Panamorph DC-1 + JVC NX7?? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
  • 1 Post By Vern Dias
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 Old 04-03-2020, 10:55 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
tdoom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Panamorph DC-1 + JVC NX7??

I don't think I could pony up $5k+ for the DCR right now, especially as I'm extremely new to anamorphic lenses, but after some reading I am considering trying out a used DC-1, I would just like some input from the experts here.

My set up:
NX7 mounted 14.5' back from a 120" 2.39 Seymour AT screen. I can move the projector back if necessary.

My Goals: Fixing variable aspect ratio movies, more brightness, sharper image would be nice but I'm pretty happy as is.

1.) Will this be able solve the issues with variable aspect movies such as Aquaman, Dark Knight, Dunkirk, etc. By that I mean, can I keep the entire picture on the screen without it jumping back and forth between aspect ratios. This bothers me and I've resorted to turning on masking inside the projector and just losing the top and bottom content with 16:9 shots.

2.) I know the DCR is optimal for the JVC being 4096, but what will be the differences if I went with the DC-1?

3.) I know anamorphic lenses enables you to utilize more lumens and pixels on a scope screen. Would this be a correct assumption for my setup as well?
Will the DC-1 be an improvement over no anamorphic lens at all? Are there any drawbacks?

I know these are pretty novice questions, but I appreciate any insight or suggestions.
tdoom15 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 Old 04-04-2020, 09:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,787
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 771 Post(s)
Liked: 756
Look for a used ISCO IIIL on ebay. They are well under $2k. The IIIL is far better than the DC-1 if you are looking into that lens.
Killroy is online now  
post #3 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 11:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 925 Post(s)
Liked: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdoom15 View Post

1.) Will this be able solve the issues with variable aspect movies such as Aquaman, Dark Knight, Dunkirk, etc. By that I mean, can I keep the entire picture on the screen without it jumping back and forth between aspect ratios. This bothers me and I've resorted to turning on masking inside the projector and just losing the top and bottom content with 16:9 shots.
The changing aspect ratio is a creative choice from the director and is baked into the content - having an anamorphic lens won't change that. Your choice will remain to mask off the top and bottom of 16:9 shots, or present the whole program in 16:9 with the scope content letterboxed inside that frame.

Quote:
2.) I know the DCR is optimal for the JVC being 4096, but what will be the differences if I went with the DC-1?
You won't gain quite as much light level or pixel density, as you'll be using only 3840 horitontal pixels, instead of all 4096.

Quote:
3.) I know anamorphic lenses enables you to utilize more lumens and pixels on a scope screen. Would this be a correct assumption for my setup as well?
Will the DC-1 be an improvement over no anamorphic lens at all? Are there any drawbacks?
The drawbacks are 1) cost and 2) possibly visible scaling artifacts. YMMV - for me I prefer the increased pixel density and light that an anamorphic lens provides.
dschulz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 06:09 PM
Member
 
kemannthey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 35
See if you can find any reports of someone using the dc1 with 4k. I know there are many reports the 480 can't pass the resolution not sure about the dc1.

The isco lens are reported to pass 4k just fine and cost just a little more then a used dc1 in the used market if you watch for a bit.

Have fun!
kemannthey is offline  
post #5 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 06:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,787
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 771 Post(s)
Liked: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemannthey View Post
The isco lens are reported to pass 4k just fine and cost just a little more then a used dc1 in the used market if you watch for a bit.

Have fun!

ISCO IIIL passes 4k perfectly. The QBF test pattern looks incredible once it is stretched.

I am going to throw a monkey (money) wrench into your plans... GET A SLIDER!!!! If you use a stationary lens then you need to squeeze any 16:9 content to the center of the screen. You will lose about 20% resolution AND you will notice it. Trust me... I have tested it and I decided to move heaven and earth to use a slider even though it tripled my work to make it work.
Killroy is online now  
post #6 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 07:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
ISCO IIIL passes 4k perfectly. The QBF test pattern looks incredible once it is stretched.

I am going to throw a monkey (money) wrench into your plans... GET A SLIDER!!!! If you use a stationary lens then you need to squeeze any 16:9 content to the center of the screen. You will lose about 20% resolution AND you will notice it. Trust me... I have tested it and I decided to move heaven and earth to use a slider even though it tripled my work to make it work.

I'll catch that wrench and raise you a fact.



There are more that two aspect ratios out there. Without using scaling, a Slider will only support 2 aspect ratios: 2.40:1 and 1.77:1.



If your goal is to eliminate black bars without losing available image area, or possibly to view open matte source material at 1.85:1 (as they were seen in a theater), you will still need to scale.

Some other standard aspect ratios: 1.37:1 (Academy), 2.00:1 (Vistavision), 2.20:1 (Todd-AO, Super Panavision), 2,55:1 (Cinemascope Original Magnetic release print), & 2.76:1 (Ultra Panavision).


Yes, scaling will theoretically reduce resolution. If you're using a test pattern, you may be able to see it if you are a foot from the screen. In my experience with HD or UHD sources, if you are using a quality scaler (HW or SW) and viewing from 1.5x screen height or more, you won't see it.


As always, YMMV
Josh Z likes this.
Vern Dias is online now  
post #7 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,787
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 771 Post(s)
Liked: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post
I'll catch that wrench and raise you a fact.



There are more that two aspect ratios out there. Without using scaling, a Slider will only support 2 aspect ratios: 2.40:1 and 1.77:1.



If your goal is to eliminate black bars without losing available image area, or possibly to view open matte source material at 1.85:1 (as they were seen in a theater), you will still need to scale.

Some other standard aspect ratios: 1.37:1 (Academy), 2.00:1 (Vistavision), 2.20:1 (Todd-AO, Super Panavision), 2,55:1 (Cinemascope Original Magnetic release print), & 2.76:1 (Ultra Panavision).


Yes, scaling will theoretically reduce resolution. If you're using a test pattern, you may be able to see it if you are a foot from the screen. In my experience with HD or UHD sources, if you are using a quality scaler (HW or SW) and viewing from 1.5x screen height or more, you won't see it.


As always, YMMV
On my set up, 150" scope screen with a RS3000 MLP at 13.25', I can really see the difference between the scaled 16:9 (lens on and 16:9 squeezed) to the native 16:9 without the lens. It is very obvious. More obvious on a test pattern like QBF but on normal movie viewing I see it as well. I describe it as a jagged look to all detail that disappears with the lens off.

I've been playing with MadVR to keep 2.00:1 and 2.20:1 AR movies in the CIH and the results are a bit less drastic since the squeeze is not as drastic as 16:9. On 1.85:1 movies I don't bother with the loss of 80 pixels so I just slide the lens out and view it at 16:9.

BTW, Academy ratio (1.37 or 1.33) look absolutely horrible when squeezed to 16:9 with a lens in place. That is one of the reasons I decided to slide the lens. I have countless Academy AR films that I did not want to see them looking that bad.
Killroy is online now  
post #8 of 14 Old 04-05-2020, 09:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
On my set up, 150" scope screen with a RS3000 MLP at 13.25', I can really see the difference between the scaled 16:9 (lens on and 16:9 squeezed) to the native 16:9 without the lens. It is very obvious. More obvious on a test pattern like QBF but on normal movie viewing I see it as well. I describe it as a jagged look to all detail that disappears with the lens off.

I've been playing with MadVR to keep 2.00:1 and 2.20:1 AR movies in the CIH and the results are a bit less drastic since the squeeze is not as drastic as 16:9. On 1.85:1 movies I don't bother with the loss of 80 pixels so I just slide the lens out and view it at 16:9.

BTW, Academy ratio (1.37 or 1.33) look absolutely horrible when squeezed to 16:9 with a lens in place. That is one of the reasons I decided to slide the lens. I have countless Academy AR films that I did not want to see them looking that bad.

Hmmm, very interesting.


Something must be very different between our setups.


I'm using an HTPC. My current favorite player software is JRiver Media Center 26 with the Red October HQ settings.


52" x 148" Screen, JVC DLA RS-57 projector, ISCO Cinema DLP anamorphic len (1.5X Expansion).


I am currently using JRiver to apply the anamorphic lens correction and the keyboard I / O keys to zoom the image to fill the height of the screen, depending on the source AR. However, I have also used A.R. presets on Zoom Player, VLC Player, and MPC with good results.



As I said, YMMV.
Vern Dias is online now  
post #9 of 14 Old 04-06-2020, 11:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post
Hmmm, very interesting.


Something must be very different between our setups.


I'm using an HTPC. My current favorite player software is JRiver Media Center 26 with the Red October HQ settings.


52" x 148" Screen, JVC DLA RS-57 projector, ISCO Cinema DLP anamorphic len (1.5X Expansion).


I am currently using JRiver to apply the anamorphic lens correction and the keyboard I / O keys to zoom the image to fill the height of the screen, depending on the source AR. However, I have also used A.R. presets on Zoom Player, VLC Player, and MPC with good results.


As I said, YMMV.

As a reference, I have attached a photo of a test pattern from the Spears and Munsil V2 BD test disc. This is taken with the ISCO 1.5x lens in place, zoom factor of 100% in JRiver which preserves the full height of the 16x9 image, and with horizontal scaling applied to restore the correct width of the 16x9 image.



I apologize for the poor focus of the picture, I took this with a Lumix GH3 and I was a little sloppy on the focus. The actual projected image easily resolves a single pixel line, and I could not discern any evidence of any stair stepping in the diagonal lines in the image on the screen.


I hope this helps.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Scaled Anamorphic.JPG
Views:	25
Size:	1.99 MB
ID:	2706620  
Vern Dias is online now  
post #10 of 14 Old 04-06-2020, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Just to interject, with a screen that small you don't really need a lens. You can use the full 17:9 panel with the JVC NX series on aspect ratios wider than 1.90:1 and get a lot of brightness.

The installation modes (lens memories) remember masking for each aspect ratio so switching aspect ratios aren't a problem as they are digitally masked. Nothing wrong with the a-lens route, but I use larger 1.0 gain 2.35:1 (130" diagonal) screen and get over 30ftL with the aperture closed to -3 using the full 17:9 panel.

jeahrens is online now  
post #11 of 14 Old 04-07-2020, 03:51 PM
Member
 
kemannthey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 35
As a NX5 and 2.40 128 screen owner I suspect a lens may help with resolution of 1080p alot more then 4k HDR brightness.
kemannthey is offline  
post #12 of 14 Old 04-08-2020, 08:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemannthey View Post
As a NX5 and 2.40 128 screen owner I suspect a lens may help with resolution of 1080p alot more then 4k HDR brightness.
You're already scaling it to the full 4096 panel, the lens isn't going to give you much with the pixels being as small as they are already. On the JVC RS46 (1080 only) zoomed for scope I could barely start to see pixel structure. The RS520 pixel shifting removed this. With the NX7 the pixels are incredibly small. Yes a lens puts more of them up there, but your eye isn't likely to notice much difference. On my screen there is roughly 34 pixels per inch (130" 2.35:1) zoomed for scope and I'm certainly not able to discern that level of detail from 9.5'. I can tell a difference from a 4K DI vs. a 2K DI UHD disc though.

jeahrens is online now  
post #13 of 14 Old 04-08-2020, 04:29 PM
Member
 
kemannthey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemannthey View Post
As a NX5 and 2.40 128 screen owner I suspect a lens may help with resolution of 1080p alot more then 4k HDR brightness.
You're already scaling it to the full 4096 panel, the lens isn't going to give you much with the pixels being as small as they are already. On the JVC RS46 (1080 only) zoomed for scope I could barely start to see pixel structure. The RS520 pixel shifting removed this. With the NX7 the pixels are incredibly small. Yes a lens puts more of them up there, but your eye isn't likely to notice much difference. On my screen there is roughly 34 pixels per inch (130" 2.35:1) zoomed for scope and I'm certainly not able to discern that level of detail from 9.5'. I can tell a difference from a 4K DI vs. a 2K DI UHD disc though.
4k and 2k class media are ok it is the 1080p that looks low Rez.
.
2.40 with zoom only uses 75% of the panel. A 1.33 or 1.25 lens could perhaps help. A used isco for cost reasons is something I might try.

Or I just might not run the full screen for 1080p.
kemannthey is offline  
post #14 of 14 Old 04-09-2020, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemannthey View Post
4k and 2k class media are ok it is the 1080p that looks low Rez.
.
2.40 with zoom only uses 75% of the panel. A 1.33 or 1.25 lens could perhaps help. A used isco for cost reasons is something I might try.

Or I just might not run the full screen for 1080p.
The panel on the NX models is 17:9, so you are using more of it for wider material. And while it's true you're not using the whole thing, the pixels are so tiny you aren't going to see structure. Yes a lens will help, but only so much. FWIW Blu Rays have never looked better upscaled via the UB820 on the NX7 filling the 130" 2.35:1 screen.

jeahrens is online now  
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