AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys & gals with an HD2 machine ... any of you using an anamorphic lens ? Just because you have a 16:9 projector, don't think you can't benefit from one. With 2.35 content and wider, an anamorphic lens will benefit you just like on a 4:3 projector



2:35 DVDs

1280 x 544 used for non-anamorphic content

1280 x 725 used for anamorphic content ( you discard 5 rows )

... you gain 176 rows of pixels and 18% more real lumens with a Panamorph PSO lens


2:85 DVDs

1280 x 449 used for non-anamorphic content

1280 x 598 used for anamorphic content

... you gain 149 rows of pixels and 18% more real lumens with a Panamorph PSO lens



- Andy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The theoretical brightness increase is 33% but due to lens "losses" the latest Panamorph is said to give a real 18% lumen improvement. The original Panamoprh only gave about 8% real lumens from what I recall.


The resolution numbers are dead on -> the lens just squishes them to occupy less vertical space. This reduces the visibilty of pixelization, and will add to your images punch. It is not a night & day improvement, but it is a readily discernable improvement.


I was playing with an NEC LT260 and liked what my Panamporph P752 did to it. I can't wait for my new Panamorph PSO lens to arrive. And it will be usefull with my current 4:3 SX21 projector and/or a future 1280x720 PJ.


- Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,530 Posts
In another thread a while back several members who have 16x9 HD1/2 projectors were using anamorphic lenses/mirrors and said that the improvement in picture quality smoothness and naturalness was noticably improved in addition to the added brightness and reduced screen-door.


BTW, a native 1920 x 1080 projector should give us all of these advantages (except brightess)...in fact, you'd end up with even MORE pixels (100+% increase) than you do using an anamorphic lens and a 720 16x9 projector (33% increase).


-dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,530 Posts
How else do you get the 2.35:1 image to "stretch" vertically to fill the 16x9 panel? i think the Sanyo 70 LCD projector has a built-in "stretch" mode to be used with an anamorphic lens...but I'm not aware of any HD2 16x9 projectors that offer a stretch like this on their own.


most people use a HTPC to get the aspect ratio adjustment right.


-dave
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You really don't have to do anything with a scaler or HTPC .

You just tell the source or projector to leave the content alone -> project the image as tall and skinny -> no magic here. Then the lens does it thing.


Regardless of a projector's native resolution today & future, as long as there exists anamorphic content, an anamorphics lens will be of benefit.


What's nice with my SX21 is that I never have to remove my lens for anything. With HDTV via a component feed intto the SX21, it is already 16:9. But I can use the SX21's setttings to make it tall & skinny so the lens can do its thing to sqeeze it back to 16:9.


- Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Errrr, if I get what you are saying Andy, your SX21 is doing that Daniel is saying is necessary.


DVD Anamorphic content vertically stretches 16:9 content to fill a 4:3 box. 2.35:1 content on an anamorphic DVD is the same, stretched vertically to fit a 4:3 box including black bars at the top and bottom.


On a 16:9 projector, the 4:3 anamorphic content is expanded to fill all the pixels on a 16:9 panel. If the aspect is shorter than 16:9, there will still be black bars, so if you want to then further use an anamorphic on a 16:9 panel, you would have to get the 2.35:1 picture to be vertically stretched so that there would be no black bars and then the lens squishes it back into aspect.


My projector (HT300) can do that if I program a custom aspect in, but considering I'm introducing digital scaling into the processing path, then an optical stretching to bring it back, I'm not sure the cost/benefit ratio works out in the viewer's favor despite the gain in light since there isn't the additional "real data" to be benefited.


Only other way that I know to use an anamorphic lens with a 16:9 panel is to display the picture in 4:3 without anamorphic processing and use the lens to process.


My 0.02 or am I missing something?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Andy Lammer


I dont think you are right. You may not need the scaler, however, I dont know how you would tell the projector to make the image tall and skinny. Its easy enough with a 4x3 projector, but I dont think you have this option on a 16x9 projector so you would probably need an external projector to do this
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,963 Posts
I am using a anamorphic lens with the Seleco 300+


I watch all scope movies full panel resolution on my scope screen.

Scope HD material via DVI into the projector displayed on a scope screen unsing such a lens is the best you will ever see.


Seleco was here yesterday and never saw their projector used in such a setup. They were very impressed.


Left to right.

Nich from B Rich company, Dan Drook from Seleco and Jim Armstrong from Seleco standing in front of my 9 foot wide Stewart scope screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Never doubted that you can use it but how is this material formatted? 2.35:1 anamorphic into a 1280x720 picture fed directly to to the HT300+?


What is the source's original digital resolution?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,963 Posts
When watching a scope movie in HD I set my Samsung HD box so it converts all HD 1080I to 720P the projectors native rez. My Samsung sends this out via DVI into the projector.

I then select Letterbox in the Selecos aspect ratio selection and it takes the scope movie and fills the panels full height.


I also have the V Inc D 1 dvd player and that sends out DVD at 720P via DVI into the projector and I do the same regardless if its DVD or HD material.


Focus and image quality is stunning.


If I knew how to use my Digital camera in the dark I would take a screen shot but cant figure it out.

I have the Sony MVC CD400 if anyone is familiar with this camera.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Alan,


OK, not that far off from my first guess.


So I assume that if you remove the anamorphic lens the straight image would be narrower than your screen, so that the anamorphic lens would stretch it out to fit your 2.35:1 aspect screen.


This is interesting because I have a HT300 and I have a 1.85:1 screen. Currently, what I do is "overscan" the 1.77:1 picture gets cropped top and bottom. I also have a custom ratio set to pillbox 1.77:1 pictures in my 1.85:1 screen.


You said "Focus and image quality is stunning", how would you compare it with just straight without the anamorphic lens?


I'm wondering what the additional image transforms done by the HT300 to "squish" the picture does to quality of the picture and what overall gain in quality there would be for this type of setup? Apart from the obvious light gain since more mirrors are in use.


Thanks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Be definition, ALL anamorphic content is tall and skinny as it exists in the source media -> DVD.


Without an Anamorphic lens:

When you watch an anamorphic DVD, you tell either your DVD player OR your projector to do the squeeze. ( If you tell both to do it then you get too much squeeze and everything ends up looking too short and wide )


With an Anamorphic Lens:

When you watch an anamorphic DVD and with an anamorphic lens in play, you DON'T tell your DVD player or projector to do any squeezing -> the output from the projector is an image that is tall and skinny. Then the anamorphic lens is now responsible for the squeeze.


Keep in mind my reference to the lens' squeeze is in relation to the Panamorph lens which provides vertical compression of the image by 75% , which does not alter your throw distance. The ISCO lens creates the same net effect but it rather stretches the image horizontally to achieve the proper aspect ratio, but it does alter your throw distance, which may be desirable in your own situation.


- Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Quote:
are these real you can see em numbers or is difference very subtle?
Not subtle at all . The real and/or interpolated gain in vertical resolution and the extra close pixels make viewing 2.35 with an anamorphic lens on a 16:9 projector a much better experience.


The same gains and principals are as when you are using an anamorphic lens with a 4:3 projector for 1.78 original material. I have been using my HD1 equipped Dlp and my Panamorph P-752 on both HD and Dvd for close to a year, and because so much of my viewing (80%) is 2.35:1, I choose a 2.35:1 Stewart Firehawk screen. I think its the only way to setup for the type of movies that I choose to watch.


I originally had a 1.78 Grayhawk screen but I just looked at the ratio of which broadcast and disks that I choose to watch where in 1.78 vs 2.35.


After a week or so of counting there was no competition. The amount of 2.35 that I watch blew 1.78 out of the water.


DavidW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
DavidW,


I can understand the interpolated gain but could you explain what you mean by real gain in vertical resolution?


On a 4:3 projector, you will definitely gain real resolution by using an anamorphic lens because there is real resolution to be displayed from an anamorphic DVD onto a 4:3 device rather than waste pixels available from the DVD source on black bars on projector.


But on a 16:9 projector, all the available pixels on a DVD are already displayed. Where the DVD content is greater than 1.77:1, even the anamorphic DVD data contains black. So by using an anamorphic lens on a 16:9 projector, you must first interpolate extra lines to remove the black, thereby "squishing" the picture as Alan has mentioned, and then using the lens to stretch everything back out.


So there is definitely interpolated gain and the anamorphic lens probably will also remove any visible pixel detail or mirror/pixel gaps through the optical process.


But I still don't understand where any real gain in resolution is coming from unless you have 2.35:1 content which was digitized as 16:9 anamorphic using a 16:9 digital resolution like 1280x720 or 1920x1080, if you have that, then using an anamorphic lens to project that data would result in an improvement in real resolution, rather than with just 1280x545 or 1920x817 digital data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
so, if i may summarize...........

you can use a panamorph on a 16;9 projector without a scaler.

the picture on a 2;35 image is noticibly brighter and more detailed.

the panamorph must be removed for 1;85 format movies and 16;9 stuff.

you just set the projector to unsqueezed picture output. when a 1;85 is playing...no pana, when a 1;85 is playing..pana in place.

is that right, or?
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top