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.

Movie - Ready Player One
DCR - Off
Anamorphic - Off
Aspect - Auto
=Image - Standard, Normal no clipping.

Movie - Ready Player One
DCR - Off
Anamorphic - Off
Aspect - Zoom
=Image - Top is not chopped, nor sides, but I need to mechanically pan out to catch the width. Image is larger but maintains AR, and is not chopped out of frame. I just need to pan out.

Movie - Ready Player One
DCR - On
Anamorphic - C
Aspect - Auto
=Image - Standard, Normal no clipping.

Movie - Ready Player One
DCR - On
Anamorphic - C
Aspect - Zoom
=Image - Top and bottom are chopped, like out of panel/sensor chopped. No amount of mechanically panning out will catch it.

I feel like Anamorphic C engages the entire panel height and width - this enabling Zoom AFTER that moves the image out of the frame of the sensor since it’s already at its limit.

So...what about 16:9? I run that in Auto now. Should I run that in Zoom and mechanically pan out? Is there any drawback in running the projector in Zoom the whole time?

Good, this is what I thought would be the case. So far, so good.







Very interesting, and different from what I expected with regard to Anamorphic C, Auto vs Zoom...



Are you using Anamorphic D for 16:9 content, which is what you would use with the DCR in place? If so, I can't 'do the math', as I am less familiar with how the scaling works here. I would guess that with Zoom, you'd be cropping those rows top/bottom with or without Anamorphic D, and that it wouldn't be any more cropped with Zoom vs Auto, but I could easily be wrong.



Or are you taking the DCR off for 16:9 content? If so, if you kept it on Zoom, you would gain some brightness, but lose those 144 pixel rows (72 top, 72 bottom).



This raises a little concern for me: without moving my mount, I don't think I can quite fill my 2.35:1 screen when it's in Auto, based on measurements so far. Maybe it'll be a little different once I actually get it mounted.



But as it looks now, I have to engage Zoom to fully fill the screen for 2.40:1 content. And based on what you're seeing with the DCR Lens/Anamorphic Mode C, and A.R. set to Zoom, I may be clipping some content top and bottom. Probably not of much significance, but I wish I didn't have to.



Thanks for collecting the data! I hope to do the same as soon as I can get a friend over to help me get this beast up there.

Full honestly - I have a 16:9 screen. I take the DCR with 16:9 content. When running scope content I simply pan it down to the bottom, so the bottom of the image lines up with the bottom of the screen. I’m going to end up masking the top. Just haven’t done it yet.

That doesn’t really impact the testing above, if anything it allows me to see more of what’s going on.

Something weird happens when I watch 16:9 content and move from auto to zoom. Auto is, of course fine. It’s native.

Zoom makes it wider, but not taller by an equal amount. I thought it would be the same as when it zooms scope content. But it’s not. I guess this makes sense as it’s already using all of the panel height?

So - I’m staying in Auto/Native for 16:9 content on a 16:9 screen. Go figure.

Do you have the width in your room to go with a 2.40:1 screen of the same height as your current 16:9 screen? If so, that might be worth considering at some point, since that would give you the most overall improvement with the DCR Lens. And I guess that would also explain why you would be removing the DCR lens for all 16:9 content.



When you say "Zoom makes it wider, but not taller by an equal amount" that actually is what would be expected, since when it scales to fill the full width of the chip, it can't go any higher, since the full height is already used. The result is that change in Aspect Ratio from the Native 1.78:1 to the Zoomed 1.89:1, as you realized by the end of that sentence!



On the subject of Lens Removal - most have said this takes only a few minutes, and it's not a big deal. What's your experience here? I guess you're just unscrewing the two thumb-screws at the top, and removing the whole apparatus in one piece? Do you find any change in 'micro-adjustment' of the overall DCR light-path when doing this on a frequent basis? Any tips or comments here appreciated.

Thanks for helping explain that and figure it out.

I’m width limited on screen sooner than I am height. So, for me, it makes no sense to get a scope screen and have a smaller 16:9 picture, when the scope picture size would be the same regardless.

So, I run a 16:9. I also watch more 16:9 content (games) than scope.

It takes me two seconds to put on the DCR or take it off. I have a small step ladder that is to the side in my room, that I also use to turn one of my JTR subs on. My setup looks like the attached. I’m sure I could devise some sort of slide - but the way my 4000ULFs shake the earth that’d prolly introduce some noise.

Nice room!!



Yeah, looks like you're definitely width limited, so scope screen won't work out.



My neighbor helped me out earlier this evening, and we took down the RS400, I slid my mount as far back as I could, and we mounted the NX7! I played around with the mount, to get everything squared up, and with the focus pattern the JVC uses, was almost, but not quite filling the screen (Auto A.R.). So I figured I'd go ahead and get the DCR Lens mounted, and it was considerably easier than I anticipated. I put in a 2.40:1 movie, hit Anamorphic C, and that provided the 'zoom' I needed, so it completely filled the screen. In fact, I was even able to back up the Optical Zoom a bit, and still have it fill, with enough overlap of the black screen frame to hide whatever barrel distortion there might have been (I didn't take time to look for it, but as I'm at about 1.48x screen width, it should be minimal).



I'll do some formal testing of brightness and so forth tomorrow, but I am a happy camper now!

My understanding is this:

Your common UHD sources (disc) are 3840 wide, 2160 tall. Your NX panels are 4096 wide, 2160 tall.

In Auto mode, the JVC NX picture (UHD disc) is 3840 wide, 2160 tall. Your are using the full height of the JVC, 2160, but leaving 128 black unused pixels on either side of the image because the JVCs are native 4K. 3840 + 128 + 128 = 4096.

In Zoom mode, the JVC NX will zoom and fill the 128 pixels on both sides, but to maintain aspect ratio it is cropping a bit of the top & bottom as there is still only 2160 pixels high to work with.

If Zoom is used with a Paladin lens (non DCR, 1.33) in mode A you now fill the 4096 wide JVC panel. Without Zoom in mode A you will have small black bars on either side of the image.

The advantage of the DCR lens(1.25) is that it is designed for full 4096 wide panels. This is why the DCR has the added ~6% measurable brightness over the Paladin, the scaling in mode C uses the full panel, 4096 x 2160. No zoom required AFAIK.

Now my question is what is the difference between Paladin mode A with Zoom and DCR mode C with no zoom. Both display a 4096x2160 image correct?

These are the conclusions I have come to after using a Paladin lens with my NX5 over the last year. Sometimes I zoom, usually I don't. The Black Diamond screen makes anything pillar boxed not terribly noticeable.

...note that many 4K/4096 models also have modes to use the standard Paladin as well, albeit with the lower pixel count and therefore lower detail and brightness compared to using the Paladin DCR.

Anamorphic A....Projects the 2.35:1 image with it stretched in the vertical direction only using a 3840 pixel width.

Thanks for helping explain that and figure it out.

I’m width limited on screen sooner than I am height. So, for me, it makes no sense to get a scope screen and have a smaller 16:9 picture, when the scope picture size would be the same regardless.

So, I run a 16:9. I also watch more 16:9 content (games) than scope.

It takes me two seconds to put on the DCR or take it off. I have a small step ladder that is to the side in my room, that I also use to turn one of my JTR subs on. My setup looks like the attached. I’m sure I could devise some sort of slide - but the way my 4000ULFs shake the earth that’d prolly introduce some noise.

That room is screaming for an AT scope screen, just put the speakers behind it!

I did a wall to wall 140" 16:9 AT screen. Would like to make it wider scope, but not possible.

Lähetetty minun MRD-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

For those using the chief mounts, does the DCR require an unmounting from the chief to install the xm2 plate or can you access the screw holes through the mount provided you have enough room on the top of the PJ between the ceiling and the unit itself?

I’d say you could mount it without taking the projector down.

Are those two screws the only ones and there's not more underneath the plate?

Are those two screws the only ones and there's not more underneath the plate?

Just those two from what I see.

I'm not ScottieBoysName here, but he is correct.

I just mounted my NX7 and DCR this past week-end, but now that I see how it all comes together, it should be easily do-able if the Projector is already mounted.

I was surprised about the 2 sets of screws that hold it in place in the front, with nothing at all securing it in the rear part. I even checked with Shawn Kelly about this, but it's fine.

He suggested inserting something (any material of suitable thickness and stiffness) between the Chief plate and the XM2 if desired, but at this point anyway, it doesn't seem necessary.

I guess you have, or are considering going to the DCR from your prior A-Lens?

Thanks for helping explain that and figure it out.

I’m width limited on screen sooner than I am height. So, for me, it makes no sense to get a scope screen and have a smaller 16:9 picture, when the scope picture size would be the same regardless.

So, I run a 16:9. I also watch more 16:9 content (games) than scope.

It takes me two seconds to put on the DCR or take it off. I have a small step ladder that is to the side in my room, that I also use to turn one of my JTR subs on. My setup looks like the attached. I’m sure I could devise some sort of slide - but the way my 4000ULFs shake the earth that’d prolly introduce some noise.

Yea I sold off the old lens already so am in need of an upgrade. I plan to do the DCR at some point but have moved back to the zoom method for the time being. Things still look amazing, but I certainly do miss the capabilities of anamorphic now that I don't have one in place...

Room looks good.

Thanks for your feedback !
So you’re telling me that it’s impossible to have a picture without deformation with a curved screen ? That’s a shame, i thought it was the standard for big public cinemas ...
Considering the price of my screen, the Neo 4k, i won’t replace it for a flat one anytime soon !

Thanks for helping explain that and figure it out.

I’m width limited on screen sooner than I am height. So, for me, it makes no sense to get a scope screen and have a smaller 16:9 picture, when the scope picture size would be the same regardless.

So, I run a 16:9. I also watch more 16:9 content (games) than scope.

It takes me two seconds to put on the DCR or take it off. I have a small step ladder that is to the side in my room, that I also use to turn one of my JTR subs on. My setup looks like the attached. I’m sure I could devise some sort of slide - but the way my 4000ULFs shake the earth that’d prolly introduce some noise.

Thanks for your feedback !
So you’re telling me that it’s impossible to have a picture without deformation with a curved screen ? That’s a shame, i thought it was the standard for big public cinemas ...
Considering the price of my screen, the Neo 4k, i won’t replace it for a flat one anytime soon !