AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was thinking to post this in the CIH section. After some thought since this is not a CIH, Constant Image Height, set up instead it is more a CIW, Constant Image Width, set up and also, without the Panasonic 3000s’ zoom and lens shift features, I won’t be able to make this to work therefore I decide to post this in this section. Maybe someone is thinking or want to do the similar set up; Panasonic 3000 could be the one in their consider list today.


My goal is to build an entertainment system that can deliver from 2 channels listening to day time movie/HDTV using plasma, day/night time movie/HDTV for 16:9 content and night time 2.35 content movie environments in a single room. In addition, I want to use the maximum real estate in my wall, left to right and top to bottom, THE widest and biggest screen for both 16:9 and 2.35 image I can get.


Beside the widest width and biggest image for both 16:9 and 2.35 viewing area I want, day time viewing and cost are also important factors for me. With different gain materials in 2 different screens, I can have a 2.8 gain high power material screen for the day time viewing even when all my blinds are open and a lot of ambient lights inside the room. In the evening, I can have the matte white, 1.0 gain screen to enhance the black color for the 2.35 movies. Also, with 2 individual screens, the cost will be substantial less than any single masking similar size screen, not to mention I will be sacrificing narrower image for the 16:9 content (masking back from 2.35 format for CIW set up). As you see in one of the below pictures, I make a custom enclosure, then texture & color it the same interior color in order to hide these 2 screens inside there.


My plasma is hanging on the wall and providing the HDTV from cable box, VMC, DVD and BD contents from HTPC anytime I want. If need, I can pull down the back screen, 110” 16:9 screen, for the same content anytime. During the evening pop corn time, I can pull down my front 104” 2.35 screen and I’ll be able watch all the 2.35 format movies I want. The set up is so versatile and I can be able to adapt everything we want in one room that the whole family can enjoy around the clock; from morning news to late night blockbuster movies; plasma and different big screen when we want all we want.


I have been thinking to get a projector that can do the 2 screens set up I want this year. Panasonic 3000, JVC RS10/350 and RS20/750 are top of my list in terms of performance. From my research, picture to picture, I believe RS10/350 will be able to deliver a better black and overall better picture than Panasonic 3000 and RS20/750 will be a significant better than Panasonic 3000. Unfortunately, both JVC models does not offer lens shift and zoom features that Panasonic 3000 offers in order for me to do what I want. More info here . Why? Since this is NOT a CIH set up instead of a CIW set up, it does require the projector to resize and lens shift to different image sizes; from 16:9 image back and forth to 2.35 image.


With Panasonic 3000, I can easily switch between 2 format images, 16:9 and 2.35. When I need to view 16:9 content, all I need to do is press a “16.9” preset button from my remote and Panasonic 3000 will resize the 16:9 image I saved before – that’s it!

When 2.35 movie time, all I need to do are:

(1) Press a “2.35” preset button in my remote then Panasonic 3000 will resize the 2.35 image I saved before.

(2) Press the “V-fit” button, vertical stress the image for the anamorphic lens.

(3) Slide the anamorphic lens in front of the projector then I will have the widest width my wall allows 2.35 image in my 2.35 screen in front of me. No black top and bottom bar, brighter than 2.35 without lens image and using all the pixels Panasonic 3000 provided.


There are plenty of debates regarding using zoom instead of anamorphic lens in the 2.35 section. I tried it with my Panasonic 3000 and perhaps from my viewing distance and other factors such as TR 2, I prefer the anamorphic lens over using the zoom for the 2.35 image. Perhaps, it is just me. Please don’t take my words and I strongly encourage you to A/B yourself, maybe you like it and you will be able to save the money of the anamorphic lens at the minimum and also no need to manually slide in and out the a-lens.


If you are looking for an easy resize the image and lens shift projector to adapt what you want, I truly think Panasonic 3000 is the best way to achieve that today. If you want just the best picture for a single 2 or 4 ways masking screen system with CIW set up, I believed that one of those JVS DLA projectors will be the best choice within the $6K projector today. Of course, Sim2, Marantz, Runco and Meridian will be able to deliver even better and very impressive picture than JVC can, but I suppose only for those ultra high end deep pocket videophile users.


With a 16TB movie server combine a HTPC as my player, streaming a 2 channels MP3 from Foobar2000 or playing back a Blu-ray ISO from Arcsoft TMT3 with SimHD bit streaming DTS MA or TrueHD to Onkyo Pro 885 (replacing Theta Casablanca III HDMI edition preamp available end of summer) then powered by a 7 channels Theta Dreadnaught II amplifier to 7 Martin Logan speakers via MIT Shotgun interconnect and speaker cables between them, the outcome is a powerful but yet multipurpose movie theater system that we have been looking for a long time!


Specifications

Room size: 17’ X 20’

Ceiling height: 9’

Projector to screen: 16’

Projector drop from ceiling: 14”

16:9 with 2.8 gain screen: 110” 96” X 54” with 14” black drop from top.

2.35 with 1.0 gain screen: 104” 96” X 41” with 20” black drop from top & 7” black drop from bottom up.

Throw ratio: 2


Video

Panasonic AE3000 Projector

Panamorph UV200 Anamorphic Lens

Chief projector and anamorphic lens mount

Da-Lite 16:9 110” High Power screen

Da-Lite 2.35 104” Matte White screen

NEC 1080i 50” Commercial Plasma


Audio

Onkyo Pro 885 Pre-Amp (On order Theta Casablanca III HDMI edition upgrade)

Theta Digital Dreadnaught II

Martin Logan speakers and subwoofer

MIT Shotgun S1 interconnect and speaker cables

PS Audio Power Premier Plant


HTPC

Hardware: ASUS Xonar HDAV, ATI 4670 Fanless, LG H20L Blu-ray Drive, Core2Duo, 4G RAM, 2X Fusion + 2X Hauppage

Software: W7 Ultimate, AnyDVD HD, VCD, TMT3 with SimHD, MM, HomeSeer, Foorball 2000, CopyWipe


I don’t have a nice camera.

All below pictures are about 2 feet back from my sitting position and using same color setting.

All the blinds were opened when day time pictures taken and all the blinds were closed when the night time pictures taken.

In order to see the same image, I took all the pictures from the same frame. But when 16:9 you will see my HTPC player in full screen mode and when playing a 16:9 content, it will fill the entire 16:9 screen. When playing a 2.35 movie, it will ONLY displaying the 2.35 image, nothing else, no borders at all.

Screen drawing/planning





Custom enclosure (2 screens inside)


Panasonic 3000 with Panamorph UV200 Anamorphic Lens


My HTPC. Asus Xonar HDAV1.3, ATI 4850...



Receiving TrueHD codec from BD material from my HTPC to Pre-Amp



Day time using plasma


Day time using 16:9 screen


Day time using 2.35 screen


Night time using plasma


Night time using 16.9 movie


Night time using 2.35 movie




 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,047 Posts
Panasonic did a great thing with the memory lens. I have always told them they need to do a 2.35 projector either with an anamorphic lens or a 2.35 chip. Not that I am saying they listened to me, but they seem to understand the need for something like that and instead took their current design and put in a simple (i would assume it simple) that allows you do do the cheap mans constant height system. Its called cheap man not because of the quality of the image but because its cheaper than spending 2000-5000 on a lens plus possibly an external scaler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Hutnicki /forum/post/16852972


Panasonic did a great thing with the memory lens. I have always told them they need to do a 2.35 projector either with an anamorphic lens or a 2.35 chip. Not that I am saying they listened to me, but they seem to understand the need for something like that and instead took their current design and put in a simple (i would assume it simple) that allows you do do the cheap mans constant height system. Its called cheap man not because of the quality of the image but because its cheaper than spending 2000-5000 on a lens plus possibly an external scaler

Daniel,


I'm not an engineer but it will be so cool to have a PJ that can deliver true 16:9 and 2.35 images without lens. For today, I am happy with my set up and I can have best of both worlds (IMO). If such native 16:9 & 2.35 pj available few years from now, I will be waiting in the line to get one and swapping out the 3000. Until then Panny 3K will be my best friend
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,026 Posts
I really hope Panasonic will develop the "zoom memory" even further on the next model. With some fine tunning and some extra features it would really be a fantastic projector for anyone contemplating CINEMASCOPE on the cheap!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/16854039


I really hope Panasonic will develop the "zoom memory" even further on the next model. With some fine tunning and some extra features it would really be a fantastic projector for anyone contemplating CINEMASCOPE on the cheap!

I'm sure it is just matter of time. Hopefully sooner than later. But I've to agree that it is not in the top of the general public wish list today. Until then we might have to play around what we have in order to make it to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hlkc /forum/post/16858384


it is not in the top of the general public wish list today.

I don't know about that. I would say that a $3,000 projector is not at the top of the general public's wishlist right now. But of the people that are looking at this nitch of the AV market, I would say that facilitation of scope16/9 transition is relatively high.


If companies find market justification for even making these projectors to begin with, I'd have to argue that making them with a feature like this will be important going forward.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/16861459


I don’t know about that. I would say that “a $3,000 projector” is not at the top of the general public’s wishlist right now. But of the people that are looking at this nitch of the AV market, I would say that facilitation of scope16/9 transition is relatively high.


If companies find market justification for even making these projectors to begin with, I’d have to argue that making them with a feature like this will be important going forward.


-Suntan

Hard to tell whether the public want today. I believed the manufactures should have done enough researches to justify the market want before bringing the next product to the market. Supply & demand versus sales & marketing.


My post here is I like to share my project to others and using 2 different less expensive and different material screens to achieve best of both worlds. At the end of the day, if there is a 2.35 native projector I am not 100% sure I want it today just yet, since we still want to use this system to watch 16:9 HDTV contents and movies. What I have today is no lens needed for my 16:9 materials and slide the lens in for the 2.35 movies. If there is a native 2.35 PJ today, I will probably need to slide the lens in for the 16:9 at that point. If there is a PJ that can flip a switch using technology to provide me the 16:9 and 2.35 without lens, it will be awesome. To me, those are back end and my front end hardware are ready and accept 16:9 and 2.35 contents whenever I want. That's the main reason I put this whole thing together.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
I may be dense here but I'm having a hard time understanding why you need memory lens shift/zoom for this set up or even why you need an anamorphic lens.


If I understand correctly, you are using two screens with the same width. One 16:9 and one 2.35:1. The 2.35:1 screen essentially replaces a masking system for the 16:9. The two screens have different gains. This should not have anything to do with the need for either an anamorphic lens or a change in aspect ratio but is dependent on the lighting conditions in the room. (You mentioned a not insubstantial amount of ambient light as the reason for the highpower. The highpower is better than a 1.0 gain screen at dealing with ambient light if it does not originate from within the viewing cone, but any light in the room will still wash out your screen).


Your lens is a vertical compression lens so by sliding it into place, your picture will be vertically compressed to fit the 2.35:1 screen. Without going into the reasons for why you need an anamorphic lens in this setup (you shouldn't have any issues with screen door and you already have a high gain screen if the image weren't bright enough), why would you need the Panasonic's memory zoom/lens shift? With your setup or any setup using an anamorphic lense, I don't understand what benefit the Panasonic lends over any other projector capable of one button vertical stretch.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
In addition, are these screens electric or manual pull down. The only reason I could see needing to zoom would be if one screen is further back from the other and you had different image sizes. However, if they are manual pull downs and you have to manually slide the lens into place as well, how much more difficult would it be to rezoom?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/16862478


In addition, are these screens electric or manual pull down. The only reason I could see needing to zoom would be if one screen is further back from the other and you had different image sizes. However, if they are manual pull downs and you have to manually slide the lens into place as well, how much more difficult would it be to rezoom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/16862448


I may be dense here but I'm having a hard time understanding why you need memory lens shift/zoom for this set up or even why you need an anamorphic lens.


If I understand correctly, you are using two screens with the same width. One 16:9 and one 2.35:1. The 2.35:1 screen essentially replaces a masking system for the 16:9. The two screens have different gains. This should not have anything to do with the need for either an anamorphic lens or a change in aspect ratio but is dependent on the lighting conditions in the room. (You mentioned a not insubstantial amount of ambient light as the reason for the highpower. The highpower is better than a 1.0 gain screen at dealing with ambient light if it does not originate from within the viewing cone, but any light in the room will still wash out your screen).


Your lens is a vertical compression lens so by sliding it into place, your picture will be vertically compressed to fit the 2.35:1 screen. Without going into the reasons for why you need an anamorphic lens in this setup (you shouldn't have any issues with screen door and you already have a high gain screen if the image weren't bright enough), why would you need the Panasonic's memory zoom/lens shift? With your setup or any setup using an anamorphic lense, I don't understand what benefit the Panasonic lends over any other projector capable of one button vertical stretch.

Both screens are manual, beside to save the money, the wall there is a structure wall and I was not able to get any electrical wires up there.


They both are about 6" apart. 16:9 inside and 2.35 is 8" outside due to the case and mounting.


With 2 different material screens, I can use the PJ depending on the time of the day and the content I want to watch.


I don't have CIH set up. With a HC a-lens, it will work with 1 masking screen and one PJ without zoom and lens shift feature.


With my CIW set up, I do need to re-size and re-zoom the 2.35 image to fit the 2.35 screen from 16:9 image; slide the a-lens in and V-fit for a perfect 2.35 image in a 2.35 screen.


Without the zoom and lens shift, if I just slide the a-lens in and v-fit the image, the image will be bigger and not line up the 2.35 screen at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,129 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hlkc /forum/post/16862889


I don't have CIH set up. With a HC a-lens, it will work with 1 masking screen and one PJ without zoom and lens shift feature.



With my CIW set up, I do need to re-size and re-zoom the 2.35 image to fit the 2.35 screen from 16:9 image; slide the a-lens in and V-fit for a perfect 2.35 image in a 2.35 screen.


Without the zoom and lens shift, if I just slide the a-lens in and v-fit the image, the image will be bigger and not line up the 2.35 screen at all.

A Panamorph UV200 is a Vertical Compression lens, it reduces the height from 16:9 to 2.35:1. I too am confused why you need a lens or zoom/shift memory in a CIW setup, even with two screens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16863063


A Panamorph UV200 is a Vertical Compression lens, it reduces the height from 16:9 to 2.35:1. I too am confused why you need a lens or zoom/shift memory in a CIW setup, even with two screens.

Add me to the list who is confused about why you need a lens or zoom/shift memory in a CIW set-up. I understand the two screens as that is an effective masking system and allows for different screen surfaces.


Can you do the following test to appease all of us.


1. Set projector to normal 16:9 mode with 16:9 content on 16:9 screen.

2. Put in a 2.35:1 content (most any blu-ray these days is 2.35:1) and see what happens, you should now have gray bars on the top and bottom of your 16:9 screen.

3. Now remove the 16:9 screen and put in the 2.35:1 screen and you should have the image on the 2.35:1 screen. This should show up perfectly, unless you didn't place the 2.35:1 to be centered vertically compared to the 16:9 screen.


The only reason I can see the need for the shift lens is if the 2.35:1 screen isn't center vertically with the 16:9 screen and under no scenario can I figure out why you would need a lens.


You've obviously put a lot of work and thought into this so I don't want to sound judgemental, I just can't figure out what you are trying to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
sipester and stanger89,


In a perfect world, you're absolutely right and I will have the same question too. But my set up here, inside the enclosure I build to hire these 2 screen cases, one case sitting in the back and the other case sitting in the front, with the mounting brackets... they're about 8" apart, please refer to the picture below. With that in mind, my front picture is a bit smaller, narrower and shorter, than my back picture/image. Without the lens shift and zoom a bit bigger from the 3K, I will not have a perfect 2.35 image in the 2.35 screen sitting in the front.


If it is one screen system then the width of the image in the CIW has to be exactly the same. Otherwise it won't be CIW. But as you notice by now, the width of the image are still the same with the help of 3K; otherwise the exactly same image hitting the front will be a bit smaller.


Hope this clear your question, if not, let me know.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
mrlittlejeans,


Please refer to my below reply for why I need lens shift and zoom. In short, there is nothing to do with the a-lens. Lens is lens, it is either HC and VC. I will be able to use H-fit and V-fit from the PJ to revert it back to original format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hlkc /forum/post/16866488


sipester and stanger89,


In a perfect world, you're absolutely right and I will have the same question too. But my set up here, inside the enclosure I build to hire these 2 screen cases, one case sitting in the back and the other case sitting in the front, with the mounting brackets... they're about 8" apart, please refer to the picture below. With that in mind, my front picture is a bit smaller, narrower and shorter, than my back picture/image. Without the lens shift and zoom a bit bigger from the 3K, I will not have a perfect 2.35 image in the 2.35 screen sitting in the front.


If it is one screen system then the width of the image in the CIW has to be exactly the same. Otherwise it won't be CIW. But as you notice by now, the width of the image are still the same with the help of 3K; otherwise the exactly same image hitting the front will be a bit smaller.


Hope this clear your question, if not, let me know.



Okay, that makes more sense, although can't the Panny do this all by itself with the automated shift & zoom lens? That's how many are using the Panny for a CIH set-up without any lens, so I can't figure out why it wouldn't work the same for a CIW set-up? The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps you are using the lens to maximize light output, but since the 2.35:1 screen is likely used at night, not sure why that would be a big consideration.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
So you have to rezoom a little bit because your screens are 6" apart. You manually get up and switch screens but don't want to be hassled having to rezoom a smidge?


Honestly, you could have had a much less complicated setup just using a 16:9 screen and employing some top and bottom masking. You could have used a highpower, top and bottom masking and an RS20. If you wanted excellent blacks at night (the reason for your lower gain screen), you could have closed the manual iris all the way to achieve 30-40k:1 native contrast ratio rather than relying on the panasonic with its dynamic iris and still anemic contrast ratio.


This setup seems way too overengineered without any real benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sipester /forum/post/16867253


Okay, that makes more sense, although can't the Panny do this all by itself with the automated shift & zoom lens? That's how many are using the Panny for a CIH set-up without any lens, so I can't figure out why it wouldn't work the same for a CIW set-up? The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps you are using the lens to maximize light output, but since the 2.35:1 screen is likely used at night, not sure why that would be a big consideration.

Sorry, I'm not super clear what you mean.


I need the Panny 3K to correct the different between 2 screens.


I like to use the a-lens over zoom for my 2.35 image. As I mentioned in my original post "Please don't take my words and I strongly encourage you to A/B yourself, maybe you like it..."


I do not need the a-lens to do any correction.


I do use the a-lens to watch the 2.35 movies including day time. It depending what types of the movie, I use the combination of the different screen and color setting to get the picture I want for the day time. But in general, I will save the dark blockbuster 2.35 movie in the evening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/16867791


So you have to rezoom a little bit because your screens are 6" apart. You manually get up and switch screens but don't want to be hassled having to rezoom a smidge?


Honestly, you could have had a much less complicated setup just using a 16:9 screen and employing some top and bottom masking. You could have used a highpower, top and bottom masking and an RS20. If you wanted excellent blacks at night (the reason for your lower gain screen), you could have closed the manual iris all the way to achieve 30-40k:1 native contrast ratio rather than relying on the panasonic with its dynamic iris and still anemic contrast ratio.


This setup seems way too overengineered without any real benefits.

Thanks for the advice.


Today, I leave my back 16:9 screen down about 95+% of the time and pull down the 2.35 screen when need. Since 16:9 screen in the back, there is no need to get up and switch around so often.


I considered one screen set up before but I was not able to settle a 16:9 masking screen I want. Price was one of the issue.


Perhaps this is not the best set up for someone, but it delivered more than I want and again it is so versatile (to me) and I can watch all I want when I want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
My first post, and I am most-probably wrong, but the way I look at it is

- he is using A-lens for the same reason everyone else does; to use the full (16x9) panel for 2.35 content

- he is using two screens instead of one-screen+masking, since it happens to be the right solution for him, and

- he uses zoom memory to address the issues that may arise as a result of two screens not being in the exact same spot.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top