Panamorph DCR Paladin Owners Thread - Page 40 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 464Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1171 of 1235 Old 10-13-2019, 06:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Sittler27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,701
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1360 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddgdl View Post
Madvr can run as the back end to kodi, and it is a better scaler than the jvc. What is nice is that it can perfectly scale everything using the proper ratio so you can leave the jvc in anamorphic off mode for all content, and madvr takes care of the rest.
I suppose this comes at a hefty GPU resource cost. I'm running a 1070 GT Super right now and it's stretched to limit for HDR where all I do is add one "reduce ringing" checkbox and it drops frames.
I would assume using anamorphic scaling in madvr is going to mean I need to upgrade my GPU.

Also, what do you mean by "madvr can run as back end to kodi"?
Sittler27 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1172 of 1235 Old 10-13-2019, 06:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
ddgdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sittler27 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddgdl View Post
Madvr can run as the back end to kodi, and it is a better scaler than the jvc. What is nice is that it can perfectly scale everything using the proper ratio so you can leave the jvc in anamorphic off mode for all content, and madvr takes care of the rest.
I suppose this comes at a hefty GPU resource cost. I'm running a 1070 GT Super right now and it's stretched to limit for HDR where all I do is add one "reduce ringing" checkbox and it drops frames.
I would assume using anamorphic scaling in madvr is going to mean I need to upgrade my GPU.
I don't think it is a huge resource hog. I have a 1070 as well and am able to run the anamorphic scaling on top of NGU high for my 1080p sources and on top of lanczos 4 taps for my 4k sources. No chance you can use ngu for your 4k sources though with that card, you are right.

The DCR scale ratio in madvr is 5/4
ddgdl is offline  
post #1173 of 1235 Old 10-13-2019, 07:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Sittler27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,701
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1360 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddgdl View Post
I don't think it is a huge resource hog. I have a 1070 as well and am able to run the anamorphic scaling on top of NGU high for my 1080p sources and on top of lanczos 4 taps for my 4k sources. No chance you can use ngu for your 4k sources though with that card, you are right.

The DCR scale ratio in madvr is 5/4
Assuming GPU isn't a constraint, is DCR scaling in madvr vs. JVC that much of a picture quality difference?
Sittler27 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1174 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 10:06 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 3
JVC mode D for 16:9 sports content

Considering a new 2.35:1 screen and lens but was wondering how the new Mode D end result looked for football and hockey. Has anyone Compared the modes similar to the 3D comparison above? Thanks!
sablack2 is offline  
post #1175 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 10:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Applemike68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I have a 2:40:1 screen and used mode D playing Xbox with my son yesterday. Looked fine, no issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig Peer likes this.

JVC RS3000 : Panamorph DCR Lens : Screen Innovations 125" Slate 1.2 2.40.1
Anthem MRX 1120 : Kaleidescape Strato :Kaleidescape 24TB Server :Apple TV 4K
Oppo 203 : Xbox One X
Paradigm 95f , 55c, Paradigm Elite in wall surround and atmos speakers
SVS sb16 ultra x 3 : Emotiva XPA 3 DR 3 for LCR : Current Setup 7.3.4 Atmos : Savant Pro
Applemike68 is offline  
post #1176 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 02:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Update on Anamorphic Modes

I was recently in touch with Shawn Kelly, who indicated that:

For regular, 2D content, Anamorphic Mode C works perfectly for Scope Content, and Anamorphic Mode D works perfectly for 16:9 content.

For 3D content, 16:9 aspect ratio, Anamorphic Mode D works perfectly, as it does for 2D content.

However, for scope 3D content, Anamorphic Mode C is not working ideally: as noted in dlinsley's post above, there is a 6% *vertical* stretch present because the JVC is not scaling to the full 4096 pixel width. This is apparently a result of limited 'horsepower' to scale vertically, horizontally, and deal with the 3D image. They are exploring options, but this is where things currently stand.

For me personally, this is unfortunate, but not a deal killer. Since I don't often watch 3D Scope Content, I'm not too bothered by either having to accept the 6% stretch, or possibly just temporarily removing the lens.

Having it work properly for 16:9 3D content (which are much more prevalent in my collection) is excellent news, along with having things correct with regular 2D 16:9 content.
dbochniak and Mike Johnson 3 like this.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1177 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 02:40 PM
Member
 
dbochniak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
I was recently in touch with Shawn Kelly, who indicated that:

For regular, 2D content, Anamorphic Mode C works perfectly for Scope Content, and Anamorphic Mode D works perfectly for 16:9 content.

For 3D content, 16:9 aspect ratio, Anamorphic Mode D works perfectly, as it does for 2D content.

However, for scope 3D content, Anamorphic Mode C is not working ideally: as noted in dlinsley's post above, there is a 6% *vertical* stretch present because the JVC is not scaling to the full 4096 pixel width. This is apparently a result of limited 'horsepower' to scale vertically, horizontally, and deal with the 3D image. They are exploring options, but this is where things currently stand.

For me personally, this is unfortunate, but not a deal killer. Since I don't often watch 3D Scope Content, I'm not too bothered by either having to accept the 6% stretch, or possibly just temporarily removing the lens.

Having it work properly for 16:9 3D content (which are much more prevalent in my collection) is excellent news, along with having things correct with regular 2D 16:9 content.
Thanks for this detailed info DLC! It answers a lot of questions. I'm in the same boat as you, thinking that this isn't perfect, but MUCH better than before the update. 3D scope content is a pretty small percentage of all content, and can still be viewed pretty well, if not perfectly (and everything else is good).
DLCPhoto likes this.
dbochniak is offline  
post #1178 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 02:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dlinsley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Most of my 3D collection is in scope (for example Cars, Brave, Top Gun etc), but I think I can work around this for now with just lens memory and the Radiance with a custom aspect ratio. Not ideal, but maybe just as automated given the JVC doesnt auto-switch modes for 3D anyway.
dlinsley is online now  
post #1179 of 1235 Old 10-14-2019, 03:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlinsley View Post
Most of my 3D collection is in scope (for example Cars, Brave, Top Gun etc), but I think I can work around this for now with just lens memory and the Radiance with a custom aspect ratio. Not ideal, but maybe just as automated given the JVC doesnt auto-switch modes for 3D anyway.
Before the firmware update, it was my impression from people who know their stuff, that even the Lumagen couldn't get things working properly for 3D. But hopefully there will be other options available with the new firmware. Please post if you do get this resolved.

And Shawn did indicate that it's not likely that JVC will be able to fully fix this, so I personally won't be expecting it. If it happens, that's great. If not, I know what I am and am not getting, and the trade-off is acceptable to me.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1180 of 1235 Old 11-04-2019, 12:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Is there any added sharpness apart from the increase in brightness when using a DCR lens ?
abinav555 is offline  
post #1181 of 1235 Old 11-04-2019, 06:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,676
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7188 Post(s)
Liked: 8585
Quote:
Originally Posted by abinav555 View Post
Is there any added sharpness apart from the increase in brightness when using a DCR lens ?


Not added sharpness, but it looks just as sharp to me as without the lens. With much higher pixel density.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
abinav555 likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #1182 of 1235 Old 11-05-2019, 04:04 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Not added sharpness, but it looks just as sharp to me as without the lens. With much higher pixel density.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks Craig. So does that mean that there is a clear visible difference(for the better) in terms of color and detail with the lens due to higher pixel density ?
abinav555 is offline  
post #1183 of 1235 Old 11-05-2019, 12:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,676
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7188 Post(s)
Liked: 8585
Quote:
Originally Posted by abinav555 View Post
Thanks Craig. So does that mean that there is a clear visible difference(for the better) in terms of color and detail with the lens due to higher pixel density ?
All I can tell you is I spent a day with a room full of people A / B'ing 4K Blu-rays with the lens, and without the lens, zoomed like I used to for years. Some were AVS Forum members, and some were just movie watching guests. After 3 or 4 hours, everyone was unanimous - " you have to keep this lens ". They even offered to throw a couple of bucks in a hat every time they came over to watch a movie, if that's what it took ( they bring wine now instead ).
tigerhonaker and abinav555 like this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #1184 of 1235 Old 11-05-2019, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
tigerhonaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN. USA
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 720 Post(s)
Liked: 719
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinav555 View Post
Thanks Craig. So does that mean that there is a clear visible difference(for the better) in terms of color and detail with the lens due to higher pixel density ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
All I can tell you is I spent a day with a room full of people A / B'ing 4K Blu-rays with the lens, and without the lens, zoomed like I used to for years. Some were AVS Forum members, and some were just movie watching guests. After 3 or 4 hours, everyone was unanimous - " you have to keep this lens ". They even offered to throw a couple of bucks in a hat every time they came over to watch a movie, if that's what it took ( they bring wine now instead ).
Craig P,

Sir, am I correct that the lens is actually for the scope screens ???

Thanks,
Terry
tigerhonaker is online now  
post #1185 of 1235 Old 11-05-2019, 12:20 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,676
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7188 Post(s)
Liked: 8585
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerhonaker View Post
Craig P,

Sir, am I correct that the lens is actually for the scope screens ???

Thanks,
Terry
Correct. No scope screen, no need a lens !
Craig Peer is online now  
post #1186 of 1235 Old 11-05-2019, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
tigerhonaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN. USA
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 720 Post(s)
Liked: 719
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Correct. No scope screen, no need a lens !
Hey Craig,

I'll try my best not to ask you that same exact question again buddy I promise.

Terry
tigerhonaker is online now  
post #1187 of 1235 Old 11-06-2019, 03:24 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Correct. No scope screen, no need a lens !
Hijacking Terry's question, sorry. Thanks again Craig. Can I still use it on a 16:9 screen for the brightness boost and better pixel density ?
abinav555 is offline  
post #1188 of 1235 Old 11-06-2019, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,676
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7188 Post(s)
Liked: 8585
Quote:
Originally Posted by abinav555 View Post
Hijacking Terry's question, sorry. Thanks again Craig. Can I still use it on a 16:9 screen for the brightness boost and better pixel density ?
Not really. It would only work for the 2.40:1 image projected on that 16:9 screen. Get a 2.40:1 screen !

https://www.panamorph.com/which-home...-2-351-or-169/
Craig Peer is online now  
post #1189 of 1235 Old 11-06-2019, 07:56 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
tigerhonaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN. USA
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 720 Post(s)
Liked: 719
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinav555 View Post
Hijacking Terry's question, sorry. Thanks again Craig. Can I still use it on a 16:9 screen for the brightness boost and better pixel density ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Not really. It would only work for the 2.40:1 image projected on that 16:9 screen. Get a 2.40:1 screen !

https://www.panamorph.com/which-home...-2-351-or-169/
Hey Craig,

I thank you kind Sir for posting that link and it tells the complete story.

Outstanding

Terry
Craig Peer and abinav555 like this.
tigerhonaker is online now  
post #1190 of 1235 Old 11-06-2019, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 20,198
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked: 845
With my remodel still in progress my theater will be 23.08' long, which will be the throw distance, instead of 25' long. Previous ceiling mount throw distance was 19.5' a throw ratio of 1.39, problematic just below minimum throw for the DCR lens. New throw distance will be about 23.08' with throw ratio of 1.65. (Sony VW5000 with 14' wide 2.40 screen)
Craig Peer likes this.

No dealer is authorized to tell you I refer to them - any referrals I make will be done personally by me. Over the years I have found certain dealer(s) who I cannot recommend for good reason! 9.9.13 Trinnov Altitude 32 Theatre renovation/upgrade still in process!
Steve Bruzonsky is online now  
post #1191 of 1235 Old 11-07-2019, 09:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,876
Mentioned: 256 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12793 Post(s)
Liked: 10427
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
With my remodel still in progress my theater will be 23.08' long, which will be the throw distance, instead of 25' long. Previous ceiling mount throw distance was 19.5' a throw ratio of 1.39, problematic just below minimum throw for the DCR lens. New throw distance will be about 23.08' with throw ratio of 1.65. (Sony VW5000 with 14' wide 2.40 screen)
Good shape with DCR lens.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #1192 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 02:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Roland Janus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 34
DCR, Radiance and 3D

How does it work when using 3D with a Radiance Pro with a DCR lens?
Roland Janus is offline  
post #1193 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 05:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Janus View Post
DCR, Radiance and 3D

How does it work when using 3D with a Radiance Pro with a DCR lens?
In general, for 3D content, Anamorphic D mode now works properly, as it does for 2D content: the correct 16:9 aspect ratio is achieved.

But for Anamorphic C mode, for scope aspect ratio 3D content, there is still has a limitation, in that it doesn't scale to the full 4096 pixel width, with the result being a 6% horizontal 'squeeze' of such content.

It is my understanding that this limitation resides in the JVC's processing, likely not solvable in the current generation of Projectors, due to insufficient available processing power. And further, it is also my understanding that this limitation can *not* be overcome with Lumagen or other external video processing.

So it seems that one must have to accept a 6% horizontal squeeze for 3D scope Content when using Anamorphic C mode, whether one has a Lumagen or not.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1194 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 05:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Roland Janus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
In general, for 3D content, Anamorphic D mode now works properly, as it does for 2D content: the correct 16:9 aspect ratio is achieved.

But for Anamorphic C mode, for scope aspect ratio 3D content, there is still has a limitation, in that it doesn't scale to the full 4096 pixel width, with the result being a 6% horizontal 'squeeze' of such content.

It is my understanding that this limitation resides in the JVC's processing, likely not solvable in the current generation of Projectors, due to insufficient available processing power. And further, it is also my understanding that this limitation can *not* be overcome with Lumagen or other external video processing.

So it seems that one must have to accept a 6% horizontal squeeze for 3D scope Content when using Anamorphic C mode, whether one has a Lumagen or not.
I was more referring in general, not projector specific (I have a Sony 5000).
The problem is that 1080p has to be send out to the projector to even do 3D, but with 1080p the lense is squezzing the picture, making it smaller horizontally.
Is there a way to fix that?
Roland Janus is offline  
post #1195 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 05:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Janus View Post
I was more referring in general, not projector specific (I have a Sony 5000).
The problem is that 1080p has to be send out to the projector to even do 3D, but with 1080p the lense is squezzing the picture, making it smaller horizontally.
Is there a way to fix that?
Gotcha. I don't know if or how Sony might be able to work-around this issue; I just know that with JVC it can't at this time.

Hopefully a Sony owner will post to clarify.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1196 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dlinsley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 446
Panamorph doesn't call out 3D being an issue on the Sony compatibility page, unlike for JVC, and so I'd presume either the Sony can scale to full panel width and so you can just use the Radiance as is, or set the Radiance to a standard 16:9 aspect for 3D and then set C/D in the Sony.

An employee of JVC reached out to me to say C was working fine for him with 3D, and suggested I do a factory reset as he said it should work. It didn't work for me, but I forgot to get back to him. Right on that now
dlinsley is online now  
post #1197 of 1235 Old 11-10-2019, 01:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlinsley View Post
Panamorph doesn't call out 3D being an issue on the Sony compatibility page, unlike for JVC, and so I'd presume either the Sony can scale to full panel width and so you can just use the Radiance as is, or set the Radiance to a standard 16:9 aspect for 3D and then set C/D in the Sony.

An employee of JVC reached out to me to say C was working fine for him with 3D, and suggested I do a factory reset as he said it should work. It didn't work for me, but I forgot to get back to him. Right on that now
I'm definitely interested in what they say on Anamorphic C with 3D. I have been in touch with Shawn Kelly, who in turn has been in close touch with JVC engineers, and what I explained in my post is what I heard from him. I would love for your JVC guy to be correct, but I don't have much hope of this being the case. Perhaps he didn't notice the 6% squeeze, as it is likely subtle, and easy to overlook.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1198 of 1235 Old 11-16-2019, 10:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked: 501
I currently have a an RS2000 with Paladin DCR. I’ve been reading about running zoom in the RS2000, but every time I’ve tried this it chops off part of the image at the top and bottom. This is when watching scope content.

I could never figure out what I was doing wrong, but I believe now it’s just a misunderstanding on my part.

My experience with chopping off the image when running zoom in the projector over auto is due to me using Anamorphic C in the RS2000 in conjunction with my lens. Correct?

If I took the lens off, and didn’t have the projector in Anamorphic C, and changed from auto to zoom - it wouldn’t chop off the top/bottom correct? I’d only have to physically pan out a bit to capture the new added image width due to turning zoom on?

Or do I have my reasoning wrong?
ScottieBoysName is online now  
post #1199 of 1235 Old 11-16-2019, 12:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
I currently have a an RS2000 with Paladin DCR. I’ve been reading about running zoom in the RS2000, but every time I’ve tried this it chops off part of the image at the top and bottom. This is when watching scope content.

I could never figure out what I was doing wrong, but I believe now it’s just a misunderstanding on my part.

My experience with chopping off the image when running zoom in the projector over auto is due to me using Anamorphic C in the RS2000 in conjunction with my lens. Correct?

If I took the lens off, and didn’t have the projector in Anamorphic C, and changed from auto to zoom - it wouldn’t chop off the top/bottom correct? I’d only have to physically pan out a bit to capture the new added image width due to turning zoom on?

Or do I have my reasoning wrong?
I've been mulling over this myself for the last week. I now have my NX7 and DCR Lens, hopefully to be mounted over the week-end, so can play around with this.

Thinking through this:

In Auto, the pixels being used by the projector are 3840x2160 (1.78 aspect ratio).
In Zoom, scaling is done so that the image is effectively 4096 x 2304, to maintain the same 1.78 A.R. Since there are only 2160 pixel rows available vertically, 72 rows are cropped from the top, 72 rows cropped from the bottom. This yields a 4096 x 2160 image, which is 1.90 approximately.

With 16:9 content, since it uses the full 2160 pixel height, you will lose 72 rows top and bottom of actual content.
With 2.40:1 content, those 72 rows top/bottom are part of the black bars.

So with no DCR lens, watching 2.40:1 content, going from Auto to Zoom shouldn't cut off any content, and optical zoom will be needed to fill the screen since the Zoomed image is larger than the Auto image.

I think this is correct, but if I'm missing something or messed up the math, someone please correct me.

So, without the DCR lens, are you seeing any loss of content (cropping) with 2.40:1 movies, switching from Auto to Zoom? If you are, then I guess I have to rethink this completely. And if you are, are you re-zooming the lens to compensate for the change in image size?


What is not clear to me is how Anamorphic Mode C works, relative to the choice of Auto or Zoom in the Projector's Aspect Ratio setting. One of the main ideas behind that mode, and the DCR lens in particular, is that it's going to use the full 4096 pixel width of the chip. I'm not sure where this scaling takes place, and whether Anamorphic Mode C effectively supersedes whatever Aspect Ratio is chosen, whether Auto or Zoom.

You should be able to test this out (and I will as well, within a few days): when you're viewing 2.40:1 content, with the DCR Lens in place, and Anamorphic Mode C chosen - does switching from Auto to Zoom in the Aspect Ratio setting have any effect? I'm guessing no, but am not real confident.

Interesting stuff. I understand it much better than 6 months ago, but there are a few details that are still a bit fuzzy. And throw in the fact that Anamorphic Mode C apparently scales to 4096 x 2133, rather than 4096 x 2160, which I also don't quite grasp.

JVC NX7, DCR Lens, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #1200 of 1235 Old 11-16-2019, 12:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
I've been mulling over this myself for the last week. I now have my NX7 and DCR Lens, hopefully to be mounted over the week-end, so can play around with this.



Thinking through this:



In Auto, the pixels being used by the projector are 3840x2160 (1.78 aspect ratio).

In Zoom, scaling is done so that the image is effectively 4096 x 2304, to maintain the same 1.78 A.R. Since there are only 2160 pixel rows available vertically, 72 rows are cropped from the top, 72 rows cropped from the bottom. This yields a 4096 x 2160 image, which is 1.90 approximately.



With 16:9 content, since it uses the full 2160 pixel height, you will lose 72 rows top and bottom of actual content.

With 2.40:1 content, those 72 rows top/bottom are part of the black bars.



So with no DCR lens, watching 2.40:1 content, going from Auto to Zoom shouldn't cut off any content, and optical zoom will be needed to fill the screen since the Zoomed image is larger than the Auto image.



I think this is correct, but if I'm missing something or messed up the math, someone please correct me.



So, without the DCR lens, are you seeing any loss of content (cropping) with 2.40:1 movies, switching from Auto to Zoom? If you are, then I guess I have to rethink this completely. And if you are, are you re-zooming the lens to compensate for the change in image size?





What is not clear to me is how Anamorphic Mode C works, relative to the choice of Auto or Zoom in the Projector's Aspect Ratio setting. One of the main ideas behind that mode, and the DCR lens in particular, is that it's going to use the full 4096 pixel width of the chip. I'm not sure where this scaling takes place, and whether Anamorphic Mode C effectively supersedes whatever Aspect Ratio is chosen, whether Auto or Zoom.



You should be able to test this out (and I will as well, within a few days): when you're viewing 2.40:1 content, with the DCR Lens in place, and Anamorphic Mode C chosen - does switching from Auto to Zoom in the Aspect Ratio setting have any effect? I'm guessing no, but am not real confident.



Interesting stuff. I understand it much better than 6 months ago, but there are a few details that are still a bit fuzzy. And throw in the fact that Anamorphic Mode C apparently scales to 4096 x 2133, rather than 4096 x 2160, which I also don't quite grasp.


We need to have a beer together.

This is the same stuff I think about. My wife and friends hate it. Lol.


I honestly have not tried it without the DCR lens. Only with. I’ll go try it without now.
DLCPhoto likes this.
ScottieBoysName is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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