AVS Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I want to achieve full 4k without loss on front projector. I want 2.35 format projected to fully match a 2.35 screen. I can only find an add on lens from Panamorph but it's in the $7000 range which I can't justify. Does anyone know of other manufacturers or does anyone know if you can purchase a projector with an anamorphic lens built in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,659 Posts
I want to achieve full 4k without loss on front projector. I want 2.35 format projected to fully match a 2.35 screen. I can only find an add on lens from Panamorph but it's in the $7000 range which I can't justify. Does anyone know of other manufacturers or does anyone know if you can purchase a projector with an anamorphic lens built in?
I’m not an expert on 4k and A-lens but seeing as how no one has answered I will give it a go.

As far as I know there are no 2.4:1 projectors and none with built in A-lens capabilities.

The cheaper A-lens intended for 1080p or lower resolutions I’m told look soft when trying to pass 4k. Others have posted they get ok results using them. That leaves the very expensive 4k rated lens if you want to go that way.

The vast majority are now doing the simpler zoom method as they feel resolution at 4k is good enough and they don’t need the benefit of the added brightness.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Craig Peer

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I’m not an expert on 4k and A-lens but seeing as how no one has answered I will give it a go.

As far as I know there are no 2.4:1 projectors and none with built in A-lens capabilities.

The cheaper A-lens intended for 1080p or lower resolutions I’m told look soft when trying to pass 4k. Others have posted they get ok results using them. That leaves the very expensive 4k rated lens if you want to go that way.

The vast majority are now doing the simpler zoom method as they feel resolution at 4k is good enough and they don’t need the benefit of the added brightness.
Thank you bud16415 and dlinsley for your feedback. I appreciate it.

I understand a 16:9 projector may allow zooming to fit a 2.35:1 screen, however the the top/bottom of the 16:9 chip will display black letterboxes. This means not all 4K will be shown. So you lose information. I further understand that some good projectors indicate "Anamorphic Ready" which I presume to mean they will display all 4K content, however an additional anamorphic (such that Panamorph makes) is required. Can anyone confirm what "anamorphic ready" means?

I can't see spending $7,000 to $9,000 on a set of prisms Panamorph makes. I saw articles indicating the use of two prisms (either glass, or crystal, or perhaps the material trophy shops use to create sports trophies, etc), and this will spread the image laterally to achieve what the Panamorph lens does.

I'll keep you all posted in my research. Thank you. Tony...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,659 Posts
Thank you bud16415 and dlinsley for your feedback. I appreciate it.

I understand a 16:9 projector may allow zooming to fit a 2.35:1 screen, however the the top/bottom of the 16:9 chip will display black letterboxes. This means not all 4K will be shown. So you lose information. I further understand that some good projectors indicate "Anamorphic Ready" which I presume to mean they will display all 4K content, however an additional anamorphic (such that Panamorph makes) is required. Can anyone confirm what "anamorphic ready" means?

I can't see spending $7,000 to $9,000 on a set of prisms Panamorph makes. I saw articles indicating the use of two prisms (either glass, or crystal, or perhaps the material trophy shops use to create sports trophies, etc), and this will spread the image laterally to achieve what the Panamorph lens does.

I'll keep you all posted in my research. Thank you. Tony...
You are not losing any data zooming and you are not making any data with using an A-lens. The data is lost when it is encoded onto a 16:9 format with black bars at the studio that’s all the data there is. What an A-lens is doing is the image is being compressed / scaled to use all the pixels in the panel. So new pixels are being made from thin air and then the lens is expanding the image forming rectangular pixels out of square ones.

I’m told with proper equipment this can work very well, But still the biggest advantage of doing it with 4k is you get the advantage of extra brightness as you are taking advantage of the areas that would have been black.

Of the members here there are a number that had A-lens setups and when switching to 4K went with zoom as they felt the bump in resolution was enough that nothing visually was gained and using their old lens softened the image.

There is also pin cushion effect with a lens and to correct that requires a curved screen thus more complexity.

I have never used a lens so I may be the wrong person to answer all your questions. I know those that have upgraded are very happy they did and those that abandoned the lens are also very happy. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
I don't have a 4K PJ, but just upgraded to a faux-K projector and am using an anamorphic lens (Panamorph UH480). It is incredibly crisp. You don't need to spend 7000 bucks on a lens. Scour the classifieds here as well as Ebay. I've seen Isco III lenses go for as cheap as 2K, and my lens was recently listed for less than a grand. Crazy really. I tried zooming for my 2.35:1 screen and preferred using the lens. Honest answer...if you can get a lens cheap enough, I think you'll be very happy. Otherwise, get a projector with zoom and lens memory and I'm sure you'll also be very happy with that solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J A Gonzalez

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,513 Posts
Often dealers will do a bundle price for a projector with the DCR lens (mine did), so best to ask around when you know which projector you want.

Their was a very nice preorder deal for their new compact DCR lens, but that expired. Still some level of discount available to preorder, but not as great as the early bird was: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/498-panamorph-4k-ultrawide-cinema/3124446-paladin-dcr-c-pre-order-program.html
I don't have a 4K PJ, but just upgraded to a faux-K projector and am using an anamorphic lens (Panamorph UH480). It is incredibly crisp. You don't need to spend 7000 bucks on a lens. Scour the classifieds here as well as Ebay. I've seen Isco III lenses go for as cheap as 2K, and my lens was recently listed for less than a grand. Crazy really. I tried zooming for my 2.35:1 screen and preferred using the lens. Honest answer...if you can get a lens cheap enough, I think you'll be very happy. Otherwise, get a projector with zoom and lens memory and I'm sure you'll also be very happy with that solution.
I'm using an ISCOIIIL with JVC 520 faux-K.
Looks great.

I would recommend purchasing projector and a-lens from a calibrator at discount.
You should update profile with location so people can help more.
Once safe, it would be good to seek out home theaters around you to see different ways of doing things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,450 Posts
Thank you bud16415 and dlinsley for your feedback. I appreciate it.

I understand a 16:9 projector may allow zooming to fit a 2.35:1 screen, however the the top/bottom of the 16:9 chip will display black letterboxes. This means not all 4K will be shown. So you lose information. I further understand that some good projectors indicate "Anamorphic Ready" which I presume to mean they will display all 4K content, however an additional anamorphic (such that Panamorph makes) is required. Can anyone confirm what "anamorphic ready" means?

I can't see spending $7,000 to $9,000 on a set of prisms Panamorph makes. I saw articles indicating the use of two prisms (either glass, or crystal, or perhaps the material trophy shops use to create sports trophies, etc), and this will spread the image laterally to achieve what the Panamorph lens does.

I'll keep you all posted in my research. Thank you. Tony...
Shop around - you can usually find them discounted from dealers. The Panamorph DCR lens is the 3rd lens I've used over the years ( 17 years to be exact ) ant it's the best lens I've owned. All my guests were unanimous in saying it was the best thing I added to my theater. Plus, they never wear out. You might even find one in the classifieds here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,450 Posts
You are not losing any data zooming and you are not making any data with using an A-lens. The data is lost when it is encoded onto a 16:9 format with black bars at the studio that’s all the data there is. What an A-lens is doing is the image is being compressed / scaled to use all the pixels in the panel. So new pixels are being made from thin air and then the lens is expanding the image forming rectangular pixels out of square ones.

I’m told with proper equipment this can work very well, But still the biggest advantage of doing it with 4k is you get the advantage of extra brightness as you are taking advantage of the areas that would have been black.

Of the members here there are a number that had A-lens setups and when switching to 4K went with zoom as they felt the bump in resolution was enough that nothing visually was gained and using their old lens softened the image.

There is also pin cushion effect with a lens and to correct that requires a curved screen thus more complexity.

I have never used a lens so I may be the wrong person to answer all your questions. I know those that have upgraded are very happy they did and those that abandoned the lens are also very happy. :)
With a vertical compression lens like the Panamorph DCR lens, you don't want a curved screen. You want a flat screen - it works perfectly on my Stewart electric screen.

It's true you don't get more " data " , but you do get 38% more brightness and and much higher pixel density. Scaling a native 4K projector to 4096 x 2160 and using the DCR lens adds 2,626,560 pixels you leave on the table zooming with 3840 x 2160. What's not to like ?





 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Those screenshots look amazing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,659 Posts
With a vertical compression lens like the Panamorph DCR lens, you don't want a curved screen. You want a flat screen - it works perfectly on my Stewart electric screen.

It's true you don't get more " data " , but you do get 38% more brightness and and much higher pixel density. Scaling a native 4K projector to 4096 x 2160 and using the DCR lens adds 2,626,560 pixels you leave on the table zooming with 3840 x 2160. What's not to like ?
Nothing not to like IMO also as long as the cost of the lens isn’t a factor.

The extra lumens are nice but my theory is I also enjoy IMAX immersion so I still need enough unit brightness to fill the full width of scope and then the extra height IMAX requires. If the unit brightness is ok for IMAX it will be the same unit brightness for scope.

Then there is pixel density likewise if the pixel density is fine enough to make a image where I can not discern pixels in an IMAX image then the pixel density is exactly the same for scope.

If scaling the image and creating new pixels or more pixels than are in the source material works and I don’t doubt it does then it is quite similar to what happens when you take a 1080 image and scale it up to 4k with a 4k projector. You haven’t made more data but you have made each pixel into 4 new pixels.

So in my case I would just opt for a 38% smaller screen sitting closer or a 38% brighter projector or some combination of the two. As I believe the biggest advantage to the lens with 4k resolutions is still brightness. I would love to have a lens, but I’m pretty sure I wont buy one for the prices I see them going for. Heck I’m still holding out on even moving to 4k for now. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,450 Posts
Nothing not to like IMO also as long as the cost of the lens isn’t a factor.

The extra lumens are nice but my theory is I also enjoy IMAX immersion so I still need enough unit brightness to fill the full width of scope and then the extra height IMAX requires. If the unit brightness is ok for IMAX it will be the same unit brightness for scope.

Then there is pixel density likewise if the pixel density is fine enough to make a image where I can not discern pixels in an IMAX image then the pixel density is exactly the same for scope.

If scaling the image and creating new pixels or more pixels than are in the source material works and I don’t doubt it does then it is quite similar to what happens when you take a 1080 image and scale it up to 4k with a 4k projector. You haven’t made more data but you have made each pixel into 4 new pixels.

So in my case I would just opt for a 38% smaller screen sitting closer or a 38% brighter projector or some combination of the two. As I believe the biggest advantage to the lens with 4k resolutions is still brightness. I would love to have a lens, but I’m pretty sure I wont buy one for the prices I see them going for. Heck I’m still holding out on even moving to 4k for now. :)
When I watch anything 16:9 I watch it on my 16:9 screen, like I did with " Knives Out " last night. Without the lens. Really, A lenses are expensive, but these are for those of us taking scope movies to the next level. And the next level is usually not cheap. But it's worth it - this is the culmination for me of over 17 years of home theater. I just keep chipping away at improvements. At this point I'm done for quite a while.

The only hobby that's more expensive than home theater is wine collecting. Building a temp. controlled walk in cellar was just a drop in the bucket. The cellar build cost more than a DCR lens - and then you need to fill it with expensive wine to justify its existence ! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,659 Posts
When I watch anything 16:9 I watch it on my 16:9 screen, like I did with " Knives Out " last night. Without the lens. Really, A lenses are expensive, but these are for those of us taking scope movies to the next level. And the next level is usually not cheap. But it's worth it - this is the culmination for me of over 17 years of home theater. I just keep chipping away at improvements. At this point I'm done for quite a while.

The only hobby that's more expensive than home theater is wine collecting. Building a temp. controlled walk in cellar was just a drop in the bucket. The cellar build cost more than a DCR lens - and then you need to fill it with expensive wine to justify its existence ! :eek:
I agree and I have been chipping away at the hobby for around a similar 17 or so years also.

The idea used to be you date your projector and you marry your screen and I also always kind of figured you could marry you’re A-lens as well after all it is glass and nothing that will wear out. As it seems though A-lens that was perfectly good for a 1080p setup might not be of high enough quality to handle 4k and remain sharp. Again I don’t know but it is what I have been reading as I have never owned an A-lens. So the A-lens might not be the marriage made in heaven that a Stewart Screen may be.

I kind of figure a persons age and quality of vision play a role in this also. I get my eyes tested and I’m always told I’m 20/20 still at least at the distance I use to watch FP at home. I need reading glasses and maybe my most favorite thing about FP is it places the screen a distance away I don’t need corrected vision for.

Speaking of the hobby aspect, about five years ago I upgraded from XGA to WXGA resolution and on the same day I bought the WXGA projector for $365 I bought a hot tub for $12,000. Both are hobbies I really enjoy. I used the projector for 3 years, so it cost me $.33 per day and it ran a good 6 hours a day. I upgraded then to a 1080p projector and spent another $499 and have had it 2 years going on 3 when I will upgrade again. The hot tub is just as high tech as the day I bought it and I’m hoping it lasts another 15-20 years if I’m still around.

It is all priority and I could also easily be caught up in wine as a hobby. I don’t think I have ever owned more than a case of wine at any one time. I understand the collection idea, but I would rather just be the middleman the consumer. The analogy of wine to HT is a good one I think. We all need to determine our level of pleasure we derive from both and once we know that we know if the investment is worth it for us. :D
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top