What do you use for your CIH screen: an anamorphic lens or zoom method? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: How do you display CinemaScope content on your CIH screen?
Anamorphic lens 60 33.15%
Zoom method 103 56.91%
Anamorphic lens, but will start using the zoom method 6 3.31%
Zoom method, but will start using an anamorphic lens 12 6.63%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 28Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 109 Old 02-13-2017, 03:33 PM
sfm
Member
 
sfm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Until recently I had been using a Panamorph UH440 and motorized sled with my JVC RS-56 (and previously with a RS-20 and Sharp XV-20000). Once I remembered that the RS-56 supported lens memory I gave zooming a try for scope viewing... and subsequently promptly removed the lens and sled from my installation to sell.

While impossible to properly A/B in my case the zoom method yielded, IMO, better brightness, no pincusion (obviously) and no internal reflections (a problem with both my JVC projectors and I had even sent my 440 back to panamorph to address this issue which helped but didn't totally eliminate it). Like others have mentioned I have a Lumagen in the chain so I can quickly revert to 16x9 for menus, extras when zoomed (if needed). I find the lens memory (zoom, focus, etc.) to be accurate enough that I find no reason to mess with it.

My screen, a Carada (RIP) Masquerade, has a wide border with felt which is surrounded by GOM black cloth so no issues with overspill.

The only thing I don't like is the annoying choice that JVC made to display the grid instead of whatever video image is displayed while zooming (IIRC the RS-600 my brother has does not do this). But a small price to pay for what I perceive to be a much better scope viewing experience.
sfm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 04:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1503 Post(s)
Liked: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Yeah, but how accurate is it? When I use lens memory on my Sharp projector, the zoom, image shift and focus are all "ballpark" adjustments. You can do it 5 times in a row and get 5 different results. I have to manually fine-tune all of them every time I use a lens present.
I was thinking that could be as issue. I used to use a projector with motorized focus controls and now I have a manual and honestly I prefer the manual controls for accuracy.
Brian Hampton is online now  
post #63 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,175
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfm View Post
Until recently I had been using a Panamorph UH440 and motorized sled with my JVC RS-56 (and previously with a RS-20 and Sharp XV-20000). Once I remembered that the RS-56 supported lens memory I gave zooming a try for scope viewing... and subsequently promptly removed the lens and sled from my installation to sell.

While impossible to properly A/B in my case the zoom method yielded, IMO, better brightness, no pincusion (obviously) and no internal reflections (a problem with both my JVC projectors and I had even sent my 440 back to panamorph to address this issue which helped but didn't totally eliminate it). Like others have mentioned I have a Lumagen in the chain so I can quickly revert to 16x9 for menus, extras when zoomed (if needed). I find the lens memory (zoom, focus, etc.) to be accurate enough that I find no reason to mess with it.

My screen, a Carada (RIP) Masquerade, has a wide border with felt which is surrounded by GOM black cloth so no issues with overspill.

The only thing I don't like is the annoying choice that JVC made to display the grid instead of whatever video image is displayed while zooming (IIRC the RS-600 my brother has does not do this). But a small price to pay for what I perceive to be a much better scope viewing experience.
As I've said before, my A-lens is there mainly because I didn't have quite enough throw distance for my JVC to produce the widest image on my screen. If I had the throw distance to not need the A-lens, I would go with strictly the lens memory method.

BTW, you can go to the Lens menu in the JVC and turn off that grid pattern. I turned it off on mine so when the lens re-zooms it's just the picture re-sizing, no grid.
R Harkness is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 12:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 1534
From this survey and other info seems the heyday of anamorphic lens is past us?

I use my a-lens currently - my setup is 8 years old and "light lumens challenged", however like many here when I upgrade to a true 4k HDR bright PJ I'll re-assess the zoom vs a-lens.

So, people who even used a-lens were the 1% or so of HT's ..... .....
drunkpenguin likes this.
mtbdudex is offline  
post #65 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 12:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Just for fun, today I dug out my old ISCO and tried it on my Epson LS10000. I used the 4k scaling from my Denon amp which is OK but tends to add some image noise which tends to pull me out of the movie (so I don't use it), but thought I'd try it for testing purposes. With the A lens in place the image noise seems reduced and the image possibly a tad more 'solid' in appearance compared to without the lens, but it's a small difference. With true 4k source material and no image noise it could look better, but it may also not look a great deal different as I was using the image noise as the most obvious improvement factor. Without the noise from true 4k it may be harder to tell the difference.

So unless you already have an A lens or can get a good one at a good price, it may not be a worthwhile addition any more (especially as 4k pixels are smaller than 1080 pixels with an lens if BD is your primary source). With 4k source material and a 4k display, an A lens does allow you to use 2 million more display pixels which could be something like 1.5 million with an eshift display, and that is a lot of display pixels to add to an image. It's just how visible the difference would be compared to zooming, and if you're sitting close enough to notice (2xSH for me)
Kelvin1965S likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #66 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 12:57 PM
 
drunkpenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,184
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1898 Post(s)
Liked: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
So, people who even used a-lens were the 1% or so of HT's ..... .....
Yes, at one time we were the elite! My wife still gives me crap for buying a lens that was a grand or 2, I don't remember what I paid for it.

I think now we are the old relics. The ones that kept their old PJs and never upgraded to 3D or 4K. We once ruled the world! But now we are past our prime and all we have are stories from our hay day!
mtbdudex likes this.
drunkpenguin is offline  
post #67 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 01:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,175
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkpenguin View Post
Yes, at one time we were the elite! My wife still gives me crap for buying a lens that was a grand or 2, I don't remember what I paid for it.

I think now we are the old relics. The ones that kept their old PJs and never upgraded to 3D or 4K. We once ruled the world! But now we are past our prime and all we have are stories from our hay day!
Indeed.

I'm in a weird place with my A-lens. I think it's a superb product, from an excellent company, and I'm very grateful it exists.

But frankly I wish I could get rid of it. It's an added bunch of weight on my projector lift, it makes positioning of my projector more finicky, makes replacing projectors all the more trouble (re-setting up with the A-lens), adds to the complexity of my remote system, adds more effort in terms of trying to adjust out distortions when introducing an A-lens, and just adds more complication overall. I wish I could get rid of it. However, it helps me solve a real problem for my throw distance, and since I won't be moving any time soon, and projectors are unlikely to arrive with a zoom ratio wider than the current JVCs, I'm stuck with it.
Goran, blastermaster and mtbdudex like this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #68 of 109 Old 02-14-2017, 01:27 PM
 
drunkpenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,184
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1898 Post(s)
Liked: 1819
I've had my pj lens combo for 10 years now. If and when the PJ dies I'll look at my options. I too wouldn't mind getting rid of it. I've spent many a nights trying to get the image just perfectly adjusted. I still have a tad bit of keystone that won't go away, but nobody seems to notice it but me.

I also recently went back to drywall on the front wall and removed all my fabric panels that surrounded the screen, so a zoom method might be bad for me, not sure.
drunkpenguin is offline  
post #69 of 109 Old 02-15-2017, 10:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,830
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 259
If I still had my A-lens then I wouldn't have been able to hide my projector as I have now done. Much cheaper than a projector lift, though I have yet to add a 'door' that will open when I use the projector.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Rear coving 2.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	132.0 KB
ID:	1969665  

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". William Shakespeare 1615
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #70 of 109 Old 02-15-2017, 10:31 AM
 
drunkpenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,184
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1898 Post(s)
Liked: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post
If I still had my A-lens then I wouldn't have been able to hide my projector as I have now done. Much cheaper than a projector lift, though I have yet to add a 'door' that will open when I use the projector.
Does that light spin? It looks cool!
Kelvin1965S likes this.
drunkpenguin is offline  
post #71 of 109 Old 02-15-2017, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,830
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkpenguin View Post
Does that light spin? It looks cool!
Unfortunately not. I was pleased to find that it didn't interfere with the projector's image though as it saved me a lot of hassle moving it and another one at the other end of the room.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". William Shakespeare 1615
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #72 of 109 Old 05-12-2019, 06:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Friendly Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 132
I've been curious about anamorphic lenses for a while, but the cost has kept me from exploring it more deeply. For the heck of it I zoomed out to 2.40:1 on a letter boxed image, spilling past the edges of my 130" diagonal 16:9 screen and was intrigued. I had a 168" diagonal 2.40:1 screen built and dang, I never watch 16:9 in the theater room any more. I have an old Sony HPW30 projector but there is 100% light control in the room. 18 1/2 feet of throw. Viewing distance ~ 16 feet.
Friendly Fire is offline  
post #73 of 109 Old 05-12-2019, 10:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post
I've been curious about anamorphic lenses for a while, but the cost has kept me from exploring it more deeply. For the heck of it I zoomed out to 2.40:1 on a letter boxed image, spilling past the edges of my 130" diagonal 16:9 screen and was intrigued. I had a 168" diagonal 2.40:1 screen built and dang, I never watch 16:9 in the theater room any more. I have an old Sony HPW30 projector but there is 100% light control in the room. 18 1/2 feet of throw. Viewing distance ~ 16 feet.
Nicely done. Curious about one thing, though: you say you never watch 16:9. Do you mean you avoid TV shows that are 16:9 or movies that are flat (rather than widescreen), or do you mean when you watch TV or flat movies you stretch them or crop them to fill your 'Scope screen?

Last edited by dschulz; 05-12-2019 at 05:48 PM.
dschulz is online now  
post #74 of 109 Old 05-12-2019, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
I posted to this thread back in 2016 and now I’m doing a different method than I was then but I guess it falls into zoom method.

I’m zooming by moving the ceiling mounted projector on an inclined rail a DIY project I made. The slide provides zoom and the incline provides vertical image shift. With moving the projector focus remains constant.

I start at full zoom at the back of the slide for max light output and those lumens never change as I don’t adjust the projectors zoom. Thus max light output at all times.

Works good and lets a cheap entry level projector be a CIH projector.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #75 of 109 Old 05-12-2019, 12:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Friendly Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Nicely done. Curious about one thing, though: you say you never watch 16:9. Do you mean you avoid TV shows that are 16:9 or movies that are flat (rather than widescreen), or do you mean when you watch TV or flat movies you stretch them or crop them to fill you 'Scope screen?
Dshulz,

For example Game of Thrones shot in 16:9 has been relegated to the flat panel in the family room. It is easy enough to fit a 16:9 onto the 2.40:1 screen and either mask or look past the vertical side bars, but after watching shows on the wall sized 168" diagonal, anything else isn't satisfying. The experience just isn't the same.

Unexpectedly 3D programming does amazingly well on the 168". Less ghosting, better depth. Avengers Infinity War is just striking. I've watched the movie a dozen times in 2D, but that 3D version is remarkable.

But whatever I watch in the theater room it has to be 2.40:1 going forward.

Thanks.
dschulz likes this.
Friendly Fire is offline  
post #76 of 109 Old 05-31-2019, 04:11 AM
Member
 
doctormyeyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 68
I have an ISCO II lens, which has been gathering dust in a storage closet. I switched to zooming years ago. Even with my old Panasonic AE3000 I found the picture good enough by zooming to forego the hassles of using the lens (and I had a simple installation- just placed it on a shelf in front of the projector). With my JVC RS540, it has been unnecessary. I'm using a 120" diagonal Dalite High Power screen and do not need the extra brightness the lens provides. I think whether you use a lens or not depends on many factors - projector, screen size and gain, room color, etc.

I originally bought the lens to use with an NEC 4:3 projector, to convert it to 16:9, and found it worthwhile, as well, with a Panasonic 720p projector. With newer projectors, in my room and with my screen, I have not found the added benefit to be worth the hassle, and would sell it if I knew how to post things on ebay.
doctormyeyes is offline  
post #77 of 109 Old 06-01-2019, 01:58 AM
Member
 
ask4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I posted to this thread back in 2016 and now I’m doing a different method than I was then but I guess it falls into zoom method.

I’m zooming by moving the ceiling mounted projector on an inclined rail a DIY project I made. The slide provides zoom and the incline provides vertical image shift. With moving the projector focus remains constant.

I start at full zoom at the back of the slide for max light output and those lumens never change as I don’t adjust the projectors zoom. Thus max light output at all times.

Works good and lets a cheap entry level projector be a CIH projector.
interesting "Zoom" solution, but you write that "With moving the projector focus remains constant."

I do not understand why you do not need to refocus the projector lens between the different trow distances? Do you use the projector lens in it's hyper-focal range or something?

The lumens never change from the projector itself using it like that, but on the screen the fL will drop with the longer throw/bigger picture area, and using only ~66% of the light (and resolution) from the 16:9 ship on 2.35:1 material that shod be viewed with the biggest picture area wil be a lot dimmer than viewing 16:9 contents..

If like others here using the lens zoom method, the zoom lens often sends more light trough when zoomed (due to different F Numbers at different Focal Lengths) , so that will reduce the fL. drop differences between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in the CIH setup.

I use both the ISCO II and ISCO 4XL (IIIL) lens in my setup, and have the JVC RS520 on he 4XL and a RS2 on the II.

ISCO II does not like the ISCO 4XL support an easy inn and out of the light path use, so that needs to be setup a little differently. the II also have a rather small input element, so will not fit projectors with lens deep retracted setups etc.

Have tried the lens memory zoom method on projectors that support that, but like using A-lenses better...

I apsolutly love the ISCO 4XL combined with the Cinesled.

Last edited by ask4me2; 06-01-2019 at 06:43 AM.
ask4me2 is offline  
post #78 of 109 Old 06-01-2019, 04:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Not long after my last post in this thread, I bought a Panasonic UHD player. I found it's upscaling to be excellent and doesn't add any image noise. Combined with my old ISCO II find I still prefer the image vs without (zooming) so it's stayed in use. I used to use an HTPC for scaling with the ISCO in my previous set up, and I think I may try going back to that again, as it allows scaling of ratios like 2.20:1 and 2.0:1 without cropping if leaving the a lens in place, so doesn't require it to be removed and the image zoomed for those movies if you don't want to crop and view them as scope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #79 of 109 Old 06-01-2019, 07:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ask4me2 View Post
interesting "Zoom" solution, but you write that "With moving the projector focus remains constant."

I do not understand why you do not need to refocus the projector lens between the different trow distances? Do you use the projector lens in it's hyper-focal range or something?

The lumens never change from the projector itself using it like that, but on the screen the fL will drop with the longer throw/bigger picture area, and using only ~66% of the light (and resolution) from the 16:9 ship on 2.35:1 material that shod be viewed with the biggest picture area wil be a lot dimmer than viewing 16:9 contents..

If like others here using the lens zoom method, the zoom lens often sends more light trough when zoomed (due to different F Numbers at different Focal Lengths) , so that will reduce the fL. drop differences between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in the CIH setup.
You can try it yourself. Take a piece of white paper and hold it to your screen and it will be in focus. Notice the pixel grid as a focus indicator. Now move the paper 3-4’ closer to the projector and see what you get.

Yes FL will increase as the projector gets closer. At my full back zoom position my zoom is also at its widest for max lumen output. At that position I have the FL I want for lights out totally black room movie viewing of scope and IMAX movies. The majority of what I zoom in to watch is TV and most of our TV watching we like less immersive and brighter as we also have some light added back into the room more conducive to socializing and more of a living room lighting. It is also a nice way to boast the output for the few 3D showings we do.

We watch academy and flat movies more like CIA most of the time. For me there is a bit more selection about immersion level than most folks in this forum. As an example being a fan of classic movies and little known movies that may only have poor transfers available sometimes DVD is the best that can be found, a little less immersion improves PQ a lot.

The biggest advantage to my method is for someone on a limited budget wanting a method to get to better presentation. An A-lens and HTPC and scaling devices and high end projectors with lots of programmable adjustments is all great and maybe even the best. There are all these new ARs and AR changing movies going on to deal with. The idea of the slide took me just a few hours to construct and now I have added counter balance to it. It will work with projectors in the $500 up price range it is a quick and simple thing to adjust. It takes less than 10 seconds for me to accomplish a full zoom and I don’t need to climb a ladder and fiddle with adjustments. Some weeks it hardly gets moved and other days it gets adjusted several times for back to back showings.

There is another advantage to my system and that is individual preferences. I have several older family members that just have a distaste for full on immersion regardless how good the PQ. They have been sitting near the back of commercial theaters their whole lives. When I know they are coming to enjoy a movie with us I view the variable immersion as seating selection and just as we would do if we went with them to a commercial theater we sit in the back row with them.

I know I have a different take in varying image sizes than most here in the CIH forum. there is no variable image size forum and my method does do CIH well so I share it here.
ask4me2 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #80 of 109 Old 06-02-2019, 03:57 AM
Member
 
ask4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
You can try it yourself. Take a piece of white paper and hold it to your screen and it will be in focus. Notice the pixel grid as a focus indicator. Now move the paper 3-4’ closer to the projector and see what you get.
Yes that is a quick method to test this to see the Depth of field (DOF) for the projector setup.

Know from the good old days with CRT projectors that the DOF when focusing the optic can be real narrow 2-3cm, and often used a paper to check the center, corner and Scheimpflug adjustments.

These two projectors (HD1 vs G90) will for example react quite differently to the white paper test (not taking the CRT convergence problems into the equation).



Think Different digital projectors with different resolution Chip/pixel size, throw distance use of lens focal length and Aperture f-number will have different DOF properties. A native 4K projector with almost the same lens and setup like the NX5 vs X7900 will have a quite different size on the pixels and circle of confusion, and that again will be the case between the new JVC 4K models where the NX9 with that great lens will get an even a smaller DOF than the N5/N7 models due to its higher light/aperture setting.

So all of these factors will come to play if the projector is moved or how much the white paper cold be moved before the pixel grid get out of focus.

Actually the focus plane where the projector screen get to be at "100%" (if that exist for a 3chip projector) in focus is only at one particular focus distance, but because of the DOF where the circle of confusion still is small enough to still show the pixel grid correctly there is an usable sliding area where the focus still seems to be ok.

Just tested with a "white paper" on my [email protected] throw from the 2.35:1 format 120" screen now with and without the A-lens, and can with optimal focus on the screen get about 1' (~30cm) of A4 paper movement shorter throw before it gets out of focus. Switching the A-lens in and out of the light path only reminded me how good and razor sharp that ISCO 4XL realy is...

The "rule" for DOF is that you will get a bigger usable distance further behind the focus plane than in front, (it's about 1/3 in front vs 2/3 behind) so I guess with a slight refocus with this in mind, the total distance cold be about 2' +-1' for that RS520 setup.

If i had to go for a similar variable projector throw setup, I wold try to make it a remote controlled one, maybe build around a slightly modified carport opener or something.

Think a variable projector throw setup is a great idea if the correct projector, zoom and throw distance is used, and it sounds to me like you have a nice one bud16415.

One idea I have played with a little, is to use a shorter throw distance (with or without a necessary lens memory refocus) , is to add a good tab tension remote controlled 16:9 projector screen to my setup.

This is to get the best out of those great movies where there is some variable AR between parts filmed with imax and 2.35:1. So if the screen is situated a little closer to the viewing position, and is large enough, that relay will get that big "imax" feeling, and will be fun to try out.

Last edited by ask4me2; 06-02-2019 at 05:22 AM.
ask4me2 is offline  
post #81 of 109 Old 06-02-2019, 06:04 PM
Member
 
darksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 72
I use the zoom method by choice. I believe a Lumagen processor is a better investment than an anamorphic lens. DTM can alleviate brightness shortcomings of projectors for 4k movies without any of the sharpness degradation effects of an anamorphic lens.
darksets is offline  
post #82 of 109 Old 06-02-2019, 06:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by darksets View Post
I use the zoom method by choice. I believe a Lumagen processor is a better investment than an anamorphic lens. DTM can alleviate brightness shortcomings of projectors for 4k movies without any of the sharpness degradation effects of an anamorphic lens.
That's not my experience of A lenses, otherwise I wouldn't use one.

Sometimes people confuse the increased pixel density with a loss of sharpness, but that's probably down to using more pixels to render the image and smoothing out things like diagonal lines or circular content. Using more and smaller pixels vs less and larger pixels does make a visible difference. With UHD content you'd be using 2 million more pixels to render the image and that's the same amount of pixels an entire Blu Ray disk uses. With zooming you have larger pixel gaps and an image that looks 'thin' in comparison.

There are advantages to using a Lumagen, such as not having to use the lens memories which often don't return accurately and allow the focus to drift, and any aspect ratio can be catered for, just like with an HTPC (but is generally easier to use). I think the ultimate solution would be an A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC.
ask4me2 likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #83 of 109 Old 06-03-2019, 07:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ask4me2 View Post
Yes that is a quick method to test this to see the Depth of field (DOF) for the projector setup.
You are correct it is a DOF issue and my reason in doing this was to provide a CIH or CIH+IMAX or CIA / variable area solution for people on the budget end of HT.

Most of the cheaper shorter throw entry-level DLP projectors use a small chip, small lens system and bright light sources. Just like the pinhole cameras we used to make as a kid out of a shoebox to watch the eclipse that worked with infinite DOF these projectors are closer to that than the old CRT projectors with their massive lens systems. The other thing with a shorter throw projector less movement causes greater zoom.

In my case in my small theater room I have a max throw of 8’9” and the Viewsonic Pro 7827HD will produce a 110” image and I sit eyes to screen at 8’. That’s about 1.7 x Screen height for IMAX content and given 1080p resolution works best for us. Scope is of course 2.4 x SH and is quite nice. Given the small size to the room and single row seating and what is out there in fairly good quality shorter throw projectors it’s the best we could do for immersion and it feels big enough and theater like. We use the room for a mixture of viewing and we use the slider zoom to watch most 1.85 flat movies just a little taller than CIH. We watch some Academy movies at IMAX height or less depending on the media and transfer quality. If it is a great movie and all we have is scaled DVD of a poor transfer we will watch it around 3 x SH or as small as we have to go to make it look good. That removes immersion but doesn’t harm the entertainment value all that much of that type movie. TV as I mentioned, most of it doesn’t need to be all that huge. Most people with flat panel TVs sitting 8’ away would have a 60” set and enjoy it and that’s about what we do. The added FL makes it more TV like even.

There are a few great 4k budget projectors hitting main stream now that are shorter throws so that will likely be our next upgrade. As I can’t make the room larger I might push the seating up a few inches at that time.

I guess I should in the future refer to my method as the DOF method when recommending such a rig for anyone on a CIH budget. IMO it is such and improvement over CIW what most people are doing entering this hobby.

I like your two screen solution for IMAX there are a few others here doing that. For my method to work best for me I went with a stealth screen of no given size or AR and I let the dark gray surface do self masking. This is another budget friendly method for someone to get around 4 way masking. Not perfect but also not to bad.
ask4me2 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #84 of 109 Old 06-06-2019, 06:36 PM
Member
 
darksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
That's not my experience of A lenses, otherwise I wouldn't use one.

Sometimes people confuse the increased pixel density with a loss of sharpness, but that's probably down to using more pixels to render the image and smoothing out things like diagonal lines or circular content. Using more and smaller pixels vs less and larger pixels does make a visible difference. With UHD content you'd be using 2 million more pixels to render the image and that's the same amount of pixels an entire Blu Ray disk uses. With zooming you have larger pixel gaps and an image that looks 'thin' in comparison.

There are advantages to using a Lumagen, such as not having to use the lens memories which often don't return accurately and allow the focus to drift, and any aspect ratio can be catered for, just like with an HTPC (but is generally easier to use). I think the ultimate solution would be an A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC.
You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.
darksets is offline  
post #85 of 109 Old 06-06-2019, 07:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,465
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 538 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by darksets View Post
You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.
Are your conclusions based on comparing the same projector with and without a quality a-lens or are you just basing this on your perceptions of what video processors can accomplish? I read back and could not find anything where you stated that you had compared both via actual tests of the same source with and without the lens. If you have done this can you please state which equipment you used so I can continue further conversation about your conclusions. Thanks.
Killroy is online now  
post #86 of 109 Old 06-08-2019, 05:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by darksets View Post
You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.
I'm not ignoring anything but you're clearly ignoring my earlier comments - I've been using A lenses since 2004 so I'm fully aware of what is required and how they perform compared to zooming - I've seen quite a few over the years and a good lens like an ISCO doesn't degrade the image as you suggest - cheaper lenses might though of course - just like a cheap prime lens in a projector can have CA or poor focus uniformity (the ISCOs for example are probably far better than the prime lens in the projector), and as Killroy has said, it sounds like you haven't even seen an A lens or made any direct comparisons yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making those comments. In my experience, people who think they only add brightness or think they all degrade the image have never seen one.

I've made plenty of comparisons to determine which methods produce the best results, and the A lens always has the advantage for the reasons I mentioned earlier. With my new set up (after a house move) I was zooming to start with and then after finding my ISCO lens in the loft a few months later I did some comparisons and found that just as before the A lens still produces better results, so I've kept it in place. If zooming was better I wouldn't use the lens - I have the choice so naturally choose the better image. If zooming was better I'd sell the lens as there would be no reason to keep it. I don't want or need any extra brightness and in my case the lens reduces my image brightness by approx one lux vs zooming. I use the lens simply for the improved image quality.

If you're zooming, why do you think a Lumagen will produce better results? A Lumagen is a scaler just like an HTPC, so if you're using the shrink method for CIH then you're scaling a zoomed image for everything other than 2.40 content, so the pixels are always large with larger pixel gaps (so a coarser image with far less pixel density which looks 'thin' in comparison) - I've seen a set up of my projector with a Lumagen using the shrink method so I know what it's like and still prefer the image from the A lens. The only thing the lumagen has as an advantage over zooming is that the aspect ratio changes are quick and with no image or focus drift over time. An HTPC will do the same - I was using an HTPC before and will add one again at some stage. An A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC would be the best choice.

Pixel to pixel isn't the advantage people think IMHO - when you compare pixel to pixel (zooming) vs an A lens with scaling the added pixel density and smoother more natural image has a visible advantage (hence why most people who do a comparison buy the lens if they can afford one). Zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. If pixel to pixel was really that important people wouldn't be using e-shift projectors, and in the past, people wouldn't be scaling DVD or BD to fit displays that aren't of the same resolution - people scale DVD to fit 720, 1080 and 4k displays and don't render them as a pixel to pixel window - people scale everything to fit the panel or screen. No one renders it pixel to pixel in a window and zooms the image to fit the screen either, they always scale it. Even in post production they're constantly scaling with different algorithms that destroy every single original pixel and replace them with new. A good scaler just does the same thing.

Last year I had a few people round for demos at different times, and one guy liked what the A lens could do so he went out and bought a used ISCO III for approx $3000 - why would he do that if it made the image worse? He certainly didn't buy it for my benefit.

Another guy who had a JVC N5 on pre order went to my local dealer for a demo to see what it was he was buying, and right after came round to see my set up. He then cancelled his N5 and now has the same pj as me because he thought it was better. Seems an eshift pj plus an A lens compares extremely well to a native 4k projector.

Alan Roser always used an A lens and HTPC with the Sim2 projectors at demos because he wanted to show the best possible image to sell the projector. If zooming was better he would have done that instead. - if you're trying to sell a product you always want to show it at its best and zooming wasn't going to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #87 of 109 Old 06-08-2019, 08:00 AM
Member
 
darksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Are your conclusions based on comparing the same projector with and without a quality a-lens or are you just basing this on your perceptions of what video processors can accomplish? I read back and could not find anything where you stated that you had compared both via actual tests of the same source with and without the lens. If you have done this can you please state which equipment you used so I can continue further conversation about your conclusions. Thanks.
No, I have not used an anamorphic lens and have not done a comparison. Enjoy your conversations of the type "This projectors looks fantastic!", "The black levels look terrible" , "Last night I watched ... and it looked amazing using my ....".
darksets is offline  
post #88 of 109 Old 06-08-2019, 08:47 AM
Member
 
darksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I'm not ignoring anything but you're clearly ignoring my earlier comments - I've been using A lenses since 2004 so I'm fully aware of what is required and how they perform compared to zooming - I've seen quite a few over the years and a good lens like an ISCO doesn't degrade the image as you suggest - cheaper lenses might though of course - just like a cheap prime lens in a projector can have CA or poor focus uniformity (the ISCOs for example are probably far better than the prime lens in the projector), and as Killroy has said, it sounds like you haven't even seen an A lens or made any direct comparisons yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making those comments. In my experience, people who think they only add brightness or think they all degrade the image have never seen one.

I've made plenty of comparisons to determine which methods produce the best results, and the A lens always has the advantage for the reasons I mentioned earlier. With my new set up (after a house move) I was zooming to start with and then after finding my ISCO lens in the loft a few months later I did some comparisons and found that just as before the A lens still produces better results, so I've kept it in place. If zooming was better I wouldn't use the lens - I have the choice so naturally choose the better image. If zooming was better I'd sell the lens as there would be no reason to keep it. I don't want or need any extra brightness and in my case the lens reduces my image brightness by approx one lux vs zooming. I use the lens simply for the improved image quality.

If you're zooming, why do you think a Lumagen will produce better results? A Lumagen is a scaler just like an HTPC, so if you're using the shrink method for CIH then you're scaling a zoomed image for everything other than 2.40 content, so the pixels are always large with larger pixel gaps (so a coarser image with far less pixel density which looks 'thin' in comparison) - I've seen a set up of my projector with a Lumagen using the shrink method so I know what it's like and still prefer the image from the A lens. The only thing the lumagen has as an advantage over zooming is that the aspect ratio changes are quick and with no image or focus drift over time. An HTPC will do the same - I was using an HTPC before and will add one again at some stage. An A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC would be the best choice.

Pixel to pixel isn't the advantage people think IMHO - when you compare pixel to pixel (zooming) vs an A lens with scaling the added pixel density and smoother more natural image has a visible advantage (hence why most people who do a comparison buy the lens if they can afford one). Zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. If pixel to pixel was really that important people wouldn't be using e-shift projectors, and in the past, people wouldn't be scaling DVD or BD to fit displays that aren't of the same resolution - people scale DVD to fit 720, 1080 and 4k displays and don't render them as a pixel to pixel window - people scale everything to fit the panel or screen. No one renders it pixel to pixel in a window and zooms the image to fit the screen either, they always scale it. Even in post production they're constantly scaling with different algorithms that destroy every single original pixel and replace them with new. A good scaler just does the same thing.

Last year I had a few people round for demos at different times, and one guy liked what the A lens could do so he went out and bought a used ISCO III for approx $3000 - why would he do that if it made the image worse? He certainly didn't buy it for my benefit.

Another guy who had a JVC N5 on pre order went to my local dealer for a demo to see what it was he was buying, and right after came round to see my set up. He then cancelled his N5 and now has the same pj as me because he thought it was better. Seems an eshift pj plus an A lens compares extremely well to a native 4k projector.

Alan Roser always used an A lens and HTPC with the Sim2 projectors at demos because he wanted to show the best possible image to sell the projector. If zooming was better he would have done that instead. - if you're trying to sell a product you always want to show it at its best and zooming wasn't going to do that.

If you are of the school of thought that it's just a question of subjective evaluation then like with Killroy we don't have much to talk about since I haven't used an anamorphic lens. I believe that the subjective experience must be supported by scientific facts. There are people who claim they have seen ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. I dismiss their claims even though I can't dispute their experience. In the video world we have things like sharpness control and edge enhancement which give the appearance of a sharper image although scientific analysis shows that it has the opposite effect. TV manufacturers and stores boost the colors in the settings so that the TVs will look better in the showroom. So arguments of the type such and such dealer does this to improve sales are not going to fly where I'm concerned.

Now regarding your arguments about pixel density and scaling, let's first clarify some facts. I have a 4k projector and a 2.35:1 screen. Using a Lumagen we have the following scenarios:

- With 4k sources, if the aspect ratio is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 there is no scaling and we have 1:1 pixel mapping. That's the vast majority of scope movies and the reason I have a scope screen. When the source has an aspect ratio less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.

- With 1080p sources, for 2.35:1 (and possibly 2.40:1 I'm not sure about that) there is doubling which is the most benign form of scaling. Again for aspect ratios less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.

- With lower resolution sources there are various forms of scaling.

Your main argument is about pixel density and it boils down to whether the higher pixel density compensates for the scaling and other lens effects (geometry, color etc.). We are not in the old days of the terrible screen door effect, modern 4k projectors have extremely high pixel density. You have the advantage of having done comparisons and I can't dispute your preference. It may well be that the extra density does more than compensate for the other artifacts but even then it would be a function of screen size and sitting distance. If you sit far enough you can't see the pixel gaps but you can always see chromatic aberration. I find comfort in the thought that the image I see is the closest possible to the source.

Finally a couple of words on your comments about scaling in post production. Just because they introduce some distortion doesn't mean we should pile on some more on top of it. Every image altering step we put in the path degrades the image further and we want to have as few as possible. I can't control what goes into the blu-rays I buy, in choosing my video equipment my goal is to reproduce what's in the source as faithfully as possible.
darksets is offline  
post #89 of 109 Old 06-08-2019, 08:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,465
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 538 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by darksets View Post
No, I have not used an anamorphic lens and have not done a comparison. Enjoy your conversations of the type "This projectors looks fantastic!", "The black levels look terrible" , "Last night I watched ... and it looked amazing using my ....".
I just can't understand how you can tell people that the PQ on a a-lens is inferior to zooming, due to any reasons that you stated, if you have never compared the two side-by-side. That's like telling people that Fords are horrible cars if you have never owned one or even driven one.

I was also an a-lens skeptic but this was due to the fact that I was comparing it using some pretty cheap or less than stellar quality optics. 10-15 years ago there so many a-lenses on the market that were reasonably priced that everyone was trying them out but the results were not that substantial. A quality cylindrical lens such as the ISCOs were way out of my budget so I had never sat down to compare them since I knew I could not afford one.

As time went on the prices on the ISCOs used market began to fall out and eventually they can be had for under $2k pretty much all the time. I got a brand new "old stock" ISCO IIIL with a slider for a steal.

The PQ difference from those old prism lenses to the ISCO was pretty much night & day. And now with the updated video processor technology, the difference is even greater.

I can see you telling us that zooming works for you and you love it, cause I was on that boat with you for a long time, but I cannot see how you can tell us that people are not really seeing any good results with their a-lenses if YOU have not seen those results firsthand.
Killroy is online now  
post #90 of 109 Old 06-08-2019, 09:06 AM
Member
 
darksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
I just can't understand how you can tell people that the PQ on a a-lens is inferior to zooming, due to any reasons that you stated, if you have never compared the two side-by-side. That's like telling people that Fords are horrible cars if you have never owned one or even driven one.

I was also an a-lens skeptic but this was due to the fact that I was comparing it using some pretty cheap or less than stellar quality optics. 10-15 years ago there so many a-lenses on the market that were reasonably priced that everyone was trying them out but the results were not that substantial. A quality cylindrical lens such as the ISCOs were way out of my budget so I had never sat down to compare them since I knew I could not afford one.

As time went on the prices on the ISCOs used market began to fall out and eventually they can be had for under $2k pretty much all the time. I got a brand new "old stock" ISCO IIIL with a slider for a steal.

The PQ difference from those old prism lenses to the ISCO was pretty much night & day. And now with the updated video processor technology, the difference is even greater.

I can see you telling us that zooming works for you and you love it, cause I was on that boat with you for a long time, but I cannot see how you can tell us that people are not really seeing any good results with their a-lenses if YOU have not seen those results firsthand.
I am simply saying that subjective experience must be supported by the underlying science. The image without an anamorphic lens is closer to the source than the image with an anamorphic lens in the path. I have given a more extensive analysis in my answer to Gary Lightfoot. It's quite possible that even I would find the picture with an anamorphic lens more appealing but the knowledge of the underlying processing artifacts would bother me like a thorn in my thumb.
darksets is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off