On the cheap-How to get into the secret club? - Page 6

You can zoom and waste vertical pixels if you want. It is your image...

Just know that all film based projection use an anamorphic lens as does D-Cinema, so it is upto you if you consider it right or wrong to use one in the Home Theatre.

For me, it is about getting the most out of the projector, and zooming does not do that. I too started out CIH by zooming...

Mark

Are D-Cinema movies distributed with black bars on the top and bottom or the source and then scaled vertically by a processor and stretched optically by a lens or is the source stretched vertically?

Why does the correct CIH method of yours crop 8% of the image for 2.20:1 films and display them in a 2.37:1 ratio?

Why does the correct CIH method of yours electronically and optically distort the source image with processes that lose detail and introduce geometric distortion and lower the ANSI contrast?


Correct CIH is done by keeping a Constant Image Height for varying aspect ratios. There are different ways to do this. There are comprimises no matter which way you go. There is not one correct way.

Is the Aussimorphic II going to be a horizontal compression lens so you can stretch 1.33:1 films to fill the panel and then compress them back to the proper ratio?

I hope so, I just can't stand the thought of wasting pixels! Especially pixels that were never there in the source.


You can stretch and distort your source image to give yourself a less accurate image. It is your image...

Have you ever seen a well setup CIH screen and lens combo?

I think alot of the opposers of using the lens haven't seen one setup.

If you have, you'll notice there is a increase in perceived image quality as well as being far more convenient than the zoom method.

As for the 2.:20 ratio and all those in between, with lenses like the Prismasonic you can adjust the stretch of the lens to any ratio you want.

I believe D-Cinema can do both, but the origianal files have no black bars, so they throw away vertical rez from their source when zooming by vertically compressing the image. We don't have that extra source rez to start with, so need to use as much panel rez as possible when projecting...


Where did you get your maths for this? 2.37 comes from taking a 1.78:1 rectange of light and expanding that by 33%...


I think you need to see CIH for yourself first before making statements like that. As I said, I used to zoom before using a lens, so I at least know what enlarged pixels looks like...



So apart from the cost of some lenses, why are you so anti lens?

Mark

I have not. I bought a lens to test it out but it won't fit with the way my projector is setup.


I know it is more convenient. With the Prismasonic I'd turn two knobs to stretch. Zooming I have to zoom out, turn two knobs on the projector, adjust zoom a touch more and then recheck focus.

"Perceived image quality"? Maybe. People have posted that it is 'more film like'. You know what that sounds like? Sounds like the image is getting slightly smeared. Not entirely a bad thing in some cases. It would get rid of SDE and could produce a more pleasing image.

How about someone taking a look at an image of 817 alternating black and white lines with and without the lens in place. I'd like to know how many new lines are created by scaling and stretching. Close up pictures would be great. I can do this with my zooming setup when I get home in a week for comparison.


I believe Prismasonic is the exception for lenses. You would also need a variable scalar in order to accomplish this. The vertical scaling for a 2.35 image will result in 8% of the image being cropped.

CAVX said using a lens is CIH "done correctly" when his lens won't due this. He changes the OAR by cropping.

D-Cinema would be throwing away vertical rez if their source was anamorphic and they scaled it electronically to use the zoom method. If there are no black bars the image is already scaled in the source. Like anamorphic DVDs.

But we don't have that extra source rez to start with and no matter what we're not going to recreate it. If hi-def discs were anamorphic for scope films we'd have some extra source to work with but that unfortunately doesn't look like it will happen in the near future. Extra panel vertical resolution doesn't make up for source resolution.


I got it from you:



Has your math changed?


I see CIH everyday I go into my theatre and watch something. I sit at 1.1x the width of the screen and with my 1080P AE2000U projector there is no SDE and you can't make out individual pixels until you're a few feet from the screen.

My CIH setup displays the proper aspect ratio for all ratios upto 2.40:1. Tell me how this isn't correct.

I thought about making the screen 2.76:1 but I figured it wasn't worth it for the few films above 2.40. And besides where do you stop? I suppose a CIH setup "done correctly" would have a 4.00:1 screen. Looks like we're all failing.



I'm not anti-lens. Lens are great for a large number of setups out there. I'm anti the 'using a lens is CIH done correctly' attitude since in fact there are definitly compromises made when going this route. After all we're trying to watch the film according to the "director's vision".

You put it nicely here:


Looks like you admit to the compromise with most lens setups in that same post though:


My setup doesn't limit me to four aspect ratios. Any ratio less than 2.40 is able to be presented as the director intended with minimal alteration of the source.

Is the 'increased in perceived image quality' from lossy processes or maintaining the 'director's vision' more important? Both lens and zooming have benefits and compromises. Neither is the one correct way to do it.

Zooming is more correct

I don't know, the space between the mirrors on my DLP are clearly visible through my lens if you walk up to the screen.


No, "done correctly" or "taken to the extreme", you use a lens, and a high-quality scaler and you configure the scaler to slightly pillarbox content between 1.78 and 2.35:1.


So I guess we shouldn't scale DVDs to the resolution of our panels? Scaling DVDs to 1080p doesn't create a better image than using a 480p display of the same size?


FWIW, most displays have between 5 and 10% overscan.


Just because something isn't "done correctly" doesn't mean it doesn't work, doesn't even mean it doesn't work well. Lots of people just zoom for scope content, are happy with it, and good for them, that's what matters.

But if you really want to do CIH right, you need a lens, a sled, and a good scaler. Most people choose some tradeoff due to cost/complexity. I don't have a sled or a scaler.


That's a perfectly valid tradeoff, as is going without a lens. No reason to get so bent out of shape about some verbage.


According to IMDB, 2.76:1 is the widest AR used.


Vern's got a 2.76:1 screen with a 1.5x cinema anamorphic lens I believe.


What does "directors vision" have to do with using a lens or not. As noted above, most every scope movie shown in a theater is shown with a lens. Films are often filmed through a lens.


I don't read it that way, if anything he's saying that most people don't do CIH completely correctly (ie use a finely adjustable scaler to make every AR just right).


A lens doesn't prevent that.


I don't understand that at all.


The only real compromise with a lens is cost.


I'm with CAVX, to be completely correct, you need a lens, a sled, and a good scaler really do CIH right. How far down that path to completely correct you go, is up to you. Me, I'll probably work my way down the path until I get there.

Let's get the definition of correctly out of the way:

• In a correct manner; exactly; accurately; without fault or error.

Done correctly and taken to the extreme are not the same thing. SLIGHTLY PILLARBOX! OMG You won't be using the full resolution of the panels.


No, you should. The output depends on the quality of the scalar. With DVDs you're upscaling the resolution six times. This massive jump in resolution allows a good scalar to interpolate information for these extra pixels.

Upscaling scope films to fill your panel only upscales the resolution 1.33 times and only in the vertical direction. So now each pixel of source information has to stretch vertically to fill 1.33 pixels. Have you ever seen an LCD that isn't displaying its native resolution? Looks fuzzy to me (because it is) but I constantly find people doing it.

Upscaling works to improve an image somewhat when you have a much larger number of pixels to work with. At what point does it stop hurting the image quality and start helping? I don't know but I'm very doubtful that a 1.33 verticle upscaling is beneficial in terms of image quality. It may be brighter but that doesn't mean it is a better image.

I would love to see some test patterns like I said before. Maybe your scalars are working better than I think. I can test out the scalar on my AE2000U when I get home in a week.

I'll do another post with images to show what happens to pixels stretched 1.33 times vertically.


In that case you're losing between 13 and 18% of the vertical information and 5 to 10% of the horizontal. Fortunately most projectors don't overscan much or will pixel map 1:1. Mine doesn't overscan.


Correctly. Without fault or error. That is how my CIH setup performs up to the screen's AR.


Correctly. Without fault or error. That is how my CIH setup performs up to the screen's AR.

Now, you may think there are image quailty benefits to using a lens over not using a lens but both setups can perform correctly with regards to CIH.

The only annoying thing here to me is CAVX stating the following:


When the fact of the matter is that his lens setup doesn't due CIH correctly up to the screen's AR. His 'lens only' attitude coupled with his ignorance is what is annoying.


According to IMDB Napolean has a 4.00:1 aspect ratio. http://imdb.com/title/tt0018192/




He's close but not quite. His website lists his screen ratio as 2.6:1.


All it has to do with is projecting the film properly.

Theaters use a lens because they have an anamorphic source.

Films are always filmed though a lens as far as I know.





What he says is that most people with lens, himself include, limit themselves to about 4 ARs. This results in an incorrect CIH setup. This gives you an image that is altered from the director's vision. This is the compromise of some / most lens setups.

Some / most lens CIH setups in fact display certain aspect ratios between scope and academy incorrectly.

It makes sense. To step up in to a variable scalar is an extra expense.


Actually inorder to be correct (this is the same thing as completely correct) with your CIH setup you either zoom or if you go the lens route you need the lens, sled (or pass through, or a scaling), and a variable scaler.

You can certainly do it correctly with a lens it just take a lot of money. I decided to go with the cheaper, less complex, CIH method that allows me to perform CIH correctly for any aspect ratio up to my screen's AR.

What happens when you scale an image made up of discrete pixels 1.33 times vertically?

Let's look at a partial screenshot of my monitor:



Now stretch it 1.33 times vertically:



Looks alright but not great. The text is soft. Let's zoom in on them for a closer look.

Non-Stretched Zoomed:


Nice and crisp text. As it should be.

Stretched Zoomed:


Smearing text clearly visible, the pattern for the scroll bar has an odd banding.


However the plane looks alright. Not a significant change. But from looking at the text we can see that we are losing high contrast detail. Depending on the image there may not be much detail lost but it will occur.

You're using more of the panel than zooming.


Most LCDs have craptacular scalers, and beyond that they're displaying single-pixel-sized detail (text) that's artificially generated. I don't think film has the MTF necessary to do something like that.


Maybe if I remember if/when I finally order a W20000 I can try it out.


Point is you're complaining about 8% in one direction when most people are oblivious to a loss of upwards of 20% of the image. Granted we're shooting for something above average....


Personally, I think the light spill, not using the whole panel, and and the un-automatable zooming/focusing needed could validly be viewed as a fault of the "zoom method".


I personally think he's right.


I don't recall him saying his setup was 100% correct, just that a correct CIH system uses a lens. And CAVX is anything but ignorant.


OK, I just glanced at the DVD AR list. I see there are 5 movies with that AR.


OK, I was going from memory.


How is a lens less "proper" than zooming (assuming the correct scaling)?


You know what I mean, through an anamorphic lens.



What he says is that most people with lens, himself include, limit themselves to about 4 ARs. This results in an incorrect CIH setup. This gives you an image that is altered from the director's vision. This is the compromise of some / most lens setups.

Some / most lens CIH setups in fact display certain aspect ratios between scope and academy incorrectly.

It makes sense. To step up in to a variable scalar is an extra expense.[/quote]

Neither of us said differently.


That's exactly what I said.


You can display all ARs correctly on your 2.35:1 screen.

Stranger89:

Look, you say I can display all aspect ratios correctly. So we agree. The zooming method is a correct way to do CIH.

The convenience issue, light spill, and not using the full panel don't prevent the zooming method from doing CIH correctly.

Is it the best method? Debatable. I don't know. For my current setup it is but my setup is a bit odd. The reason I know it's best in my setup is that a lens won't physically work. I bought a lens to try it out for myself. (It's for sale for the powerbuy price BTW, FE1500M, PM if interested).


If you go back and read what lead up to CAVX's post about doing CIH correctly it's pretty clear he's jumping on a zoomer discussing a correct method of doing CIH. His ignorance comes from the fact that his own lens setup isn't even correct. It works just fine but technically it is incorrect for certain aspect ratios.

CAVX has a great site and is a wealth of knowledge but he is wrong here so I'm calling him on it so that others aren't misled.


As for you issues that you think make zooming incorrect:

Zooming

• Panel Usage: Maps pixels 1:1, projecting the source without alteration.
• Light Spill: I'll catch most with trim around the hole my projector shines through. The rest will be caught by the screens border.
• Convenience: Zoom out, turn two knobs, adjust slightly, check focus. Time - One minute. I chose a projector with power zoom and focus and easily accessible lens shift knobs which makes it easy to do.

Lens

• Panel Usage: Stretches pixels 1.33 vertically to fill panel. Loses detail, increases brightness.
• Light Spill: None
• Convenience: Slide Lens into place (or turn two knobs for Prismasonics) push button for scaling. Time - 15 to 30 seconds I'd guess.

But this is just discussing what is better not which is correct. Both can be correct the lens method just requires many expensive components to do all ratios correctly.

Thanks Stranger and Tukkis for the moral support

timmyotule,

Even though I have YXY with a HTPC in system alowing me an infinite amount of single pixel adjustments, I still choose to use the "plug and play" method for its simplicity. This means I choose to limit myself to 4 common ARs, not that the 4 common ARs are the only ARs to be used in CIH becuase CIH is about projecting constant Image Heights.

I think you find that if you projected your "scaled" text and images, then optically expanded them using a lens, that, provided that you were seated the correct distance from the screen, that they would look as good with your lens as the original, just larger. The lens you have is very good for both geometry and focus. The scaling in your projector may or may not be the best, and I personally wish Panasonic had not used Smoothscreen in their 1080 projectors.


Interesting comments, but Scope 2.37:1 is the only AR that uses the lens. The other three are used without. Those three are 1.78:1, 1.66:1 and 1.33:1.

I have one 2.20 title and none over 2.40:1 in my 300+ DVDs, so I have built my system to work with what I watch...

You go onto say after admitting that you have not seen a CIH set up with a lens...


How can you make these claims if you've not seen the system in action?

Is the pot calling the kettle black?

Mark

Projecting constant image height but at the correct AR. I don't want someone coming in here and talking about their CIH system on a flat panel TV that crops of the sides of a scope movie to 1.78:1!


Would it look as good? You might not be able to see it but there is detail being lost. It's a limitation of the fixed panel technology we're using.

Someone commented on here that the Panasonic's scaling was very good. I'll give it a try in a week. The general consensus is that the implementation of Smoothscreen on the AE2000U doesn't lose detail or reduce sharpness. It seems to due its job. You can still make out the different pixels when you get close to the screen.

I'll give the scaling a try next week and get some photos. Both from a HTPC and some HD DVDs.


I'm not knocking your setup. It's great. What you've done makes sense. But do you display all aspect ratios correctly for CIH? No, you don't.

And yet your previous post you felt you could proclaim that the zooming method couldn't do CIH correctly. That's an off-white pot calling a white kettle black.


Remember the post showing what happens with 1.33x vertical scaling on a fixed pixel display? That's how I can make these statements. It's a limitation of the technology that detail will be lost. Will it be a perceptable difference from the seating location? Depends on the setup.

I'm talking about high definition source material. Not upscaled DVDs.

Have you seen a 1080P setup projecting a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray via the zoom method?


In conclusion: CAVX - Does using the zooming method for CIH result in correct CIH projection?

I'm not asking if it gets the best quality or if it is the most convenient. I'm asking if will display images of different aspect ratios at the same height (up to the screen's AR).

Note that all ARs are X:1 where 1 is the same height, so only the width gets wider. Therefore if a film is 1.66:1, then I use the 1.78:1 setting on my projector (lens removed) to display that and as a result, there will be black side pillars.

Is the last part of your last comment about clipping the ends off the image serious? We are talking about 0.03 difference between 2.37 and 2.40 and given that my projector does have a 5% overscan issue means, I am not going to see it anyway...


Again without actually seeing this for yourself, nothing more than assumptions...


I have seen and heard mixed reports about this. Generally I found smoothscreen to make the image a bit softer with an anamorphic lens. Some do not see this as a problem. Other projectors that do not have smoothscreen are not a problem...


Interesting point. Some yes and some maybe not...At the end of the day, all projected images on my screen are the same height though...



Of course, and having then moved the lens in place, everyone present preferred the lens...


There was a time when if you were over shooting the image (black bars or not) that it was cionsidered very incorrect. CIH with lens allows that rule to remain. As I said, I used to zoom, but much prefer denser vertical pixels that only the lens allows for when projecting Scope.


Yes it can. As I have already said, I choose 4, but if I was anal enough, I could set up pressets in YXY for as many ARs as there is varietys with in the limits of the technology...

Mark

My comment was serious in that I don't want someone claiming a system that crops off either the sides or top of an image so that all aspect ratios are the same height is a CIH setup.

I wasn't really talking about the projecting 2.39/2.40 on a 2.37 screen where it's a 1% difference (although technically it isn't correct )

Overscan, different issue. With some gear you have to live with it. At least it should be equal amounts on the top and bottom so you're maintaining the proper AR.

My example of what definitely isn't correct is someone claiming to have a CIH system with a 1.78:1 flat panel TV. If CIH was just keeping an image the same height they could chop off the sides of images wider than 1.78:1 and the tops of images narrower.

Shoot, you'd just have to chop off 25% of the width of scope films and 25% of the height of acadamy ratio films and you'd have a perfectly correct CIH setup if it was just about keeping everything the same height!

I think we can agree that this isn't CIH done correctly!





You saw my images showing what's going on. It's a limit of the technology. Scaling 1.33x vertically and stretching it back out will not get you more detail than is in the source. Detail will be lost.

The resulting image may be more pleasing but there will be less detail in it.



I understand that people tend to have a preference towards the lens (what lens was this by the way, the Aussimorphic?) I'm curious as to what the difference in the images is that makes it more pleasing.

If you could differentiate between 720p and 1080p projectors as well as what source is being used I'd appreciate it. It would seem that a 720p would benifit from the increase in pixel density due to its lower resolution and because it is already scaling down an image from a hi-def disc.


That's all I was trying to make clear. That zooming produces a correct CIH image.

How does cropping the sides make it the same height?


Well that is how it is on my system. I watched Transformers last night. It is credited as 2.40:1, and I projected it on to a 2.37:1 screen, so just 0.03 difference...


As mine is and does...


Well that is not me Tim. I don't own a flat panel TV...


Yes, and you seem to be accusing me of doing just that when I am not...


I think before we can agree as to what is correct and what is not, you have to use your lens to see what the lens aspect is all about. I've already tried zooming and do not like it...


So prove that point by capturing an optically Horizontally Expanded image...


I have had the oppertunity to show and test Panamorph's UH380, Prismsoncic's FE H1400 and my lens on 720, but only mine so far for a 1080. Mine is a basic 2 element unit where the other two as both 5 element. The image quality was better with the 5 elements lenses. I would never say that it was not. But the point is, and to answer your question - when using a lens on both projectors, the image is made up of 720 or 1080 pixles. These pixels remain the same size vertically for both 1.78 and 2.37. That is what made it better for all that saw it, not ease or use or time to change ARs...


Both were fed Blu-ray disc over HDMI. The 1080 ran at 1080P @ 24 frames...


In you opinion, and your entitled to that, but I am not the only one with an opinion that will differ to yours on this matter...

Mark

Everything is X:1. Everything already has the same height.




I'm not talking about what you like more or less. I'm not talking about which method is best. I'm talking about which method does CIH correctly.

My definition of CIH:

• Projecting varying aspect ratios at the same height and at the proper aspect ratio.

Granted this is going to be up to the aspect ratio of the screen.


Zooming accomplishes this. It may look like **** but it does it.

Lets be clear here. CIH home theater using an anamorphic lens is NOT the same as CinemaScope film projection. CinemaScope film is a COMPLETE 35mm frame with a horizontally optically compressed image, which is then expanded in projection by a 2X anamorphic lens. In other words, in the film system the image to be projected is ALREADY compressed and utilizes the full available resolution of that 35mm frame. In CIH home theater, when people are using an anamorhic lens, they are expanding the LETTERBOXED image vertically to create an ARTIFICIAL horizontally compressed image, which does not have any more resolution than it originally had in its unexpanded state, and then expanding that image horizontally with the anamorhic lens. There is ZERO gain in resolution over the alternative zooming method - the amount of information on the screen is the same for both methods, the same as it was on the original letterboxed DVD.

The point is, each frame of film is a projected image of light. It is not made up of pixels.

When projecting our video image, we want to max out the panel creating the image, not throw 25% of the vertical rez away - I am talking about the pixels in the panel here, not the source rez. It is the pixels of the panels that make up the image we see...

For a given rectangle of light, is it not better to have 2073600 pixels working than 1555200?

Mark

First off the original point is that zoom does CIH correctly.


The second point is that if the source is not anamorphic no detail will be gained by scaling it to make it anamorphic. So what are these extra pixels gaining you? Brightness and a higher pixel density? Two things my image isn't lacking.

CAVX, with your projector already overscanning their is scaling going on. It isn't mapping pixels from the source to the projectors panel 1:1 so your setup will be scaling no matter what. If that's the case, sure why not just fill the panel when scaling. But with a projector that will properly map source pixels to the panel 1:1 it will be a compromise.


And back to an earlier point:



I'm not accusing you of it. I'm saying you yourself stated you do this very thing! The only difference compared to my example is that for you it's images narrower than 2.37 and wider than 1.78 that get the top and bottom chopped off changing the original aspect ratio.



You know what aspect ratio you're now displaying? It's 2.20:.92

What happened to keeping everything X:1?

I would really like someone to post some comparative screen shots of the zooming method versus the lens method. I may be totally wrong here, but my feeling is that there is a lot of 'hype' being propogated about the image superiority of the lens method. Certainly to dismiss the zooming method as not being the correct way to do CIH is just not true. I suspect many many more people use zooming than do use an anamorphic lens and they are quite happy with the results, and it is a perfectly valid CIH approach. Another thing is that the disadvantages of putting an anamorphic lens into your system (pin-cushion distortion, chromatic aberrations, contrast loss, and astigmatism) are things that the lens enthusiasts seem to want to dismiss or avoid discussing. They just jump onto the extra panel area being utilized, while ignoring the potential image degradation introduced by the scaler and the lens. So it's probably not unreasonable for a lot of people to be really skeptical that the lens addition really does that much to improve picture quality, over simple zooming. Anyway, a set of comparison screen shots might help to sway some opinions one way or another.

I'm two thirds the of the way. I have my IN76 and a Brother's prism coated lens. I kind of wanted Cavx's lens but the coated lens wasn't ready when I had the money and got good deals (on the cheap) on the IN76 and Brother's lens. I'm pretty much happy so far except that the top and bottom (closed caption) is cut off on 16:9 material. Now I need a sled for my lens.

Anyone have a solution for closed caption problem-scaler?, different lens?, etc?

Just glancing through this thread it seems to be saying you can get 2:35:1 by just zooming the projector and not using a lens. I assume this works just on anamorphic material not 16:9 TV, non anamorphic disks, correct?

Also is there a sled out there that is (on the cheap) that will work with my table mounted Brother's lens and IN76?

Thanks-

I'll unbox my lens again and do a comparison next week if I can get the time.

Start posting any images you'd like me to test with it. Either resolution charts or stills from films. 1920x1080 images that haven't been scaled please.

I have the following HD-DVDs if anyone wants to make any specific scene requests:

Aspect Ratios Greater than 1.85:1

• Terminator 2: Judgement Day - French Import
• Unforgiven
• Training Day
• The Road Warrior
• The Thing
• Firewall

Aspect Ratios Less than or equal to 1.85:1

• Babel
• Goodfellas
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
• Lethal Weapon (poor quality HD-DVD I hear)
• Black Rain
• Planet Earth

I know some aren't scope films but if someone feels the need to see one them scaled, cropped and stretched I'll toss it in.

If there's a scene on another HD-DVD you need to see I may try and get it from BBOnline if it's something I want to watch and it's available (AKA Not King Kong).

VTPete did a nice little write up comparison of zooming -vs- a HTB with his lens RS1 here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post11602836

He determined that he didn't see a benefit to using the lens with his setup.


To do this test I'll have to move my projector off of its shelf in the nook under the stairs and out into the room so it isn't going to fill my whole screen. I'll shrink the image down to keep a throw ratio around the 1.8 it currently is.

Build a sled to move the lens out of the way for 16x9 content. You shouldn't be cropping 33% of the image.

For 2.35 films some DVD players can move captions up into the picture. But you may just have to zoom in your projector so the image is smaller and they show up. CAVX has some info on his website.


A CIH setup keeps the height the same but the width changes for different aspect ratios. There should be black bars on the side of your screen for films that aren't scope.

Zooming works by just zooming out (and lens shifting) until the image touches the top and bottom border of the screen. Depending on the ratio of the content there may or may not be unused portions of the screen on the sides.


People have done some DIY solutions with drawer cabinets. Check out the DIY CIH section.

Just use 4:3 mode on the IN76, it will squish 16:9 and make it fit with a lens in place.


Never heard of this "closed caption problem", are you talking about subtitles placed in the bars? If that's it, you need a player that can reposition the subtitles or something that can partially-zoom/stretch the image.


It works on anything, without the lens you just don't stretch the image electronically. Of course "zooming" introduces a number of problems/complexities that can't be solved/automated easilly, if at all:

Light spill from unused panel area.
Reduced light output.
Having to manually zoom/shift/focus the projector each time (that's probably the biggest drawback IMO).

Good tip. In the long run a sled would be best so you're not excessively scaling. But then you have to get up to move the lens in and out of place. Give the 4:3 mode a try and see how you like it.


Depends on the setup. The first one can be easily eliminated by the theatre design. Second is a non/minor issue due to lumens also being gained by zooming out. Third that's the main issue with it. Convenience. With some projectors and projector placements zooming could be a major PITA.

My setup:

Light spill: Most caught where projector shines through my back wall. Rest caught by screens black border

Reduced light output: Zooming out results in more lumens. Is it as much of an increase as using a lens? Probably not. VTPete couldn't tell a difference in brightness with his RS1 and HTB lens.

Manual Zoom/Shift/Focus: An issue but it's an easy operation with my projector's (AE2000U with remote focus and zoom) placement on a shelf. For what it's worth focus doesn't change when a lens zooms in or out. You can actually focus the easiest by zooming all the way out and then zoom back in once focused properly. However, lens shifting with my projector can put the focus off just a hair so I'll walk up the screen and tap the focus button on the remote so it's spot on.

Depends on the projector, some (eg Infocus) don't change much across their zoom range.


But how do you automate it? With a lens it's just a button press to switch AR, or to move the lens in/out.

Didn't realize this. That could be a serious issue for some projector setups.


You don't. That's why I said:


Zooming is never going to be as convenient / automated as lens setup. It would be awesome to have a completely automated system but for me it's not worth the cost.

With this current thread I think one major consideration that seems to have been overlooked is screen size:-
If you are running a small (100" or less) screen then zooming is probably "good enough".
You have potentially 25% less brightness (since not all the lcd panel is used) and reduced pixel density vs anamorphic lens, but especially if using a high def source the PQ differences vs an anamorphic lens are probably negligible
But, as many scope users run larger screens (130"+) that loss in brightness plus lower pixel density add up to a huge difference.
I run a 140" 2.37:1 screen, which for SD DVD is pretty much the limit for me at least in terms of PQ. Some DVDs that aren't mastered so well really start to show all their flaws. At that size, zooming simply doesn't work, screen gets dim and PQ goes downhill really fast.
If I go to BD, then zooming is watchable (just), but still not bright enough for my taste. Put the lens in place and Ta Dah !!! Widescreen Nirvana
There has been a lot of talk about resolution which I think is misleading. Scaling the image vertically doesn't increase the resolution as such (since you can never add quality to an image, only remove it), it increases the pixel density, which on the bigger screens makes all the difference.
Also consider that the human eye is an imperfect instrument. Looking at a still picture is not the same as looking a 60hz moving image.
I know one night, I bumped the anamorphic lens partway through a film. I put it back and finished watching. Only later did I break out the test pattern to reset it. Needless to say it was so far out of true it made me shudder. Didn't notice it when watching a film.