AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In an attempt to try to figure out which format of anamorphic lenses would be of more interest to people please do the poll.


If you have opened this thread and are reading it, I'm assuming you know what it means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Sorry Mark.


It's a trick question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
interesting results so far....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Under ideal circumstances I would prefer to have 2.35 horizontal expansion so that cinemascope movies would use the full resolution of the display device and then 16:9 would be less of the display and then finally 4:3 TV would only take a small portion in the center of the screen.


The problem with this is that anamoprhic DVD's are all 16:9. This means that you have less source information on 2.35:1 (cinemascope) being expanded larger then 16:9. (less source information + greater expansion = worse pitcute)


Does anyone know if current DVD players could process a disk with 21:9 anamorphic encoding rather then 16:9 encoding?


I'm guessing that the answer is no, other wise at least some of the studios would be releasing 2.35:1 source material encoded that way.


Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
What you ask is, if 21:9 pictures which would use the complete vertical resolution would be downconverted to a 21:9 letterboxed picture in a 16:9 frame AND to a 21:9 letterboxed picture in a 4:3 frame.


For the first 21:9 -> 16:9 I would say: Yes, every DVD-Player setted to 4:3 display.


The second 21:9 -> 4:3 NO. I have one which is capable of such things but this is beyond specification.


This means this DVDs could only be watched by customers who own at least a 16:9 display. And even for them it is not very userfriendly always to enter the DVD-Player-Setup for changing the format to 4:3 although they have a 16:9 display (and changing back when viewing conventional disks). Nobody with a 16:9 display would have any advantage from those disks if they don't buy themselves "anamoprhic glasses (TM)".


But then they don't like their wifes anymore :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by joswig
"anamoprhic glasses (TM)".

do they come in 1080i?


BTW nobody has choosen the third question since I told them it was a trick question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
What blows me away is that people are voting that they would rather compress the vertical image on a 1.33:1 screen insuring that the next time they play a cinema scope (2.35:1) movie it will only be 56% of the size of the (1.33:1) cable TV game show they just watched.


On a 8' wide screen using vertical compression you have:


1.33:1 = 72" x 96" = 120" diagonal totaling 6912 square inches.

1.78:1 = 54" x 96" = 120" diagonal totaling 5184 square inches.

2.35:1 = 41" x 96" = 120" diagonal totaling 3936 square inches.


Another way to look at it is like this. Which of the below would you like to see on the largest screen?


A) the News, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Friends (1.33:1)

B) the Shawshank Redemption, Men in Black, Shrek (1.78:1)

C) Star Wars, the Matrix, Lawrence or Arabia (2.35:1)


Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Keith your argument is interesting but I'm not sure I understand your point.


It really doesn't matter weather you vertically compress or horizontally stretch the results will be the same for the same screen size. The only thing that may change this is:

1. If you remove the lense from the light path during different viewing or

2. You use the zoom function of your projector.


out side of that vertical or horizontal may be prefferable for throw.


I'll give you an example:


On my screen I do not want to remove the lense from the light path at all. so everything goes 16:9 from the 3:4 pannel. Now my projector sits far enough back so that I can't zoom in enough to use horizontal expansion effectively right now. However, since I currently letterbox 16:9 on my screen, a vertical compression lense would work with no modifications. This may all change however once I figure out how a/the horizontal expansion lense changes the throw.


By the way, there are so many other options and combinations that an anamorphic lense can help that it starts getting crazy trying to explain them all.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top