Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

2.35 AR would it sell?

3067 Views 72 Replies 25 Participants Last post by Pip, Oct 16, 2006

Tryg

Discussion Starter · Oct 6, 2006

Im talking about a projector that is presetup for contant height. Pre scaled no anamorphic lenses etc.

Just mask off a 1920 x 1080 chip and scale everything to do the proper AR.

I know we all "grew up" in a constant width world but it has always seamed counter intuative to me. I mean, hollywood, the film industry and now home theater has always been pushing "wide screen" yet were still in a constant width world.

We have the resolution now. I think the first manufacture to take this step with a plug and play unit will go down in history as a pioneer.

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 73 Posts

Jedi

· #2 · Oct 6, 2006

.....I have wondered why TI doesn't produce a 1080 x 1280 DLP chip and do full panel 2.35 AR constant height using the 'wobulation' technology (or whatever is the correct term to use). However it is done, in a native 2.35 constant height projector the same level of brightness could be maintained on the screen when switching between aspect modes by automatically switching between bulb modes, or clamping up and down on an internal iris.

Tryg

Discussion Starter · #3 · Oct 6, 2006

TI doesn't have much control over what people build. There's actually seperate light engine manufacturers that sell to the final builders of projectors.

I'm thinking JVC could do this effectively and get back on the map. They are definately behind the curve to Sony. It's time to innovate. They have everything that is needed to pull this off.

It makes perfect business sense. Stop chasing Sony who will eventually produce a 20,000:1 LCOS for $2k and sell tens of thousands of them and start filling marker niches with products you can still get higher margin for.

plus they already have a history of masking off chips to achieve widscreen

velvetpoet

· #4 · Oct 6, 2006

I think it would be better if they just made a projector with lense built in to output in 2.35 using the full panel then have the modes do the scaling and mask the rest of the modes.

you would want more lumens for the 2.35 output over the standard hd output wouldnt you?

pocoloco

· #5 · Oct 6, 2006

Masking off a 1920x1080 is not innovative, creating a native 2538 x 1080 panel is. That is the ultimate solution for a constant height pj.

I would never buy a masked 1920x1080 chip because I could never get full 1920x1080 when watching 16:9 HD material.

Instead of masking, a better equivalent is to allow for enough zoom on a pj so that you can just zoom for constant height. At least this way, you can still have 1920x1080 for 16:9 HD stuff.

Ohlson

· #6 · Oct 6, 2006

GEMS or GLV take your pick for a 1080p constant height projector.

GEMS is suppossed to be cheaper to realize. Where is Kodak these days. They had a GEMS prototype years ago.

Art Sonneborn

· #7 · Oct 6, 2006

I see this as worse than a dead end. The answer is what pocoloco says a 2538 x 1080 chip. I wonder if Tryg is just finding a way to futher bash JVC with this "they have no chance but in desperation I have something they might try as their ship is sinking" post.

Art

Tryg

Discussion Starter · #8 · Oct 6, 2006

I have no need to bash JVC. They have always made fine products. I'm very much looking forward to their new product. I see this more as Art bashing Tryg

William

· #9 · Oct 6, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tryg
I have no need to bash JVC. I'm very much looking forward to their new product. I see this more as Art bashing Tryg

See my wishing thread Tryg.

shodoug

· #10 · Oct 6, 2006

Tryg,

I believe I can do the zoom thing with my Pearl. One of the theaters in Alan's 2.35 gallery is a Ruby that is just using zoom, no Anamorphic lens.

My next project is 2.35 CH. I have one of the 752 panamorphs, as well as the 2.35 (from 3 by 4 AR) versions. I may start with a DIY Dazian celtic cloth and see how that goes.

My last pj was an LT-150, and I do hope that my next pj would have a 2530 x 1080 chip.

If one looks like it is coming out, I will wait for it.

Best Regards,

Doug

See less See more

CINERAMAX

· #11 · Oct 6, 2006

Runco is banking on 2.35 CIH setups to differentiate itself from other PJ vendors.

Art Sonneborn

· #12 · Oct 6, 2006

Constant height is one thing masking the chip is another. Some form of anamorphic lens or a full 2.35:1 chip is the answer. JVC let it ride way too long this is apparent( at least if they wanted a portion of the market we are discussing) . They will need more than 2.35 HD lite to get recognized now.

Art

William

· #13 · Oct 6, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn
Constant height is one thing masking the chip is another. Some form of anamorphic lens or a full 2.35:1 chip is the answer. JVC let it ride way too long this is apparent( at least if they wanted a portion of the market we are discussing) . They will need more than 2.35 HD lite to get recognized now.

Art

Correct, it must be a 2538x1080 chip to be a serious contender and not just a pretender.

tryingtimes

· #14 · Oct 7, 2006

No question about it - a good quality 2538x1080 pj would be right at the top of my shopping list.

I'd even put off a purchase for a few months if I knew one was coming.

The brightness and CR specs of the hd-new would be absolutely fine.

a 1920x817 panel or 1692x720 makes no sense at all to me though. I can't see it ever being cheaper than a more popular 1080 pj so there'd be no point at all.

Shawn Kelly

· #15 · Oct 7, 2006

FWIW, the number of projectors permanently converted to 2.35:1 via an anamorphic lens in 2006 will be well into 4 digits. But at the high end there will always be a market for max res at both 2.35:1 and 16:9. I suppose if a native 2.35:1 projector came out then there would be a market for anamorphic lenses to convert all that resolution to 16:9.

tryingtimes

· #16 · Oct 7, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Kelly
I suppose if a native 2.35:1 projector came out then there would be a market for anamorphic lenses to convert all that resolution to 16:9.

lol Shawn

HiFiGuy1

· #17 · Oct 7, 2006

Art bashing Tryg? So, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Tryg imitates Art, does that mean that Tryg = Life?

HiFiGuy1

· #18 · Oct 7, 2006

On a serious note, I have been hoping for a 2.35 native chipset. The benefit would be lower overall cost of ownership for 2.35 CH systems. There would really be no need for an anamorphic lens, just get a 2.35 screen with side masking, which 2.35 guys are already buying today. Electronically masking the chip down to 1920 x 1080 gets that image at native resolution, too. I think it would be great! Come on Sony, JVC, TI, et al. Let's make this the next big thing. That is until we get to 5076 x 2160!

CMRA

· #19 · Oct 7, 2006

As was discussed before in the 2.35 CH forum, chip masking presents the only current viable solution. (Done before with XGA DMDs for 1024x576 Matterhorn competition) But, a rather sorry one when you think about it. You give up all that chip real estate which defeats one of the major advantages of traditional CH-using all the pixels.

Projection is a niche market. I don't see 25XX x 1080 chips on the horizon any more than I see 2.35 flat panel displays. We may one day see both but certainly not in the mass consumer market at affordable prices.

The current anamorphic lens option works well. Just like they have done in theaters for decades. The big complaint seems to be getting HD1080 images to 'squeeze' so employing the lens is a viable option. This could be done in SW mastering, an option readily available on most widescreen 480 DVDs. I'm curious to know if any studio is making headway on this.

An after thought:

Someone is looking forward.

"The "Virtual Cinema" mode on my Runco unit does indeed stretch the 1.78:1 image vertically, while leaving the width unchanged. This allows 2.35:1 material to retain its correct geometric proportions, when viewed through an anamorphic lens that expands the image horizontally. Although I feed the projector with an HTPC, I prefer using Runco's Virtual Cinema mode for vertical expansion, rather than using the computer software. To my eye, the Runco processing is smoother in the vertical dimension. I can understand why Mr. Bishop liked what he saw.

Also, thanks to one of my local HT buddies, I recently had an opportunity to employ this mode with an HD-DVD player. He brought over his new Toshiba player and we hooked up DVI and Component connections to my projector. We watched several films, but concentrated on an HD version of APOLLO 13. My current HTPC cannot handle HD sources, so we could not use any of the computer's processing.

However, the Runco Virtual Cinema mode worked great with the HD output (1080i). As far as I could tell, the vertical stretch is just as smooth and effective with HD as it is with standard definition DVDs."

See less See more

William

· #20 · Oct 7, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMRA
...The current anamorphic lens option works well. Just like they have done in theaters for decades. The big complaint seems to be getting HD1080 images to 'squeeze' so employing the lens is a viable option. This could be done in SW mastering, an option readily available on most widescreen 480 DVDs. I'm curious to know if any studio is making headway on this...

Actually I find the opposite to be true and the "ssqueeze" is the easy part. Any HTPC or scaler will easily handle the image. However using the lens is problematic (I had an ISCO II of 6 years). Geometry distortion (pin cushion or Barrel), hard to line up and focus, soft focus look, no way to get a true square pic, changes throw distance of projector,......

1 - 20 of 73 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.