$400 to spend, what upgrade would you get? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 09:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Mike,
Why do you use the A-Lens at all?
From my reading, the Lumagen can do non linear stretch to any aspect ratio you want. Why not just use the Lumagen to get you there and take the A-lens out of the light path?

I think you misunderstand what a lens does. No amount of electronic processing (linear or not) can change the shape of the light the projector puts out. A lens is the only way to change the shape of the projected light from 1.78:1 to 2.37:1. An anamorphic lens is about producing a 2.37:1 projector output using the full resolution/light output of the 1.78:1 projector's panel for displaying wider than 1.78:1 images on a scope screen.

It's not about "filling" the screen or anything of the sort, and it's certainly not the same as doing a non-linear stretch and adding lots of distortion.
Quote:
I've been considering this option to go to a 2.0:1 Screen like this one:
http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/residential/products/variable_masking_dedicated_fixed/directors_choice_2.0/directors_choice_2.0_residential.html
Then use the Lumagen to adjust both ARs to fit...

But the projector still outputs 1.78:1, without a lens you "waste" a significant (IMO) portion of your projector's output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Now as to the question of A lenses and various aspect ratios, I don't use a lens, nor do I zoom. I only have room for an 8ft wide, 1.78 aspect ratio screen. When I watch HD TV etc, I watch on full screen 1.78. When I watch a higher aspect ratio subject, such as a wide screen movie, I gat black bars which I cover up with automated top and bottom masking. After a movie, people ask to see HD TV and when I open the masking for the full light up, they ooh and ah about the size increase...

That's actually precisely the reason why I do use a lens (a Prismasonic HD5000R in my case). I don't want epic scope films to be a "let down" compared to HDTV, nor do I want to have to fire up HDTV to show off my system in it's most impressive configuration.
Quote:
Using an A lens, you get to use all the pixels and the full illumination of the projector (with certain caveats) because you electronically stretch the image vertically to light all the pixels. This is a nasty scale to do. All scales except say 2 to one and numbers like that as distinguished from odd number multipliers are nasty and severely scree with the vertical pixels.

There's nothing fundamental about scaling that causes this. There's nothing in sampling theorem that ever says anything about having to scale by exact multiples. The only constraint on resampling is that the original sampling was done "correctly", as in the signal is sampled at at least twice the it's bandwidth.

It seems lots of people look at test patterns, which are not sampled at all, and have a bandwidth far beyond not just half the sampling frequency but many multiples of the sampling frequency (a typical line or 1 by 1 pixel grid is essentially a square wave which has significant harmonics 7 times the fundamental frequency or one cycle per pair of pixels), run them through a scaler, look at the artifacts and claim it as proof that that scaling is bad or damaging. They do this without understanding, or caring that those signals cannot be resampled accurately period, they do not conform to the preconditions/limits that all scaling/resampling requires.

Motion picture content (film, digital, or CG sourced) does not have these same issues, these sources are all sampled data, with appropriate sampling/bandwidth considerations and can be accurately and completely resampled from any sample rate (resolution) to any other (higher) sample rate accurately and without loss or artifact.

Now whether or not all video processors implement accurate resampling algorithms or do other things that may or may not cause issues, well that's another issue.

My point though, the Cliff's notes, is that just because you see artifacts on a single pixel level test pattern doesn't mean those same artifacts are present in real content, you can't look at the results of resampling on a non-band-limited test pattern and make conclusions about the results of resampling on appropriately band-limited data.
Quote:
The lens deals with the horizontal stretch by doing it optically and what comes into ply here is the optical qualitty of the lens. The 480 is OK but that's it. There are worse and there are many many much better.

My understanding is the biggest issue with the UH480, my HD5000 and all prismatic lenses is that they have a fixed focal length. They have a singular sweet spot and cannot be adjusted. Specifically astigmatism (focus uniformity in both horizontal and vertical directions) cannot be adjusted. Cylindrical lenses like the ISCO have adjustable "focus" (astigmatism) so you can dial them into perfection for whatever throw you have.

On top of that there are some geometric issues and overall quality, but I believe the astigmatism adjustment is the biggest difference.
Quote:
You end up losing light from the max capoable because anamorphic sets up need long throws for a variety of reasons such as the need to keep the image coming out of the projector lens small and to minimize pin cushioning which all anamorphics cause.

Ah, but you gain contrast wink.gif

But to the OP, if you want a CIH setup, that's a killer deal on a very nice lens (no not the best, but very good). If you want a CIH setup with a lens, I would grab the lens no question.

If you don't know if you want a CIH setup, it might be worth the cost to experiment, you can always sell it.

Otherwise, the Darblet is the best bang for that buck upgrade you can get, I wouldn't get the lens just because it's cheap unless you plan to resell it for a profit.
stanger89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 12:11 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1014
You do lose some ANSI, about 5% but I certainly wouldn't warry about that small a loss.
mark haflich is offline  
post #33 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 12:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1014
I really could give a rat's posterior about whether my guests ooh and ah. I want to present the best and most accurate picture I can. Not that a lens would have much affect on their experience.
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 12:37 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I really could give a rat's posterior about whether my guests ooh and ah. I want to present the best and most accurate picture I can. Not that a lens would have much affect on their experience.

Me either, and that's not really what I was getting at. It was more that your comment illustrated the flaw with "normal" CIW display, ie that scope movies are smaller than 16:9 content (HDTV) so you get a situation where you finish Star Wars Episode VI, the epic finale after the Death Star explodes and the Ewoks rejoice, and then you want to check the game results or something, and you flip over to HDTV and now all the sudden the picture gets 33% bigger and more impressive. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I want things to be the other way around, you check out some TV or something as a lead in to the move, killing time while people arrive or whatever, and then you expand your screen 33% out to the full epicness of the Star Wars intro.

Obviously not ever setup supports that, and not everyone wants to make the sacrifices to get that sort of setup to work, but that's why I have a scope/CIH setup and don't forsee ever putting anything else in (unless lots of movies start getting shot in IMAX) in any future HT setup I have.
stanger89 is offline  
post #35 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,710
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6581 Post(s)
Liked: 7613
This is why I have two different screen !! A wider ( 118" wide ) 2.35:1 screen, and a still good sized 106" wide 16:9 screen ). They are both impressive size wise - to me anyway !!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #36 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 02:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Me either, and that's not really what I was getting at. It was more that your comment illustrated the flaw with "normal" CIW display, ie that scope movies are smaller than 16:9 content (HDTV) so you get a situation where you finish Star Wars Episode VI, the epic finale after the Death Star explodes and the Ewoks rejoice, and then you want to check the game results or something, and you flip over to HDTV and now all the sudden the picture gets 33% bigger and more impressive. That just doesn't seem right to me.
I want things to be the other way around, you check out some TV or something as a lead in to the move, killing time while people arrive or whatever, and then you expand your screen 33% out to the full epicness of the Star Wars intro.
Obviously not ever setup supports that, and not everyone wants to make the sacrifices to get that sort of setup to work, but that's why I have a scope/CIH setup and don't forsee ever putting anything else in (unless lots of movies start getting shot in IMAX) in any future HT setup I have.

Woman on top. Woman on bottom. Either way the result is the same. smile.gif It is critical to do the set up correctly and to follow the correct sequence of turn on and execution.
mark haflich is offline  
post #37 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 02:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
I agree doing the setup correctly is the most important part, but personally I don't agree that CIH and CIW end up with the same result.
stanger89 is offline  
post #38 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bass addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A padded room
Posts: 4,630
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Woman on top. Woman on bottom. Either way the result is the same. smile.gif

I have to disagree; those produce two completely different results. One results in a boy, and the other a girl. biggrin.gif

IMO, CIH is the correct way to setup your viewing area.

The purpose of listening shouldn't be to respond as much as it should be to understand.
bass addict is offline  
post #39 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 03:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,710
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6581 Post(s)
Liked: 7613
Quote:
Woman on top. Woman on bottom. Either way the result is the same.

In that case, 2 screens = 2 women !! biggrin.gif
Craig Peer is offline  
post #40 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 03:54 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1014
This thing is breaking down with posting before thinking. One can use only one screen at a time unlike two woman who can be fully enjoyed at the same time. Please try again.

I fully agree that constant height is the best set up providing one has sufficient width for the scope screen. Where I would differ is the method, favoring zooming over anamorphically doing it. Especially where I have a 4K projector with more than enough brightness. I don't do it because my screen width is limited to only 8 ft and I would gladly give up height for movies instead of height for my sports viewing..
mark haflich is offline  
post #41 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 04:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,409
Mentioned: 232 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11721 Post(s)
Liked: 9257
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Mike,
Why do you use the A-Lens at all?
From my reading, the Lumagen can do non linear stretch to any aspect ratio you want. Why not just use the Lumagen to get you there and take the A-lens out of the light path?

I've been considering this option to go to a 2.0:1 Screen like this one:
http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/residential/products/variable_masking_dedicated_fixed/directors_choice_2.0/directors_choice_2.0_residential.html
Then use the Lumagen to adjust both ARs to fit...

Because the Lumagen stretch is just that, non linear stretch. It looks okay, but it is still off compared to using a lens.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #42 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 04:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Because the Lumagen stretch is just that, non linear stretch. It looks okay, but it is still off compared to using a lens.

Mike, Thanks for the reasoning.
Can anyone (Mike?) show a side by side example of the Lumagen doing 16x9 to 2:35 fit as compared to an A-lens? Is there really a significant difference? If so, from my reading, it seems that the lens quality is a huge factor...
How much does the relative cost vs performance affect things?
Thanks
humbland is online now  
post #43 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 05:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,409
Mentioned: 232 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11721 Post(s)
Liked: 9257
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
If I used a 16:9 screen there would not be much oohing and awing in my theater since 90% of what I watch is scope. They would have oohed and awed at Avengers and Avatar, but there is a lot of time between those two movies. A scope set up is for those that are concerned with movies and not much else. Sports and HDTV are at the back of the bus.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #44 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 05:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,409
Mentioned: 232 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11721 Post(s)
Liked: 9257
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Mike, Thanks for the reasoning.
Can anyone (Mike?) show a side by side example of the Lumagen doing 16x9 to 2:35 fit as compared to an A-lens? Is there really a significant difference? If so, from my reading, it seems that the lens quality is a huge factor...
How much does the relative cost vs performance affect things?
Thanks

First my camera skills leave a lot to be desired and second this time of the year, I am so busy, that I don't get in my theater near as much as I would like to. I have viewed both. Believe me nobody familiar with an A-lens image is going to mistake a non linear video processor stretched image for it.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #45 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 06:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I fully agree that constant height is the best set up providing one has sufficient width for the scope screen. Where I would differ is the method, favoring zooming over anamorphically doing it. Especially where I have a 4K projector with more than enough brightness. I don't do it because my screen width is limited to only 8 ft and I would gladly give up height for movies instead of height for my sports viewing..

That's fair, I'd be curious to see/hear the difference of 4K zoomed vs lens, but that's a topic for the future I think. I know theoretically at least there's a case to be made for the higher pixel density of 4k anamorphic, but we're getting into the razors edge type differences, surely far less than the difference a Darblet makes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Can anyone (Mike?) show a side by side example of the Lumagen doing 16x9 to 2:35 fit as compared to an A-lens? Is there really a significant difference? If so, from my reading, it seems that the lens quality is a huge factor...
How much does the relative cost vs performance affect things?
Thanks

I think you're still misunderstanding things. Lenses aren't used (at least I don't and I think most don't) for making 16:9 content 2.35:1 content, they're used for effectively turning a 16:9 projector into a 2.37:1 projector. The Lumagen, nor any other video processor can do that. What the Lumagen the same as what HDTVs can do for SD, stretch the edges more the center of the image, however there's a problem with that, the projector is still projecting a 16:9 image, so you'd still need a lens to make the projection 2.37:1. Well that's not the only way, you could zoom, but then you're taking 1920x1080 16:9 shrinking it to 1440x810 and then stretching it back out to 1920x810.
stanger89 is offline  
post #46 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 07:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

That's fair, I'd be curious to see/hear the difference of 4K zoomed vs lens, but that's a topic for the future I think. I know theoretically at least there's a case to be made for the higher pixel density of 4k anamorphic, but we're getting into the razors edge type differences, surely far less than the difference a Darblet makes.
I think you're still misunderstanding things. Lenses aren't used (at least I don't and I think most don't) for making 16:9 content 2.35:1 content, they're used for effectively turning a 16:9 projector into a 2.37:1 projector. The Lumagen, nor any other video processor can do that. What the Lumagen the same as what HDTVs can do for SD, stretch the edges more the center of the image, however there's a problem with that, the projector is still projecting a 16:9 image, so you'd still need a lens to make the projection 2.37:1. Well that's not the only way, you could zoom, but then you're taking 1920x1080 16:9 shrinking it to 1440x810 and then stretching it back out to 1920x810.

Please excuse the lack of experience. I live in a rural area and have never seen a real A-lens set up (only in pictures). However, I had a 110" 16x9 screen (HP 2.8) and an excellent 720p DLP (Benq PE8720) for many years.
When we would watch 2:35 content it would have the black bars above and below and fill the screen width wise. I assumed that if I had a 2:35 screen, then it would just mean that the black bars would be above and below the screen. What you are saying is that with the A-lens in place, there are no black bars at all with this scenario?

Everything is a trade off of some sort. The problem (as I see it) with 2:35 screens is that it's often the smallest screen you can put in the room. Most set ups (mine included) are challenged by the width of the room much more than the height. In order to use the 2:35 screen to show 16x9 sports, you end up with a "small" picture. The best possible solution is two screens. However without powered lens controls, this is not a good option.

It seems to me that a compromise like 2.0:1 (and image shift) is the best "real world" option. i'm surprised that there is no one doing it. At least not that i can find...
Perhaps most AVS people are "purists" in the sense that they want the original AR at all costs. I'm mostly interested in the largest, most immersive picture that I can fit in the room (and stay happily married).

My $.02
humbland is online now  
post #47 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 08:48 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
You are correct, there are no black bars when using an anamorphic lens. Think of it this way: the scaler (projector, lumagen, whatever) takes the image within the letterbox (black bars) and stretches it vertically so that the black bars are now filled with the image. However, this results in an image that is stretched, making everything look skinny and tall. The anamorphic lens then slides in place and stretches the image horizontally to the correct ratio of 2.35:1, making everything look normal again. However, in this setup, though the movie image is the same ratio, there is no letterbox since it was filled during the vertical stretch.

Really, anamorphic lenses only have two purposes. They make switching between 1.78 and 2.35 content very easy, and they don't have black bars top and bottom, which both waste brightness from the projector and can cause a perceived loss in contrast when visible.

2.0:1 seems rather silly to me. If I'm going to shift my image and do other silliness to it, why not just get two screens, a giant 16:9 screen with top/bottom masking, or go scope with side masking for 16:9?

Frosteh is offline  
post #48 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 09:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bass addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A padded room
Posts: 4,630
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

They make switching between 1.78 and 2.35 content very easy, and they don't have black bars top and bottom, which both waste brightness from the projector and can cause a perceived loss in contrast when visible.

And also increase pixel density.

The purpose of listening shouldn't be to respond as much as it should be to understand.
bass addict is offline  
post #49 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 09:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

And also increase pixel density.

That too. Just don't confuse that for an increase in the source resolution wink.gif

Frosteh is offline  
post #50 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 09:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bass addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A padded room
Posts: 4,630
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

That too. Just don't confuse that for an increase in the source resolution wink.gif

That's what the Darblets for. Oh crap, another Darblet derailed thread. biggrin.gif

The purpose of listening shouldn't be to respond as much as it should be to understand.
bass addict is offline  
post #51 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 10:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

That's what the Darblets for. Oh crap, another Darblet derailed thread. biggrin.gif

Stop it!!!

Frosteh is offline  
post #52 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 11:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 1479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

Say you decided to spend another $400 for an upgrade to your theater, what would you buy? I'm trying to decide between a Darblet, an A-lens (I am able to get a current model for a very good price, though it is slightly damaged but not such that it will affect the picture) and another subwoofer. What would you get? It doesn't have to be any of these, either.

I currently have an RS20, 120" CIH screen, 7.1 surround system with JBL Pro cinema speakers. I'm leaning toward the A-lens so that I don't have to zoom anymore and so that I don't lose any more brightness.


Re-posting the OP 1st post as sanity chk.
In a video forum 2 choices given, for biggest bang for buck analysis.
-darblet
-a lens

Then later audio choice thrown in by him
-mini dsp
(Imo The audio choice seem to be outta place in Video forum, apples to oranges thing.)

Open ended Q any other idea for $400 can be put on the table.

With all the talk on A-lens vs zooming, just wanted to recheck OP.
There are a few famous zooming vs a-lens threads, as well as CIH vs CIW threads. Rehash them inside here?

IMO, with him sticking with exact same gear he has - slightly dated and such, if he can get an a-lens for $400 that will give him 25% more brightness than zooming.
That is great bang for buck!

All this talk of 4k pj is good stuff, but outta scope of the OP.
There are threads where that is covered, right?

A new bulb is another good one, but I'd guess he does that every 1500 hrs approx give/take already.

So it comes down to more brightness vs the darblet effect .

If he's lived with the brightness of zooming, and over the years came to accept that, then the darblet seems like a "new thing" to do.
Something to try out.....heck this thread put the darblet onto my radar, as a $400 tweak to my slightly dated Sony VW60 pj + UH380 current video side combo.


Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
mtbdudex is offline  
post #53 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 11:40 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
True, there is some cross-ideas getting put in here, but I'm sure we've all got decent opinions on each of those items. It's not like we only know about projectors here and have to go to another forum for audio stuff. I do think the MiniDSP is an important thing to throw in, since I'm likely damaging my sub right now by not having some protection in there.

Anyway, I have no interest in debating a-lenses vs zooming. I've been there and done that. I just need to test a lens and see how it compares.

The Darblet seems really cool, but I imagine waiting a little bit for some used ones to pop up may be a better route to take.

Frosteh is offline  
post #54 of 65 Old 10-30-2012, 11:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 1479
If you get the a-lens, are you going to leave it in the light path at all times - and scale down for non 2.35:1 content, or get an a-lens slide?
I use a manual DIY lens slide

Just for reference, a few years back in this thread, https://www.avsforum.com/t/1101895/study-native-16-9-vs-a-lens-pj-scaler , I attempted to do a " Native 16:9 vs a-Lens/PJ Scaler study"
Quote:
Since my DIY a-lens slide is finished I was always curious to the PQ of "Native 16:9" vs thru the combo "a-Lens expansion/PJ compression Scaler".
(main reason for having a a-lens slide)
mtbdudex is offline  
post #55 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 02:09 AM
Member
 
viperdriver5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Hello

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I am actually on the tail end of wrapping up my theater build which started in July. I have a epson 6010, onkyo 5009 and a 135" screen with a 1.1 gain. Jjust received my darbee yesterday and tested it last night.

I can say without question that it was a fantastic investment. I really could not believe what it did for the picture The color pops and the sharpness was really quite amazing. So glad I purchased it, not one regret here.
viperdriver5150 is offline  
post #56 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 04:43 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Everything is a trade off of some sort. The problem (as I see it) with 2:35 screens is that it's often the smallest screen you can put in the room. Most set ups (mine included) are challenged by the width of the room much more than the height. In order to use the 2:35 screen to show 16x9 sports, you end up with a "small" picture. The best possible solution is two screens. However without powered lens controls, this is not a good option.

IMO people get way too hung up on the number of inches their screen is. Instead of thinking just about how many inches of screen one can fit in a given room you should think about what sort of experience you can create in that room. You need to consider the impact of all aspect ratios and place your seating accordingly. So instead of say putting the largest possible 16:9 screen in your room and having your seating way at the back, resulting in a too small scope image, place your seating closer to the screen so the 16:9 image is a similar relative size (same number of picture heights) and go with a scope screen so scope is now as large as it should be.
Quote:
Perhaps most AVS people are "purists" in the sense that they want the original AR at all costs. I'm mostly interested in the largest, most immersive picture that I can fit in the room (and stay happily married).
My $.02

That's what I want too, it's just that I don't want Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc to be 25% smaller than a low budget, direct-to-disc flick, or run of the mill HDTV.
stanger89 is offline  
post #57 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 06:45 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 23,734
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 1196
Hands down I'd get a Darblet or add 100 more and get the new Oppo 103. Just me... Of course. smile.gif

4K HDR10- ignore the “rules” and trust your eyes!
joerod is offline  
post #58 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

You are correct, there are no black bars when using an anamorphic lens. Think of it this way: the scaler (projector, lumagen, whatever) takes the image within the letterbox (black bars) and stretches it vertically so that the black bars are now filled with the image. However, this results in an image that is stretched, making everything look skinny and tall. The anamorphic lens then slides in place and stretches the image horizontally to the correct ratio of 2.35:1, making everything look normal again. However, in this setup, though the movie image is the same ratio, there is no letterbox since it was filled during the vertical stretch.
Really, anamorphic lenses only have two purposes. They make switching between 1.78 and 2.35 content very easy, and they don't have black bars top and bottom, which both waste brightness from the projector and can cause a perceived loss in contrast when visible.
2.0:1 seems rather silly to me. If I'm going to shift my image and do other silliness to it, why not just get two screens, a giant 16:9 screen with top/bottom masking, or go scope with side masking for 16:9?

I agree completely about a large screen and appropriate masking. If you have a dedicated room, that's clearly the way to go.
All of us are not so fortunate. I'm trying to adapt a family room, with fixed couch seating about 12 feet from the proposed screen location. I'll be shooting from a (cathedral) ceiling mount from about 16 feet.
I need an electric drop or pull down screen that will be out of site most of the time (WAF). Hanging masking material in the room is not an option (I envy you guys)...
So, what do you do? It's a 120" 16x9 (with black bars above and below for 2:35 content) or some sort of "mod" solution like going to 130" x 65" (2.0:1) and using the Lumagen to auto adjust to fit with non linear stretch.
Interestingly enough, this is the idea behind Optoma's SuperWide feature. They have the automatic processor built in to their high end ($7k) projectors.
For some reason, it did not "catch on", perhaps because there were so few 2.0:1 screens readily available.

I'm open to any other suggestions...

Thanks
humbland is online now  
post #59 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 07:35 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Frosteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

If you get the a-lens, are you going to leave it in the light path at all times - and scale down for non 2.35:1 content, or get an a-lens slide?
I use a manual DIY lens slide
Just for reference, a few years back in this thread, https://www.avsforum.com/t/1101895/study-native-16-9-vs-a-lens-pj-scaler , I attempted to do a " Native 16:9 vs a-Lens/PJ Scaler study"

I am likely going to make a slide myself using drawer slides and some thin wood. Then again, I may get lazy and just switch 16:9 content to 4:3 and keep the lens in place. Either way, I don't think I'll be giving up much since HDTV isn't really even 1080 anyway. I doubt I'll miss those few extra pixels. Both solutions are simple enough and it's pretty easy to get up and move the lens; sure as heck beats zooming and shifting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperdriver5150 View Post

Hello
Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I am actually on the tail end of wrapping up my theater build which started in July. I have a epson 6010, onkyo 5009 and a 135" screen with a 1.1 gain. Jjust received my darbee yesterday and tested it last night.
I can say without question that it was a fantastic investment. I really could not believe what it did for the picture The color pops and the sharpness was really quite amazing. So glad I purchased it, not one regret here.

Dang you!! Well shoot. Maybe I'll get myself a Darbee for Hanukkah if I decide to keep the lens.

Frosteh is offline  
post #60 of 65 Old 10-31-2012, 09:35 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

IThere's nothing fundamental about scaling that causes this. There's nothing in sampling theorem that ever says anything about having to scale by exact multiples. The only constraint on resampling is that the original sampling was done "correctly", as in the signal is sampled at at least twice the it's bandwidth.
It seems lots of people look at test patterns, which are not sampled at all, and have a bandwidth far beyond not just half the sampling frequency but many multiples of the sampling frequency (a typical line or 1 by 1 pixel grid is essentially a square wave which has significant harmonics 7 times the fundamental frequency or one cycle per pair of pixels), run them through a scaler, look at the artifacts and claim it as proof that that scaling is bad or damaging. They do this without understanding, or caring that those signals cannot be resampled accurately period, they do not conform to the preconditions/limits that all scaling/resampling requires.
Motion picture content (film, digital, or CG sourced) does not have these same issues, these sources are all sampled data, with appropriate sampling/bandwidth considerations and can be accurately and completely resampled from any sample rate (resolution) to any other (higher) sample rate accurately and without loss or artifact.
Now whether or not all video processors implement accurate resampling algorithms or do other things that may or may not cause issues, well that's another issue.
My point though, the Cliff's notes, is that just because you see artifacts on a single pixel level test pattern doesn't mean those same artifacts are present in real content, you can't look at the results of resampling on a non-band-limited test pattern and make conclusions about the results of resampling on appropriately band-limited data.

I don't have tome to discuss this much now but I will do so later. Great post. Thanks
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Panamorph Uh480 Anamorphic Lens

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