AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have read a couple of comments from members who have seen this baby in action. However, I haven't been able to find concrete evidence of the worthiness of the Sanyo's supposed 2.35:1 squeeze trick.


Will it take a 16x9 anamorphic, 2.35:1 ratio DVD and properly fit it within the 16x9 ratio panel so there is no side cropping and the original picture is left intact? Will this derived image then work with a Panamorph lens and the ISCO II (or will it work with only either the squishing or stretching techniques of these two lenses), and keep the proper geometry with a minimum of barrel distortion once the lens is applied?


Although there should be a light output gain since little or no black bars are in the picture allowing the full panel to be used, will this increase the visibility of pixel structure and/or blow up the effects of the lower resolution on a 16x9 enhanced 2.35:1 DVD?


Just had to get this off my chest. Hope we can find the answers pretty soon. Oh, and if this or the Sony 11HT is the better deal...


Dan




------------------

STOP DFAST and The MPAA!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


Dan


------------------

STOP DFAST and The MPAA!!


[This message has been edited by Dan Hitchman (edited 06-02-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
Dan, Bueller here. I checked this on the unit I just received. The unit has a screen adjustment called "zoom." In the manual, it says: "Provides image to fit screen size (16:9 aspect ratio) by expanding image width and height uniformity. This function can be used for providing a letter box mode picture (4:3 aspect picture with black bar on top and bottom edges) at wide video aspect of 16:9." When I tried this with Gladiator, as best as I can tell it expanded the top and bottom of the picture and left the width alone, making the picture tall and skinny. It does not appear to have affected the resolution or the pixels, but I didn't really look too closely. I'll try this again later. I assume this is what you were asking, and that this means it would work with the Panamorph to make use of the full panel for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Unless someone finds out otherwise it sounds like both the ISCO II and the Panamorph would work. Cool! Too bad it won't work with HDTV. Would still have to use a scaler for that.


HOWEVER, if you are looking for a constant height/variable width set up, it looks like only the ISCO would seem to work since it stretches the image instead of squashing it (like the Panamorph).


Dan


------------------

STOP DFAST and The MPAA!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
Dan, I checked this again, and the zoom function definitely just stretches the height of a 2.35:1 picture to fill the 16:9 panel, without changing the width. Resolution and pixelization seem unaffected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Could you check that there is no loss of horizontal or vertical information (cropping or overscan) when in this mode? If there is, an external scaler might still be better.




[This message has been edited by drmyeyes (edited 06-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by smitty:
Dan, I checked this again, and the zoom function definitely just stretches the height of a 2.35:1 picture to fill the 16:9 panel, without changing the width. Resolution and pixelization seem unaffected.
I believe this means the Sanyo would mate well with the Panamorph rather than the ISCO, since the former vertically compresses the image (thereby restoring the 2.35:1 DVD to its proper aspect ratio) while the latter horizontally stretches the image. From a convenience standpoint, with the Panamorph/Sanyo combo, you wouldn't have to do any zooming since the width of your image would remain constant.


Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirk:
From a convenience standpoint, with the Panamorph/Sanyo combo, you wouldn't have to do any zooming since the width of your image would remain constant.


Kirk
but the ISCO would be the one to get to approximate "real movie theater" - where a 2.35 film has the same height as a 1.85 film - just a lot wider. right?


(and if a 2.35 screen is used, no zooming should be required, right?)


DVD has served to reduce the former 2.35 "widescreen spectaculars" to puny shadows of themselves in most HT setups http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Yeah bossmonkey, on second thought, I see your point. I guess it would depend a lot on the aspect ratio of your screen. If you had a 2:35 screen you could mask the sides with drapery for anything less wide and achieve that movie house feel. If you had the more ubiquitous 16:9 screen however, you'd have to zoom in for your 2:35 movies, right?


Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I guess somebody's going to need to do a review of this projector using both lenses and see which one looks better geometrically-wise with this mode engaged. If the ISCO will work, then you could have a proper 2.35:1 ratio screen with side masking.


It's still too bad they couldn't have made this mode work for 1080p, 1080i, and 720p signals.


Dan


------------------

STOP DFAST and The MPAA!!
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top