AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's a question I've had for a long time.


I've never understood why projector manufacturers especially those in the HT world haven't just used Anamorphic lenses instead of a push toward the 16:9 panel.


I would think it would be much cheaper to provide a interchangable lense for the models, than completely redesigning the base unit. They could effectively kill two birds with one stone by making a business projector with all the HT goodies included then have different model numbers for the different lenses.


I just cant figure it out. I mean they already have someone design and manufacture a lense for each model anyway. It's easier to get uniform light off a 4:3 panel. the scaling and stuff is already there...


If the ISCO II were $500 a lot of people would own one as an add on, but why don't the projector manufacturers just do this.


Where's the business sense?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thats precisely my point!


Vlubbers. If you choose the HT model (one with anamorphic lense) 4:3 will be pillarboxed as it is with all people who choose 16:9 display. If you want 4:3 only then you don't need to get the model with the anamorphic lense (or just letterbox 16:9 like we do now).


Reed, If we are a very small segment it would be far cheeper for the manufacture to just ad a model with anamophic lense then redesign the whole thing. The margins for profits are much larger! Lense with existing vs. Total redesign. They both acheive the same results.


The HT model would have the anamorphic lens. There would be no hassles. If the menu was set up properly.


As far as the panamorh goes I think people are putting just to much hope that this will fix everything. A glass lense will last forever. The panamorph is bulky, and has oil with an unknown life span and is definately an "add on" with hassles.


William, "unacceptable optical distortion" That's not what the movie industry has thought for decades. I suspect if you make the lense specific to the model the distortion issue would dissapear. The ISCO is an "add on" so it must accommodate a wide range of users.




[This message has been edited by Tryg (edited 10-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Tryg

IMHO I find the fixed panel a flawed design, I say this based on the fact that it is one fixed ratio yet our viewing material is mostly based on 3 main ratios.

I think that unless we had QXGA and light output to burn we just can not hope to be all things to all people, on all viewing material.


Now if I look at my Dvd collection or my LD collection about 65% of it is wider that 1:85:1. Now when I thought about this it I started to see that 1:78:1 just was not ideal (good but not ideal).

The solution for me was an anamorphic lens because that way I can adjust the ratio to get the most benefit from my sources. This is why I ordered the Panamorph P561 (2:35) and why I already have the Panamorph P752 (1:78).


You are quite correct we have two groups of people. One is those who are never happy with standard equipment and performance (many AVS geeks) and those who are quite happy with whatever they can buy for a set amount of money. (or however much they can sneek past the wife)


Now the million dollar question. Do I upgrade my XGA Dlp to a new 1:78 Dlp and use the Panamorph P752 (1:78) for my 2:35 discs/HD ?

Or do I keep my current XGA Dlp and use the Panamorph P561 (2:35) for my 2:35 discs/HD and use my Panamorph P752 (1:78) for my 1:78 discs/HD ?


All told I will win both ways (at least in my opinion), because I have both the options covered, but this is because I want the MAX out of any projector I own.

I have two other friends who also have the Panamorph and none of us would swap them for anything. We have had many nights swapping test patterns and watching movies and I must say we are all big believers in anamorphic lenses.


Other people may want to compromise and many of these will be happy with just one ratio but just not us HT nutters. YMMV



DavidW


[This message has been edited by David Wallis (edited 10-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
This topic is more about why we never saw the manufacturers go this route. It's so simple and would be very profitable in my opinion to have seperate glass lenses or models.


Accessories are where the real profits are.


Yes, the QXGA would eliminate the need for most to squeeze out a little more performance. However, theres always a few nuts that would try an anamorphic lense for that too!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Sorry for my ignorance, I'm new to the projectors forum... but I just don't see how using an anamorphic lense on a 4:3 panel would produce a 16:9 or wider image without some distortion. Sorry if how this thing works has been explained before, I tried searching the archives but couldn't come up with anything. I'd appreciate any explanation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
An anamorphic lens does distort the image but that is exactly its point... it should compress the image vertically or expand it horizontally to turn a 4:3 into a 16:9...


The scaling electronics of the PJ would of course have to compensate for its own lens and would pillarbox 4:3 etc etc etc...


A lens need induce no other distortion than the exact purpose..


------------------
New email [email protected]
HTPC without using windows... GUI Front Ends for Home Theater
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I think this topic unfortunately is confusing to many people. Especially those that don't know the path/process from between a signal to a image on the screen. or even further back!


In a perfect world we would all have QXGA projectors so we could have plenty of flexability with film based stuff and HDTV would come straight to our screen the way the camera captured it.


LordFortius


Are you just saying it can't be done without distorting the final image at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
So let me get this straight- you compress a 16:9 image onto the 4:3 panel, and then when projected through the anamorphic lense it gets distorted back to the desired ratio?


And if it does work this way, would I be right in guessing that the advantage is it enables you to use all the pixels on the panel?


[This message has been edited by LordFortius (edited 10-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
exactly

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
Tryg - Good question, here's my guess.


I think those of us here at the Forum forget we are a VERY small segment of the home theater market. We are the early adopters and technology geeks. We will buy business projectors and add scalers, lens, hushbox's, calibrations, HTPC's, and countless "tweaks" to get a great picture.


Most people have absolutely no interest in this much effort. They just want to go out and buy a projector, plug it in, and have a home movie experience. This is the market segment that the manufacturers of "Home Theater" projectors,(Seleco, Dwin, Runco....), are going after.


I believe this market segment would view an "add-on" lens as a hassle and not worth the effort. Size and ease of operation are almost as important to these people as performance.


For this reason my opinion is there will be a limited market for the Panamorph, (assuming the company stays in business). Sure there will always be Forum members looking to get the best picture possible, but the vast majority of the buying public will be very happy with a 16 x 9 projector.


Just my opinion, Reed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Tryg,

I have often wondered why myself. It shouldn't be that difficult to do.


------------------

Greg
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top