[gduprey]

Howdy,


I'm about to get an ehome 8500LC projector (new tubes) as an upgrade to my Sony D50. I'm interested in opinions about handling anamorphic material with it.


I'm projecting onto a 16:9 screen and driving the projector with a scaler. On the D50Q, I used 1280x720 and on the ehome I'm planning on using 1440x960.


The scaler I have (a mineral type scaler, if you get my not so subtle drift) will handle mapping different aspect ratios onto a constant sized output aspect ratio. So, in short, I can set my projector to a single res/aspect and leave it there and the scaler can handle different aspect input sources.


The part I'm not as sure about is what the aspect the projector should be left at. My original thought was leave the projector at 4x3, 1440x960 and tell the scaler to only use the 16x9 area of the raster (roughly 1440x720 I think). But another thought was to squeeze the raster on the ehome to get more of the raster lines visible.


The debate to me is that if the projectors res tops out around 960, then I'm not going to get anything by squeezing the raster down. I mean, you can only squeeze until the lines start to overlap and at 960, I'm thinking the projector is already close to that (I don't have it yet to test - next week I hope).


I want to light the maximum amount of phosphor on the raster with the sharpest image, but I'm just not sure if my first approach (no squeezing the raster, let the scaler do it all) is the best way to go.


Any thoughts/comments?

 

[spearce]

This comes up every so often. General consensus seems to be:


- Most 8" machines top out at around 960p when in a 4:3 configuration. If your dang good at doing the install, you can get this without a problem from an 8" EM machine... but you have to be good.


- 16:9 anamorphic squeeze when done in the projector lowers the overall bandwidth required to display the image, resulting in possibly less high frequency rolloff.


- Anamorphic squeeze also lowers the scanning frequency required, allowing the projector to use less power to control the beam, resulting in a cooler, more stable configuration.


- Running your projector at the lowest possible scanning rate without visible line structure is the best configuration, as you get a more stable setup that won't tax the deflection circuits nearly as much.


So the short answer is, you're most likely best off doing the anamorphic squeeze in the projector and letting your scaler adapt the input to the 16:9 aspect ratio. Due to the scan lines being squeezed down on the raster, and the resolving power of the machine, you will most likely find 720p to be a better 16:9 resolution, as it won't have a visible line structure and requires less bandwidth and a lower sync rate than 960p.


Either way, 960p with black bars sent by the scaler or 720p in a 16:9 anamorphic squeeze, you will use the same area of phosphor, and thus get the same light output.

 

[Aaron Oz]

spearce said it.


The vert squeeze's only point is to be able to reduce the scan rate and still looks the line structure from the sitting point. For many, the squeeze will allow 1080i to look very filmlike.