or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › The official Panamorph UH380 thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The official Panamorph UH380 thread. - Page 3

post #61 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

UH380 Parked 1

UH380 Parked 2

UH380 In Place 1

UH380 In Place 2

I think the titles are relatively explanatory. After a little aligning (tilting the lens up and down), I had only very minor pincushioning on the sides, and some very minor barrel on the bottom (nothing that you'd notice while watching a movie). Right now I need to re-center the picture (left to right) when switching between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 by about 3-4 inches on the screen. I'm not sure if this is due to a problem with my setup or just inherent to the lens. Either way it's not a big deal, as the picture with the lens in place is absolutely spectacular - I have not noticed any chromatic abberation or glare issues, and of coupled with the DC3 chip and great optics in my H79 I have yet to see any screen door at a seating distance of 1.4. I had a couple buddies over here after an extended stint at the bar on Friday night, and we were watching Return of the Jedi, and they were in total awe. The one other "videophile" (jonnyozero3, who posts here), also saw it the next morning while not intoxicated and was still wowed

The only (very minor) complaint I do have with using a lens - and this would apply to any anamorphic lens - is that subtitles (like Jabba the Hutt speaking in Return of the Jedi) are cut off since they're usually down in the black bars. Anyone have any work-arounds for this?

I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?
post #62 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedtsc View Post

I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?


I have the H77 which is almost the same projector as well. the size screen that can be accomodated would depend on your room, how much light control you have, what the gain of your screen is, the throw distance you had in mind etc.

Are you asking how large you can Zoom a picture with it? or are you asking how large a 2.35:1 screen you can do, again have to answer the same questions first.

My screen is a SMX 1.16 gain AT screen at 15 ft throw it is 120W X 51H I could also have done 127 wide with no problem but it is in a total light control dedicated theater setting.
post #63 of 168
Arrived a day early... go figure...








Must have been shipped from Italy as it was marked Fragile....
post #64 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedtsc View Post

I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?

I'm not totally sure what you're asking by "maximum width of screen with zoom" so you'll have to supply some more specifics. As McCall stated, the answer to your question depends on the ambient light control in your room, what gain screen material you're using, and of course your personal preferences on how bright is "bright enough."

In my setup, I have a 136" 2.35:1 screen with 1.4 gain material, and with the UH380 in place I find the picture to be plenty bright. I would say that this is definitely my personal limit for what I find to be acceptable and wouldn't try to go any bigger on the screen. As for the zoom, the H79 has a 1.35 zoom range, so it does have enough do to a "poor man's" 2.35:1 by mounting the projector as far away from the screen as possible while still filling the entire height with a 16:9 image, and then zooming out to fill a 'scope screen with an appropriately formatted movie. I did it while I was waiting for my lens and the picture wasn't half bad, but after having seen it with the lens I would never go back.

Sorry if I didn't answer your question, I'm just not sure what you were asking.
post #65 of 168
Can anyone report on how this lens performs as the projection point is mvoed further from the screen. I have set mine up to project from a throw ratio of 1.6, but I noticed yesterday that in the instructions for the lens it also says no closer than 12 feet. Since my screen is a bit small, at a TR of 1.6 I am closer than 12 feet. Since it will be a pain to move the PJ, just wanted to get a bit of advise.

I am very happy with the lens, but would like to be able to reduce the pincushionning effect on the sides.
post #66 of 168
My HD81/UH380/M380/Stewart 100" ST130 are installed and the transformation of what I thought was a decent home theater previously is beyond belief. My dedicated home theater now truly feels like a theater, the effect of a fixed 2:35 screen and anamorphic lens should not be underestimated. It makes watching a scope movie more of an event.

Watching my HD81 automatically go into vertical expansion mode when it senses 2:35 materialand seeing the Panamorph slide into position is pretty cool. Then the best part, an amazingly film like experience with this very bright, high contrast projector and sharp
anamorphic lens.

When I first heard of anamorphic lenses for home theater, I thought it was a bit of a gimmick. I'm now a believer, I could never go back to watching scope movies within
a 16:9 frame.

What a wonderful experience I had tonight!

Jeff Regan
post #67 of 168
All the shots I have ever posted are re-sized using a Jasc Photoshop Program and I resize them to 800 x 600 pixels which seems to shrink them nicely to around 100k...

Mark
post #68 of 168
I'm comparing the U380 to my Prismasonic 1200R. They are very comparable and I'm not sure if I could tell them apart. However, the prismasonic gives me almost the perfect dimensions while the U380 overscans by about 2" on each side of the screen (14' wide screen). If I change the zoom to get rid of the overscan, then the height is too short.

Any ideas?
post #69 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pultzar View Post

I'm comparing the U380 to my Prismasonic 1200R. They are very comparable and I'm not sure if I could tell them apart. However, the prismasonic gives me almost the perfect dimensions while the U380 overscans by about 2" on each side of the screen (14' wide screen). If I change the zoom to get rid of the overscan, then the height is too short.

Any ideas?

Yes, this happens because the screen AR for scope video is 2.37:1 not 2.35:1 which is why you have 2" overscan on each side with the Panamorph which is a fixed prisms lens Vs the Prismasonic which is a variable prism lens. What is actually happening with the Prismasonic is that your not stretching the image quite far enough because you have used the screen to set the stretch...

Run that THX circle test through both and see if it is truly "round" with the Prismasonic and the current settings...

Mark
post #70 of 168
Thanks Mark. So I'm assuming everybody will have some overscan since a 2.37:1 screen doesn't make much sense (given that there isn't any source material in that ratio).
post #71 of 168
Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...

It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...

Mark
post #72 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...

It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...

Mark

Mark,

Great post. Since I am building my own screen for the UH380 (and M380), it appears that I should build it out to 2.37:1. Correct? I was planning on building a 120" x 51". Based on your post, I should build it out at 121" x 51".

Just checking ...

Thanks,
T.Wells
post #73 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...

It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...

Mark

Stewart do any format you want, you just have to ask!
post #74 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Wells View Post

Mark,

Great post. Since I am building my own screen for the UH380 (and M380), it appears that I should build it out to 2.37:1. Correct? I was planning on building a 120" x 51". Based on your post, I should build it out at 121" x 51".

Just checking ...

Thanks,
T.Wells

Thanks T.Wells Yes I would build it to that size as that appears to be 2.37:1...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCBRacer View Post

Stewart do any format you want, you just have to ask!

Maybe they should be a little more forthcoming, as it appears that not too people are aware of the fact that 16:9 x 1.33 = 2.37, not 2.35...

Mark
post #75 of 168
I'm a bit confused. What is the point of having a 2.37:1 screen if all of your source material is 2.35:1 (I know that some out there is 2.40:1). You will just end up with thin black bars on the sides if everything is done correctly.

If I have a 2.35:1 source and a 2.35:1 screen, it seems obvious that I would want to stretch the image to fit the screen wouldn't it?

Or is 2.35:1 source material not really 2.35:1?

Scott
post #76 of 168
I'm with Scott... why was this not mentioned BEFORE I bought my new screen 3 weeks ago???

And also if that is the case... why is this forum 2.35:1 and not 2.37:1?????
post #77 of 168
I think what he is saying is that the lens will spread the 16:9 image out to 2.37 regardless of the ar of the picture within the image. If you use a 2.35 screen, the streched image will overhang the screen.

Allen
post #78 of 168
This has been discussed before - 2.35 vs 2.37 vs 2.39 vs 2.40. With a 51 inch high image the difference between 2.35 and 2.37 is about 1 inch - or 1/2 inch per side. Many (most?) people prefer to zoom out the image a little anyway to hide the pincushion or barrel distortion in the edges. Whats .02 between friends?
post #79 of 168
Oh... so it is only .5 inch now... first it is 2" ... I sure wish women looked at my... but I digress....

Since I have a 5" border it will not matter.
post #80 of 168
Yes... but with a 72" high screen the overscan is about 2.5". It is doable but a close fit.
post #81 of 168
A 72" h screen would be aprox. 170" wide. That's a good size screen.

Allen
post #82 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen View Post

A 72" h screen would be aprox. 170" wide. That's a good size screen.

Allen

Right you are! I love it.
post #83 of 168
Were are the pics!?!?!?
post #84 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by A/Vspec View Post

Were are the pics!?!?!?

Um, if you mean me, a variety of factors has held them up, not the least of which is trying to get them into a form that's most useful. I was hoping to have side-by-side comparision with/without the lens, at different TRs, in one jpg, but it's too big, so tomorrow (hopefully) I'll post individual images of each case, of both an image and a test pattern. One thing I have done is stack them all up in Photoshop. Hiding and unhiding the layers makes for a very useful tool, and it's a real eye opener. More on that tomorrow.

Jeff
post #85 of 168
Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02 ) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.
post #86 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by usualsuspects View Post

Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02 ) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.

usual,
What's your throw?

ted
post #87 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by usualsuspects View Post

Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02 ) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.

Great news!! That is about the same setup as mine except I do not have the sled and I have the ST130 material.

Any pics?
post #88 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted View Post

What's your throw?

17 feet

Quote:
Originally Posted by A/Vspec View Post

Any pics?

FYI: this is just a quick setup - I need to clean up the ceiling, add some more anchors to the top plate, add middle supports to the slide (the hex head bolts I got did not fit the middle support holes), add some more washers, terminate the two cat5's and wire them for IR emitters on the Pearl and Sled, walk the dog, take out the trash, etc....

attached projector/lens/sled pics - no screen shots yet.
LL
LL
LL
post #89 of 168
So what should I do then. I haven't order a screen yet, but I am planning on the carada 2.35 128" screen. I am not goign to be using any masking as I plan to watch 90% movies in the 2.35 format. I am getting the screen that has 3 inch boarders with the black hole trim. Is that good enough to hide the overscan if I want it to fill top to bottom by zooming out enough? Or should I tell them to make me a 2.37 screen?
post #90 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by usualsuspects View Post


FYI: this is just a quick setup - I need to clean up the ceiling, add some more anchors to the top plate, add middle supports to the slide (the hex head bolts I got did not fit the middle support holes), add some more washers, terminate the two cat5's and wire them for IR emitters on the Pearl and Sled, walk the dog, take out the trash, etc....

Sounds like me!!!!!! I am still trying to paint around the cutout in the wall were my UH380 will be living so I can mount it and then I still have to mount the Pearl.

You must have very high ceilings to have the Pearl mounted on such a long ceiling mount.

Looks good thus far. Have you fired up anything on it yet?

I think I will just go and let the dog lose of his runner so I can get more painting done.... Oh and I have to stay away from the PC for a bit....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › The official Panamorph UH380 thread.