[aeneas01]

for those of you who own anamorphic lenses, do you use your lens for more than cinema scope content? for example do any of you use it to convert 16:9 hd sports to a 2:35:1 viewing experience? or how about 16:9 hd dvd? for hd sports there would be quite a few instances where score and stats would be cropped out, but it seems that 2:35:1 would bring you much closer to the action, give everything on the field would be roughly 30% larger (if i remember the math correctly). and of course quite a bit of the 16:9 hd dvd image would be cropped as well, but it seems like it might be workable, at least for my needs.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

Well if you don't mind every character being 33% fatter, that's up to you. Or if you don't mind circles being oval, or squares being rectangular.

Personally I think it's ridiculous, I'd use 4:3 mode to squeeze 16:9 content horizontally so that perspective is correct.

 

[Verge2]

for those of you who own anamorphic lenses, do you use your lens for more than cinema scope content? for example do any of you use it to convert 16:9 hd sports to a 2:35:1 viewing experience? or how about 16:9 hd dvd? for hd sports there would be quite a few instances where score and stats would be cropped out, but it seems that 2:35:1 would bring you much closer to the action, give everything on the field would be roughly 30% larger (if i remember the math correctly). and of course quite a bit of the 16:9 hd dvd image would be cropped as well, but it seems like it might be workable, at least for my needs.

The lens won't crop anything, it's clear.


I don't think you understand how it works.

 

[aeneas01]

The lens won't crop anything, it's clear. I don't think you understand how it works.

yes, i understand that, the lens won't crop the image, but the vertical stretch that's applied will (crop the vertical top and bottom letterbox bars), no? here's an example i've taken from an article regarding cih and anamorphic lenses.

1. the first image shows a 2:35:1 screen
2. the second image shows "jaws", in scope, formatted for 16:9, on a 2:35:1 screen, with vertical top and bottom letterbox bars.
3. the third image shows the dvd stretched horizontally to fit the 2:35:1 screen using an anamorphic lens, the vertical top and bottom letterbox bars remain
4. and, finally, the fourth and last image shows the same image with vertical stretch applied, which crops the vertical top and bottom letterbox bars.

from my dvd/video scaler manual:

so couldn't the same process be used for 16:9 hd content as well, full 16:9 hd content that fills the screen, without letterboxes, such as hd sports broadcasts and 16:9 hd dvds? as i mentioned in my first post, as the image examples i posted showed, the top and bottom of the image would be cropped (when vertical stretch is applied), which could/would often remove game stats that are typically shown on the top and bottom of the screen during hd sports broadcasts, and 16:9 hd dvds would also be cropped on the top and bottom. but the image would not result in images/characters appearing fatter or circles appearing as ovals as RLBURNSIDE suggested, unless i'm missing something?

here's the same process as the jaws example but using a 16:9 nfl broadcast example instead:

 

[Verge2]

Right but you are cropping significant portions off the top and bottom, is your VP doing that, or do you just let that extra light bounce around your room? Also, what is the point? You are left with a zoomed in video. It would be much cheaper to buy a bigger screen lol.

 

[aeneas01]

nm

 

[Verge2]

nm

I read it, I would sled and zoom.

You should ask in the cih section, you'll get more responses. Most good lenses cost more than the projectors we talk about in here.

 

[aeneas01]

I read it, I would sled and zoom.

You should ask in the cih section, you'll get more responses. Most good lenses cost more than the projectors we talk about in here.

thanks for the reply... i deleted the post because the more i thought about it the more the more i realized that the approach i outlined in the deleted post would result in top/bottom light, i.e. the 2:35:1 scaler fit (vertical stretch) wouldn't help. and wouldn't the same be true with sledding the zoom? i'd still be dealing with top and bottom projector (which i can't mask in my setup). and, yes, the anamorphic lens is pricey, around $800 used if i've been looking at the right units, but it's a price i can swallow. and if it's an epic fail for my needs, i can just resize my diy 2:35:1 screen to 16:9 and put the lens back on the market, at least that's what i'm thinking.

edit: thanks for the heads up on the cih section, didn't know there was one, i'll check it out, and thanks also for your helpful responses.

 

[MississippiMan]

A lot of responses the seem to concentrate on the zoom factor, but simply ignore the "immersion factor" that a 2.39:1 image provides.

I believe that is the primary goal of the OP, and whenever a A-Lens is used to accomplish such conversion of 16:9 to 2.39:1, one must expect to have to "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" a bit if in the end, C.H.I. is desired.

 

[Verge2]

A lot of responses the seem to concentrate on the zoom factor, but simply ignore the "immersion factor" that a 2.39:1 image provides.

I believe that is the primary goal of the OP, and whenever a A-Lens is used to accomplish such conversion of 16:9 to 2.39:1, one must expect to have to "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" a bit if in the end, C.H.I. is desired.

16:9 and 2.35 screen of equal lengths and equal seating distances. Which one is more immersive?


Exactly.

 

[Ellebob]

You can use an anamorphic lens and stretch the 16:9 material with no cropping. I have done some installations where the people do just that. When using a 2.35 screen and are watching 2.35 material the material needs to be stretched vertically by the projector or a video processor to get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom. This vertical stretch is usually selected by using the remote to choose the aspect mode which does vertical stretch. It is called different things on different projectors and video processors. If you are watching 16:9 material you turn off this vertical stretch and just use the native 16:9 signal. Then the 16:9 material will fit the 2.35 screen and everything will be stretched horizontally by the anamorphic lens. Similar to stretching 4:3 standard def material to fit a 16:9 hi def display. For sports like football, soccer, hockey or things played on a rectangular or oval area it doesn't look bad. The people are a little fatter but hey its America we are used to that. On other material the stretched look may be more noticeable and bother some people. It is personal preference.


What projector and lens are you considering? Some projectors have a squeeze mode which makes 16:9 material aspect correct when going through an anamorphic lens. You still get the black bars on the side and the squeezing you lose some resolution but if you have a fixed lens it is an option if people look too fat when stretched while watching 16:9 material. For many sports I doubt the average person would notice it is stretched and just be wowed by the big picture.

 

[Ellebob]

If the width of the screen stays the same a16:9 screen will be taller and therefore more immersive, if the height of the screen stays the same then the 2.35 screen will be wider and be more immersive. It depends what works for a given situation, either way there will be tradeoffs and usually there are other factors to consider in choosing.

 

[AV_Integrated]

If the width of the screen stays the same a16:9 screen will be taller and therefore more immersive, if the height of the screen stays the same then the 2.35 screen will be wider and be more immersive. It depends what works for a given situation, either way there will be tradeoffs and usually there are other factors to consider in choosing.

This is exactly correct.

I'm a big proponent of 16:9 screens over 2.35 screens. I think people think that if they are going to have an awesome theater, they must have a 2.35 screen, but they don't think about the other factors which impact their decision. This not only includes the room size/layout, but their budget. A GOOD anamorphic lens is pricey. This leads people to try the 'zoom' method, which is no better than just getting a larger 16:9 screen as far as light output goes.

With an anamorphic lens, you are shifting from square pixels through a double distortion of elongating the image vertically, then stretching the pixels horizontally, which is arguable just as bad as simply zooming in a bit more.

I tend to think that the zoom method is a great way to achieve a 2.35 setup, if your projector supports the necessary light output, but once you are at that size, and have an acceptable 2.35 image... then the room height would be the limiting factor in not simply using a 16:9 screen of the appropriate size.

I'm not in agreement with the OP. If they want to zoom in, and crop out their 16:9 image down to 2.35, then that's up to them, but I don't want to miss the score, or the time remaining from my sports viewing. I don't want to crop heads off at the top, or have people lose their feet. To each their own, of course, but if the goal is a more immersive image, then pick up your chair and move closer or get a bigger screen. Don't screw up the original image.

 

[Ellebob]

If you have 16:9 content with a lens on a 2.35 screen you will not crop heads off or lose their feet. You will only do that if you leave the aspect mode in vertical stretch which you would only use with 2.35 material not 16:9. Watching 16:9 material with a lens will only stretch the picture horizontally nothing will be cropped, you will get the whole picture.


Personally, I like using 2.35 but I am a movie buff and not a big TV or sports watcher. I've used and installed both methods and prefer an A-lens for 2.35 when possible. However, I wouldn't recommend 2.35 for most. Other considerations are speaker placement for audio if not using an AT screen, number of rows and viewing angle might make 2.35 a better solution for some who want bigger without tradeoffs in other areas. It is really situation dependent and there is no best solution for everyone.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

I have an Isco II lens which I used to use with my old JVC X35. Sometimes I'd leave it in place after watching a 2.35:1 film and maybe watch a concert disc. I found that often I could view the concert with vertical stretch engaged and it was quite rare that heads got cut off. However I'm not a sports fan so I've never tried it for that purpose, though it would work as the OP suggested and cut off scores, etc that are near the top or bottom of the image.

However if you have a decent video processor (more $$$) like my Lumagen 2041 then you can move the image up or down to decide whether you crop top and bottom equally or if you bias toward one direction.

As Ellebob says though it very much depends on your situation and also viewing habits: Before I bought a 2.35:1 screen I checked through my disc collection (these days I typically rent) and found that 95% was 2.35/2.40:1 so it was a more obvious choice in my case. Also since it isn't a dedicated room, furniture and speaker positions mean that I couldn't have a 16:9 screen as wide as my 2.35:1 is, so I get 33% extra width that I couldn't have if I just used a 16:9 screen.

Sports fans, concert, documentary and TV series viewers may possibly get more benefit from a 16:9 screen (let alone the many 16:9 films out there), so it is something to really consider both ways rather than sticking to any hard and fast rules.

EDIT: I realised after posting this is in the $3000, but might as well leave it here now...

 

[aeneas01]

A lot of responses the seem to concentrate on the zoom factor, but simply ignore the "immersion factor" that a 2.39:1 image provides.

I believe that is the primary goal of the OP, and whenever a A-Lens is used to accomplish such conversion of 16:9 to 2.39:1, one must expect to have to "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" a bit if in the end, C.H.I. is desired.

thanks for the reply mm, very much appreciated (as was your extremely helpful response to my screen questions, which i will contact you about this evening, it was just great stuff!). also, i think "immersive" is the perfect choice of words to describe what i'm shooting for, and i do realize that it's a "rob pete to pay paul" type of deal. i should have mentioned from the outset, my setup won't be for discerning/critical viewing, it's for a commercial application, background visuals for the most part, albeit i would still like to at least try to achieve the best video quality possible that my parameters will allow, for those who would like to focus on the visuals - in short, my setup is not for a home theater, in fact it's almost the polar opposite of a home theater setup!

If you have 16:9 content with a lens on a 2.35 screen you will not crop heads off or lose their feet. You will only do that if you leave the aspect mode in vertical stretch which you would only use with 2.35 material not 16:9. Watching 16:9 material with a lens will only stretch the picture horizontally nothing will be cropped, you will get the whole picture.

but if the 16:9 content you're watching is full 16:9 (no horizontal bars) won't the image be short/squat if you use the lens without any vertical adjustment?

speaking of a-lenses, couldn't a much less expensive vertical a-lens be used to accomplish roughly the same thing as a more expensive (and seemingly rarer) horizontal a-lens? for example, using a vertical a-lens, if you distanced a native 16:9 projector to fill the width of a 2:35 screen you would end up with light projected above and below the 2:35 screen, right? in the case of an anamorphic dvd formatted for 16:9 (i.e. with bars on the top and bottom), the projected light above and below the screen would pretty much be made up of the top and bottom horizontal black bars. if you then added the vertical a-lens, it would compress the image vertically to fit the screen from top to bottom, which would result in a short/squat image. if you then applied your scaler's (or dvd's) vertical expansion setting for 2:35 content, the image would adjust to the correct anamorphic ratio, filling the screen, without light projecting above and below the screen, is that right? and if you did the same process with full 16:9 content, then the top and bottom of the image would be cropped, albeit you would not have light projected above and below the screen if i have it right. of course there's the light thing, filling the width of a 2:35 screen with a 16:9 image from a projector is different than filling it with a horizontal a-lens.

anyway, as mississippiman eloquently put it, i'm shooting for more of an "immersive" look, or the look you can only get from 2:35 screen, a lot of it is the novelty of it in my case, for my particular setup, and i'm willing to sacrifice image information if it seems like it might work out. needless to say i perfectly understand why those with home theaters wouldn't be very interested in this approach! below is the difference in aspect ratio and image size i hope i can using a 2:35 screen and a vertical a-lens vs a 16:9 screen with the same height:

 

[Ellebob]

but if the 16:9 content you're watching is full 16:9 (no horizontal bars) won't the image be short/squat if you use the lens without any vertical adjustment?

No it would not be! If you have a full 16:9 image and you watch without the lens it will have black bars on the side of the image with a 2.35 screen. If you now put a lens in front of the projector the projector will fill the 2.35 screen. An anamorphic lens only stretches the image horizontally, it does not make it taller. So no heads or feet are cut off, the full image is just stretched to fit the 2.35 screen. Everything is just wider/ fatter if watching 16:9 material with a lens..


When viewing 2.35 material the black bars are being projected and are on the disc. So you must first stretch the image vertically electronically using the projector's video processing (or separate video processor) to get rid of the black bars. If I were to watch this on a 2.35 screen without the lens, the image would be stretched vertically and everything would look tall but there would be no black bars top and bottom but you would still have black bars on the sides of a 2.35 screen. When you put the lens in front of the projector this tall vertically stretched image will now get stretched horizontally by the lens to make the aspect correct and the whole picture fits the screen. If you were to put a lens in front of a projector with a 2.35 image the horizontally stretched image would still have black bars on the top and bottom, you need to stretch the picture vertically by electronic means to get rid of the black bars.


When watching 2:35 material you have to use the vertical stretch feature of the projector to get rid of the black bars, to watch 16:9 material you just turn off the vertical stretch feature. If you leave the vertical stretch on you might cut off heads and feet but there is no reason to use vertical stretch with 16:9 material. On most projectors changing between modes is typically done with the 'aspect' button on the remote and you cycle through its various modes. The modes are called different things on different projectors but you'd figure it out pretty quick.


Ps. I don't know about vertical A-lens or have ever heard of one. Maybe they exist in specialty applications like simulators but it is nothing used in home or commercial theaters. The vertical stretch to remove the black bars is done electronically and not with a lens. Like I stated normal anamorphic lens only stretches the image horizontally and doesn't change the height of the image.

 

[aeneas01]

No it would not be! If you have a full 16:9 image and you watch without the lens it will have black bars on the side of the image with a 2.35 screen. If you now put a lens in front of the projector the projector will fill the 2.35 screen. An anamorphic lens only stretches the image horizontally, it does not make it taller. So no heads or feet are cut off, the full image is just stretched to fit the 2.35 screen. Everything is just wider/ fatter if watching 16:9 material with a lens..

i think that's what i said, if you use the lens with full 16:9 content, without using the vertical stretch feature of your scaler/dvd player, images would fill the screen left to right but would also be short/squat, nothing would be cropped.

Ps. I don't know about vertical A-lens or have ever heard of one. Maybe they exist in specialty applications like simulators but it is nothing used in home or commercial theaters.

actually, from what i've read, vertical a-lenses were popular and expensive options for home theater enthusiasts back in the day, when 4:3 dominated and 16:9 was gaining traction, it allowed owners to view the full 16:9 image without horizontal bars:

http://www.loreti.it/Download/PDF/Lenti/anamorphic_lens_v13.pdf

You are left with a zoomed in video. It would be much cheaper to buy a bigger screen lol.

i have a section of about 5 vertical feet to work with, and lots of horizontal footage, the target space is high on a wall, with a pitched roof , it's a commercial application, buying a bigger (taller) screen would require redoing my roof pitch, a bit more expensive than trying to increase the image horizontally (2:35) with an a-lens.