodness of their hearts is a heroic hope, f'sure.

However, most Hi-Def masters are made at the 4K setting (2160 x 4096 pixels), so providing an anamorphically squeezed full-height version of a 'scope film as an "extra" is more a matter of "overnight" (as in "leave it overnight and come back tomorrow morning") processing, not frame-by-frame human input. If I had a 4K master I could do this myself, just with Windows Media 9 authoring tools and a spare week to sit and watch the render. It really works (if you can figure out the proper settings).

No doubt, however, some Marketing Droid will see this as a feature that could generate extra revenue and thus be priced at a premium.

Then again, their format wars have turned the public off. Something gimmicky to catch the imagination of (a) movie buffs and (b) CIH enthusiasts - two reasonably overlapping subsets of their potential customer base - might be worth a try in their fevered minds.

Full-height anamorphic versions were not available on DVD due to disk space and quality reasons (to squeeze a 2.37 movie onto an SD DVD the squeeze would have had to be 9/16, not 3/4 as it would be in a Blu-Ray formatted presentation). Blu-Ray full-height anamorphic versions could be a first for HT.

I'm not so sure this would cost very much to implement, or at least to try out as a teaser. I'd certainly buy whichever disk came out in this format, regardless of the artistic quality of the title, just to see how it looked with the extra vertical resolution. In short, marketers need to sell more disks to generate enthusiasm and format momentum out here in Consumer World (where, at the moment, it is sadly lacking for most).

As an aside... I (an HD-DVD early adopter with no Blu-Ray equipment at all) would like to see the region coding taken out of Blu-Ray so that I could buy my disks from Amazon or some other mail order corporation. Most of my HD-DVDs have come from that source. I pay less than I would off-the-shelf in Australia and can get titles with a week of their issuing in the US (rather than have to wait months for the local mob to issue a Region 3 version).

But yeah, I'm probably dreaming. You're almost certainly right. Now that Blu-Ray seems to have won the Format War all those grudges the film corporations had against the general public - illicit copying, region-free coding kludges, unrestricted interchange of titles across national borders and across video formats - will be avenged. We will be forced to watch their movies, on their equipment, on their terms.
post #79 of 127
Amen mate, I do have a beta tape deck to keep your hd player company...
post #80 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

But yeah, I'm probably dreaming. You're almost certainly right. Now that Blu-Ray seems to have won the Format War all those grudges the film corporations had against the general public - illicit copying, region-free coding kludges, unrestricted interchange of titles across national borders and across video formats - will be avenged. We will be forced to watch their movies, on their equipment, on their terms.

It does look like the inferior system is going to win again (VHS vs Beta), and BD seems the less consumer friendly of the two. It's not even up to speed yet (still waiting for 2.0 with few players being 1.1).

How l did it happen?? Better BD marketing?

I still have a Betamax player, and the image quality was noticeably better than the VHS players I had. Image quality doesn't appear to be an issue with the two HD formats, but HD-DVD seems obviously the better choice (cheaper players and movies, and more consumer friendly as well as being the finished product with some disks being dual format; DVD + HD-DVD).

Trouble is, take up is still slow (possibly because of the format war) and currently it looks like it could become the new Laserdisk. I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as the title become available, but the cost will remain high at lower production levels.

Gary
post #81 of 127
How has Blu-Ray "won"?

I was in a consumer electronics store the other day. They have three columns of HD-DVD disks available for sale in their DVD rack, and 20 columns of Blu-Ray disks. A 7:1 ratio for Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.

Standing next to me was a guy with HD-DVD credentials pinned to an ID plate on his shirt pocket. He was some kind of rep from one of the movie companies, checking on the store's HD-DVD display. We got talking.

At first he tried to tell me that "there isn't any problem" for HD-DVD. He'd just come back from CEDIA (or similar) in the States and it was going gang-busters. I soon let him know that (a) I can read (about the fiasco of the Warner withdrawl) and (b) have an interest in HD-DVD, as I am an early adopter.... so cut the crap, please, mate. HD-DVD is in trouble.

OK, so he agreed with me but didn't have a reason why. As Gary says, there's no quality issues. In fact HD-DVD has some quality and content capability advantages over Blu-Ray.

Then it hit me.

It's the name.

"HD-DVD" is too easily confused with just plain "DVD". I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain that HD-DVD disks are incompatible with standard DVD players, and that, yes, you need a special HD-DVD player. "So", people have asked me, "why all the expense for just an upgrade to DVD?"

"No, no, no... it's not an upgrade. It's a whole new system," I reply in frustration.

"Not an upgrade? So why do they call it HD-DVD?"

You can go crazy with these type of conversations. I think the fact that they take place demonstrates that what was supposed to be an advantage of HD-DVD - a supposed "smooth migration path" from SD to HD by keeping then names similar and familiar-sounding - has become an albatross around the format's neck: it's name too close to the old format's. Blu-Ray is not only new, but it has a brand new name. It is easily and readily distinguishable from the old DVD system, by name, in the minds of consumers. Blu-Ray/DVD, DVD/Blu-Ray... you can't mistake the one for the other.

Couple this with Sony's brilliant hardware strategy of making the PS3 Blu-Ray compliant, and there's you explanation: a brand new name for a brand new format, and an accessible platform with many ancilliary features to play the new format upon.

That Blu-Ray is the Darth Vader of the two formats with its strict DRM characteristics is immaterial. Most PAL-country consumers gave up on on Amazon.com for buying their DVD titles because Amazon.com sells mostly NTSC format. They don't realise that HD-DVD is independent of PAL or NTSC or anything else and that they can source them cheaper by mail order nowadays (especially as HD-DVD has no region coding). They want to go into a shop (like the one I was in) and buy off the rack. If there are more Blu-Ray titles on that rack, they will buy Blu-Ray hardware to match it.... but only if that Blu-Ray hardware is a PS3 (yes, standalone Blu-Ray players have tanked here in Australia, too).

Someone had to win the Format War and it's been Blu-Ray. I can't see any defections back the other way, now that disk sales momentum has become overwhelming. A PS3 harware platform is cheaper than most standalone Blu-Ray players here in Oz. It's a lay-down misere.

And then there's that brand new, shiny name to differentiate the two systems.
post #82 of 127
I admit, I only read the first page. AND I know it's an old post. But it's exactly the question I have been asking myself lately. When 720p projectors go cheap 3 years ago, I questioned it then. Cost was too high for 2.35 setup. But now 1080p is going under a grand. So I really hope they help out the CIH market... so the rest of my post...

I am sure I am just re-supporting here. I too think they should make home cinema projectors with 2.35:1 native chips. Then it would already be CIH capable. And all the cropping would be digital pixel cropping internally based on source.

Of course, I am really saying that instead of a 1920x1080 chip, it would be like 2540x1080 (about 2.35:1). So technically it's upscaling a 2.35:1 BluRay. But I would rather have a cheaper all-in-one projector for CIH with pixel upscaling, instead of a larger pixel structure, more cost, and more parts for the conventional CIH setup.

I would rather pay $1000 more for a 1080p projector with a 2.35:1 native chip, than to pay for HE lens (or prism based one), motorized track, and having to automated the projector VE adjustment and track motion... as well as more glass surfaces to keep clean, etc.

If they are smart, they will see a market for a CIH native 2.35:1 projector. Seems like CIH projectors would be more useful than the lame LED Pico projectors that are flooding in right now.
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

I admit, I only read the first page. AND I know it's an old post. But it's exactly the question I have been asking myself lately. When 720p projectors go cheap 3 years ago, I questioned it then. Cost was too high for 2.35 setup. But now 1080p is going under a grand. So I really hope they help out the CIH market... so the rest of my post...

I am sure I am just re-supporting here. I too think they should make home cinema projectors with 2.35:1 native chips. Then it would already be CIH capable. And all the cropping would be digital pixel cropping internally based on source.

Of course, I am really saying that instead of a 1920x1080 chip, it would be like 2540x1080 (about 2.35:1). So technically it's upscaling a 2.35:1 BluRay. But I would rather have a cheaper all-in-one projector for CIH with pixel upscaling, instead of a larger pixel structure, more cost, and more parts for the conventional CIH setup.

I would rather pay $1000 more for a 1080p projector with a 2.35:1 native chip, than to pay for HE lens (or prism based one), motorized track, and having to automated the projector VE adjustment and track motion... as well as more glass surfaces to keep clean, etc.

If they are smart, they will see a market for a CIH native 2.35:1 projector. Seems like CIH projectors would be more useful than the lame LED Pico projectors that are flooding in right now.

I think the big question is whether or not there is enough demand for this type of projector. The initial outlay of money by the manufactures to create new chips, processors, etc. would probably be pretty steep.
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by phisch View Post

I think the big question is whether or not there is enough demand for this type of projector. The initial outlay of money by the manufactures to create new chips, processors, etc. would probably be pretty steep.

Well, I would think that if there is demand for Pico projectors and HE lens; there must be enough demand for a CIH projector. There are tons of chip types, chip styles, etc. I am sure there is enough demand for a CIH native chip projector. Either companies don't think so... or it will come in time. I remember Nikon telling me (back when the D70 was new) that there was no need for a full frame dSLR. Which is hogwash, and sure enough... the D3 full frame came out. So it's only a matter of time before a 2.35 native chip projector comes out.

I am mostly just saying that with cost coming down enough for 1080p to be below a grand, they could market a $3000-5000 1080p with a 2.35 chip.
post #85 of 127
But "enough demand" for what? Pico projectors are looking to have a rather large market (beyond HT), just think how handy it would be as a business person to be able to carry a projector with you in your laptop case....

Anamorphic lenses, well they are relatively cheap to produce. Basically you need some optics knowledge and you order lenses to spec from a lens-making specialist and assemble the parts.

Making native 2.35:1 chips is an entirely different matter. There are only a handful of manufacturers, basically just TI, Sony, JVC, and Epson (there might be a couple others) make the panels in all the projectors we buy. These are massive companies with tons of resources to devote to the incredibly expensive fabrication facilities necessary to build integrated circuits.

CIH is a niche of a niche of a market. I have no doubt people would buy a 2.35:1 native projector in the $3000-5000 range. But there's no way anybody is going to drop the millions necessary to tool/retool a fabrication facility to create chips for something that will sell in the thousands of units.
post #86 of 127
The only way right now to do "native" CIH is to get a 1080p projector + scalar and do 1920 x 817 for scope and 1453 x 817 for 16:9. However, 99% of folks (myself included) would probably not want to throw away 263 rows of pixels unnecessarily. Maybe to make this more palatable, you can think of it as a greater than 720p native scope projector. I have to admit, I do ponder about this solution sometimes though.
post #87 of 127
I think there would be a big enough demand for a 2540 x 1080 chip. You are talking about outperforming a $5,000 Isco 3 lens, or even a $15,000 anamorphic lens... since you eliminate the need for it (and its degrading properties). Not only that you get improved lumens for 2.35. You just use 1920 x 1080 pixels for HDTV and 1.78/1.85 movies....

Yes, I agree, it would make for instant demand... There is a large enough niche already. Even better, a projector like that would make 2.35 CIH method GROW in demand due to EASE OF USE and much lower overall expense!! Everyone in front projection would switch to 2.35 screens if the projector supported 2.35 at the flick of a switch... no brainer...
post #88 of 127
I could imagine that if we do have 2.35 native projectors, perhaps there will be a market for horizontal squeeze lenses to use the full panel for 16:9
post #89 of 127
No, there would be no use to do so...
post #90 of 127
I was being facetious
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?