[Pultzar]

I've had my RS1 for awhile now. I'm using it on a 14' wide 2.35:1 HP screen. It looks fantastic.


I started off thinking that I was going to keep my Prismasonic (I had also tried an UH380 but decided to keep the Prismasonic instead) and use a scaler/HTPC to perform the stretch.


To be honest, I couldn't see how the lens was improving my picture quality. In fact the added distortion/pin cushion was somewhat annoying (even if not incredibly visible with video) and the knowledge that the lowering ANSI contrast isn't what I need. Any increase in brightness over just zooming wasn't noticable.


So here I am with the "perfect" lens... meaning no lens at all. No loss of ANSI contrast and no distortion. I can perfectly zoom the image to fit the various aspect ratios out there, such as 2.2. Brightness is plenty and screendoor is a non-issue (although one can always want more pixels!)


Sure I do suppose that I lose some contrast on the projector end from zooming up.


Here are some annoying things from this decision:

-Since there is no way to digitally move the image up and down, I must use the vertical lens shift when I change aspect ratios. The controls aren't that great, so this takes some time.


-Focusing the projector between zooms is a hassle because I need to switch to my HTPC to bring up a nice grid pattern to use for focusing.


The above doesn't take too much time compared to watching a movie, so I live with it.


Anyway this is just out there for people interested in this projector thinking that they need an expensive lens. I'm in the Seattle area and plan to have people over sometime soon for those of you who want to see this baby on a monster screen.

 

[wildfire99]

While slightly off-topic, why did you elect to use the Prismasonic over the Panamorph?


Also, how many hours are on your lamp? I wonder if the 'equal brightness' thing will still hold true after say, 300 hours, or perhaps the HP screen is keeping the overall brightness up above the threshold of visibility. Someone did a measurement of brightness before and after using a lens for CIH (on a different projector probably), but I don't recall where that was.

 

[5mark]

Nice to hear from a fellow "zoomer". But did you get the memo? We call it the "ghetto" method now. Sounds cooler.

I wish I had a room big enough for a screen like that! What's your viewing distance? There are things you can do like shelf mounting for easier access to the lens controls. I've found that by using minimum throw (11ft in my case) that focusing is really not that difficult. But the particular setup and how often you change aspect ratios makes a big difference in how convenient going "ghetto" is.

 

[Pultzar]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark /forum/post/0


Nice to hear from a fellow "zoomer". But did you get the memo? We call it the "ghetto" method now. Sounds cooler.

I wish I had a room big enough for a screen like that! What's your viewing distance? There are things you can do like shelf mounting for easier access to the lens controls. I've found that by using minimum throw (11ft in my case) that focusing is really not that difficult. But the particular setup and how often you change aspect ratios makes a big difference in how convenient going "ghetto" is.

Oh I think it is ghetto to need to use a lens just because one's room isn't big enough to get the throw that they need

hehe


Anyway I sit about 14-16 feet back depending on the movie and quality of what I am watching. 2.35:1 DVDs are normally letterboxed in 16x9 just due to their lack of resolution.

 

[Pultzar]



Quote:
Originally Posted by wildfire99 /forum/post/0


While slightly off-topic, why did you elect to use the Prismasonic over the Panamorph?


Also, how many hours are on your lamp? I wonder if the 'equal brightness' thing will still hold true after say, 300 hours, or perhaps the HP screen is keeping the overall brightness up above the threshold of visibility. Someone did a measurement of brightness before and after using a lens for CIH (on a different projector probably), but I don't recall where that was.

I think that I have just a bit over 50 hours. The lamp has dimmed some since I got the projector, but this has been welcome since it was too bright at the start. If I was not using the HP then the image would not be bright enough.


My decision to keep the Prismasonic was simply that I couldn't see any increase of fidelity with the UH380 and the Prismasonic offered more convenience with its remote control. Both are great pieces of equipment if you decide to use a lens. I will say that if I had the projector much closer, I would have needed the UH380 for its increase aperature size.

 

[Brad/Viper-Fan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pultzar /forum/post/0


I've had my RS1 for awhile now. I'm using it on a 14' wide 2.35:1 HP screen. It looks fantastic.


I started off thinking that I was going to keep my Prismasonic (I had also tried an UH380 but decided to keep the Prismasonic instead) and use a scaler/HTPC to perform the stretch.


To be honest, I couldn't see how the lens was improving my picture quality. In fact the added distortion/pin cushion was somewhat annoying (even if not incredibly visible with video) and the knowledge that the lowering ANSI contrast isn't what I need. Any increase in brightness over just zooming wasn't noticable.


So here I am with the "perfect" lens... meaning no lens at all. No loss of ANSI contrast and no distortion. I can perfectly zoom the image to fit the various aspect ratios out there, such as 2.2. Brightness is plenty and screendoor is a non-issue (although one can always want more pixels!)


Sure I do suppose that I lose some contrast on the projector end from zooming up.


Here are some annoying things from this decision:

-Since there is no way to digitally move the image up and down, I must use the vertical lens shift when I change aspect ratios. The controls aren't that great, so this takes some time.


-Focusing the projector between zooms is a hassle because I need to switch to my HTPC to bring up a nice grid pattern to use for focusing.


The above doesn't take too much time compared to watching a movie, so I live with it.


Anyway this is just out there for people interested in this projector thinking that they need an expensive lens. I'm in the Seattle area and plan to have people over sometime soon for those of you who want to see this baby on a monster screen.

Thanks for this post!

These are precisely the type of answers I needed to my questions, before I choose a screen!

 

[R Harkness]

May I ask:


Which Prismasonic lens do you have?


You mention "knowledge" that it was lowering your ANSI contrast (which I presume refers to the fact any lens will lower ANSI). But was it actually visible? You are in a position to tell me what I keep asking other people: have you compared the same image from a scope movie using both the zoom method and the lens/stretch method to see if you actually detect a difference in ANSI contrast? (Or any type of contrast difference?)


Also, how about differences in image sharpness between using the Prismasonic lens vs no lens/zoom method?



Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pultzar /forum/post/0


I've had my RS1 for awhile now. I'm using it on a 14' wide 2.35:1 HP screen. It looks fantastic.


I started off thinking that I was going to keep my Prismasonic (I had also tried an UH380 but decided to keep the Prismasonic instead) and use a scaler/HTPC to perform the stretch.


To be honest, I couldn't see how the lens was improving my picture quality. In fact the added distortion/pin cushion was somewhat annoying (even if not incredibly visible with video) and the knowledge that the lowering ANSI contrast isn't what I need. Any increase in brightness over just zooming wasn't noticable.


So here I am with the "perfect" lens... meaning no lens at all. No loss of ANSI contrast and no distortion. I can perfectly zoom the image to fit the various aspect ratios out there, such as 2.2. Brightness is plenty and screendoor is a non-issue (although one can always want more pixels!)


Sure I do suppose that I lose some contrast on the projector end from zooming up.


Here are some annoying things from this decision:

-Since there is no way to digitally move the image up and down, I must use the vertical lens shift when I change aspect ratios. The controls aren't that great, so this takes some time.


-Focusing the projector between zooms is a hassle because I need to switch to my HTPC to bring up a nice grid pattern to use for focusing.


The above doesn't take too much time compared to watching a movie, so I live with it.


Anyway this is just out there for people interested in this projector thinking that they need an expensive lens. I'm in the Seattle area and plan to have people over sometime soon for those of you who want to see this baby on a monster screen.

 

[Pultzar]

I didn't really do much in the way of testing to detect if there was a difference in ANSI. I was mainly looking to see if the lens looked better in any way compared to without it. I couldn't really tell the difference from seating distance to be honest. Upon close examining at the screen, using the lens did have a slight amount of CA that was visible.


If I have to strain to see a difference, then the lens was not worth the extra cost of the lens itself plus whatever processor I would have needed (I was using an HTPC for my tests).


Now I did use the lens with my old AE900 and the difference in resolution was obvious. I think that the 1080p panels and high fill factor of the JVC makes the lens less useful than with a 720p projector.

 

[voicecoils]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pultzar /forum/post/0


Now I did use the lens with my old AE900 and the difference in resolution was obvious. I think that the 1080p panels and high fill factor of the JVC makes the lens less useful than with a 720p projector.

Take a 2.35:1 HD-DVD for example, once cropped it's 1920x817p.


So...


scaling 1920x817p up to 1920x1080p for a full HD projector


or


scaling 1920x817p down to 1280x720p for a 720p projector.


From just slightly differing seating distances it would probably be very difficult to see the difference between the two methods...

 

[voicecoils]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark /forum/post/0


Nice to hear from a fellow "zoomer"

This "zoom method" do you mean for 2.35:1 material you're just filling the 16:9 panel by zooming in and losing the information at the sides?

 

[acegamer]

If I had my projector mounted on a table by my seating area then I could see possibly going with the zoom method, but unfortunately my unit is ceiling mounted and has to stay that way in order to work with my room and seating arrangement. I tried the zoom method when I first set everything up and it was way too much hassle for me. I had to perform both vertical and horizontal shifting and focusing when changing aspect ratios. As a result I put aside my plans for a 2.35 setup until I could afford a lens and scaler. Of course I did just get a $10,000 raise at work yesterday, so the wait may not have to be as long.

 

[Brad/Viper-Fan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by acegamer /forum/post/0


If I had my projector mounted on a table by my seating area then I could see possibly going with the zoom method, but unfortunately my unit is ceiling mounted and has to stay that way in order to work with my room and seating arrangement. I tried the zoom method when I first set everything up and it was way too much hassle for me. I had to perform both vertical and horizontal shifting and focusing when changing aspect ratios. As a result I put aside my plans for a 2.35 setup until I could afford a lens and scaler. Of course I did just get a $10,000 raise at work yesterday, so the wait may not have to be as long.

Is it correct to say; when changing aspect ratios with a lens and scaler, one does not need to focus or shift the image?

 

[Uatatoka]

That's correct...no lens shifting or focus adjustments needed for a lens/scaler setup.


That's also why the lens/scaler method is mandatory for fixed offset, small zoom range DLPs without lens shift. Fortunately the ANSI contrast for DLP is 2-3X higher than LCD or LCOS so the small drop in ANSI contrast from the additional lens is not an issue.

 

[Pultzar]



Quote:
Originally Posted by voicecoils /forum/post/0


This "zoom method" do you mean for 2.35:1 material you're just filling the 16:9 panel by zooming in and losing the information at the sides?

No. The screen is 2.35:1. When watching 16:9 material, the image is zoomed using the projector so that it fits in the center of the screen. When watching 2.35:1 material, the image is zoomed filling the screen width wise while cutting off the top and bottom of the image. Fortunately the part that is cut off is simply black bars

 

[R Harkness]

I'm curious Pultzar. What color is the wall behind your screen? I'm wondering if, when using the zooming method, you notice any of the light spill past the border of your screen. I know the black bars with the JVC are pretty dark, but they aren't completely black, which is why I ask.


Thanks,

 

[Pultzar]



Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/0


I'm curious Pultzar. What color is the wall behind your screen? I'm wondering if, when using the zooming method, you notice any of the light spill past the border of your screen. I know the black bars with the JVC are pretty dark, but they aren't completely black, which is why I ask.


Thanks,

Dark red velvet. I don't notice any light spill unless there is something like a station logo in the black bar area... but this is very rare. I have noticed light spill with old G15 projectors on other peoples setups, but the black area with the RS1 is so low that I consider it a non issue. I wouldn't recommend it unless you wall was a dark color though.

 

[Ian_Currie]

I'm doing the zoom method on a matte-black painted wall. I was very surprised that even though the RS1 doesn't project true black that the black bars above 2.35 material weren't visible on my wall (above or below the screen).


What is still visible on the wall, which I've come to appreciate, are things like:


1) PS3 'display info' (code, bit rate, time left in movie, etc)

2) in-movie menu (typically below the 2.35 content)

3) HD-DVD pause bar

 

[Brad/Viper-Fan]



That's correct...no lens shifting or focus adjustments needed for a lens/scaler setup.


For this to be true, is the lens used for 1.78 & 2.35 or is the lens moved away for 1.78?

Also, does the brand of lens or scaler matter for this to work?

 

[Jack Gilvey]



Quote:
Originally Posted by acegamer /forum/post/0


If I had my projector mounted on a table by my seating area then I could see possibly going with the zoom method, but unfortunately my unit is ceiling mounted and has to stay that way in order to work with my room and seating arrangement. I tried the zoom method when I first set everything up and it was way too much hassle for me. I had to perform both vertical and horizontal shifting and focusing when changing aspect ratios. As a result I put aside my plans for a 2.35 setup until I could afford a lens and scaler. Of course I did just get a $10,000 raise at work yesterday, so the wait may not have to be as long.

Congrats! I've been zooming for quite a while now with my ceiling-mounted AE900. I've got my zoom/shift routine down to about 2 minutes, including bringing up the pj menu to refocus.

I do have a Panamorph 752 lens which I used with my IF 4805 and when I was feeding the AE900 480p component , but with my current HD HDMI source I can't do the stretch. No biggie, though, and the black velvet masking all around the screen takes care of any spill.

 

[5mark]



Quote:
Originally Posted by voicecoils /forum/post/0


This "zoom method" do you mean for 2.35:1 material you're just filling the 16:9 panel by zooming in and losing the information at the sides?

This would be pure heresy around here, with the dramatic change to OAR.

As far as the screen wall with the zoom method, the darker the better. Even with the RS1, there is still a fair amount of light in the black bars that would be visible on white walls.