AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After my experiences at CES I thought it would be interesting to open a discussion thread on how the improving projector capabilities are affecting this approach. Please offer your thoughts and ideas based on what you have seen from the new projectors.


As some of you may have read, I spent a day this week with the JVC RS1 and HD-1 projectors. Right up front let me point out that these projectors lack the scaling for 2.35 anamorphic. That aside, all the current wave of 1080p projectors seem to be changing the playing field with regards to CH 2.35. The native letterboxed HD-DVD 2.35 images I saw this week (neither was CH 2.35 with anamorphic) were insanely sharp and refined. The remarkable black level of these also presents for the first time truly adequately black bars. What comes to mind is, that "messing" with this PQ would not be a good thing. The ante has been significantly raised for very good 2.35 scaling and very good anamorphic optics, or we will be messing with it. This all raises the question of going CH 2.35 or not. Is the additional 20% of brightness worth it? The JVCs have also made a significant advance in brightness. Bright projector, invisible black bars, insane resolution and PQ make a strong case to consider not going for CH 2.35.


Are the benefits still there? Is abandoning the scaling and lens but keeping a 2.35 screen okay? I think so.


Another factor that affects our thinking on all this is that now 2.35 content is no longer anamorphic as it is on SD DVD, therefore only an incremental improvement that falls short of the media's potential. One idea I have that I think would benefit CH 2.35 is somehow getting 2.35 content on the HD disc formats in full anamorphic 1920 x 1080. Several months ago I started a thread here that you will remember about this. I will launch a new thread in this forum about this as there are possible new developments.


What say you, professors?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,308 Posts

Quote:
CH 2.35 Still Viable?

I'll pipe up as a non-professor.
I guess it depends on one's main reason for going CIH in the first place. Mine is the theatrical/aesthetic one, to present widescreen movies and their sweeping vistas as truly wider. As such, CIH will always be viable, regardless of the method used. In my own case, going with a 2.35 screen allows a much larger 2.35 image than a 16:9 letterbox as I'm more limited by height.

The technical ability to add actual source resolution with a lens (from ~544 to 720p vertical) is still there for 720p projectors,of course, which I imagine will still be prevalent for a few years.

Quote:
Bright projector, invisible black bars, insane resolution and PQ make a strong case to consider not going for CH 2.35.

Again, it depends on why you did it in the first place. I would agree that lesser opticas have the potential to do more harm than good with a 1080p panel, as any distortions are not offset by the addition of actual source resolution. In that case, I might argue against the method, not the goal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
Te me the main reason to go with CIH is because I can get bigger picture placed higher from floor so multiple rows can view the picture. With basement heights limited between 7-9 foot, CIH is the best option to choose for those who need LARGEST possible screen that fits in their set up. Of course, it makes sense if most of their viewing is movies!


Also, aesthetic value that makes Home Theater feel like a 'real' theater.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,411 Posts
My take on this after spending 3 years with a Sony Qualia 004 at 1080 on a large (5' x 14') constant height setup in my theatre:


The new projectors make constant height more viable, not less viable.


No matter how sharp the letterbox images you saw were, they still lack the increased visual impact that 2.20:1 or higher AR images should have when both the 1.77: and 2.20:1 or higher images have the same width. When a constant width setup is used, the visual impact of a 2.20:1 or greater image is greatly reduced.

This is not how Hollywood intended this to be!!!


With the combination of a 1080 projector, an Isco Cinema DLP 1.5x lens, HD DVD, a 2.66:1 screen, and an HTPC, I was able to, for the first time, recreate the impact of a 2.76:1 Ultra Panavision 70 image in my HT.


Using the HD DVD of "Mutiny On the Bounty", I came as close as humanly possible to recreating the experience I remember one night in San Francisco when I actually attended a 70mm showing of this film. At a seating distance of 1.1x the screen width in my HT, the experience is wonderfully close to the original.


That is why I built my HT, and the only possible improvement I could wish for is a 4K projector and 4K sources to feed it. When that happens, CIH will still remain viable, due to the further improvement in IQ.


Vern
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Purely, 16x9 is a big tv, 2.35 is a cinema screen. More and more movies are being filmed in cinemascope.


As was said, purely more cinematic for movies.


The technical side is definately worth it but I found the biggest noticeable increase came from making the screen wider not so much having the extra brightness/resolution.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Hi Vern,

Good to see you here. I knew this would show up on your radar and you'd be here.


Excellent comments guys.


To all let me ask this: Can we, with these new projectors, not just let the zoom do the job, and use a 2.35 screen? In the 720 world, there was a pretty clear cut advantage to the CIH approach. Still necessary to make the same impact on the 2.35 screen? I can see from some of your comments that there are clearly installations where this makes the most sense.
Quote:
I would agree that lesser opticas have the potential to do more harm than good with a 1080p panel, as any distortions are not offset by the addition of actual source resolution. In that case, I might argue against the method, not the goal.

Well put.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/0


Hi Vern,

Good to see you here. I knew this would show up on your radar and you'd be here.


To all let me ask this: Can we, with these new projectors, not just let the zoom do the job, and use a 2.35 screen? In the 720 world, there was a pretty clear cut advantage to the CIH approach. Still necessary to make the same impact on the 2.35 screen?


Cam Man,


I believe you could, that is what I am planning to do since the RS1 does not do the vertical stretch needed, I will just zoom in & out as needed from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 on a cinemascope screen.


Plus adding another lens in front of an already phenomenal lens that the RS1 has would slightly degrade the picture regardless of grade ISCO 3 or Scnieder and that is just my opinion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
My setup: bat cave + SMX 10 foot wide screen + Pearl + Lumagen HDQ + Panamorph UH380 + M380 Sled + HD-A1 (XA2 on the way for SD disks). Scope 10' wide image zoomed vs lens - to my eyes - no contest, the Lumagen stretch + lens version wins every time. The lens version has some pincushion, but it is very minor, and I have never noticed geometry issues in the projected image. The zoomed version looks good - that is what I was viewing while I waited for the Lens + sled to arrive. Then you put then lens on and adjust the scaler, and the image jumps to a higher level. I understand the concern about molesting a letterbox HD image with electronic stretching and a lens - both items are bound to add their own issues to the image, but the overall effect is a better image vs zoomed. The best I can describe it is that the zoomed image is a pale version of the lens image. The scaler + lens image has more presence more reality. Perhaps part of the equation is that a 10 foot wide zoomed image from a Pearl on a 1.16 gain screen is really pushing the envelope on acceptable image brightness, but that is not how it appears in person, the zoomed image does not appear dim, it's just that the lens image is significantly more dense and brighter and real. I can see how it might not be worth it to many people at this point, the UH380+Sled+scaler is pushing $7K+ retail now. In my case, I paid 3K for the lens + sled, (already had the scaler - won't give that up) and I consider it money very well spent, a good long-term investment on a very high quality lens and motorized mount that will last me many years and see me through several projectors. Seeing is believing. I have zero regrets on going 1080p + lens + sled + scaler. I smile every time I engage the lens and that 2.40 image appears.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
i'm a newbie to 2.35 CH.


my set-up--


Tosh XA2, Sony BDP-S1, JVC HM-DH40000U D-VHS, Comcast HD, Directv HD--> Crystallio II--> Sony Pearl--> ISCO III---115" x 49" da-lite 'Pearlesent' 1.7 gain 2.35 screen with motorized masking. i use the Lex MC-12, Lex 7-channel amp and Revel 7.1 speakers. my room is 14' x 18.5' painted dark brown with very good light control.


i am watching both SD and HD (HD and BD) movies in 2.35 and i have been consistently blown away by the resolution and additional drama of the big picture i'm watching from about 1.1x screen width. with the ISCO III there doesn't seem to be much if any reduction in snap or resolution of the picture.


last night i pulled out 'Empire Strikes Back' on SD dvd and the impact of the image made it new again for me.


i am on the RSI preorder list and plan on comparing it to the Pearl. now that i've experienced the additional size of the 115" wide 2.35 image i will not go back to the smaller letterboxed 2.35.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts

Quote:
Purely, 16x9 is a big tv, 2.35 is a cinema screen. More and more movies are being filmed in cinemascope.


As was said, purely more cinematic for movies.


The technical side is definately worth it but I found the biggest noticeable increase came from making the screen wider not so much having the extra brightness/resolution.

One of many great comments. I couldn't agree more.

Quote:
I believe you could, that is what I am planning to do since the RS1 does not do the vertical stretch needed, I will just zoom in & out as needed from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 on a cinemascope screen.


Plus adding another lens in front of an already phenomenal lens that the RS1 has would slightly degrade the picture regardless of grade ISCO 3 or Scnieder and that is just my opinion.

Count me as another planning to use the zoom method with the RS1 on a 2.35:1 screen. It's already working surprisingly well with my Panny 900.


I agree that a quality 1080p projector like the RS1 makes the zooming method even more viable, especially on a moderately sized screen. It may not be the "proper" or "cool" method, but I care more about results (and not spending a fortune on a quality lens and scaler).


The thing that got me to order a 2.35:1 screen was when I realized how amazing a 2.35:1 movie would likely look on the RS1 from around 1x SW. However, most 16:9 material at this size would be WAY too big IMO. A scope screen provides the true cinematic, immersive experience and solves the age-old home theater problem of 2.35:1 movies being smaller than they should be
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,405 Posts
For people like me who have a moderately priced projector like a Hitachi TX200 and use a Prismasonic lens in a small room, I would say it will still be relevant when I upgrade to, say, a Mitsubishi 5000 or JVC HD1. I remember when a friend and I were watching a dvd the other day, and it was the first time he had seen my constant height lens setup. Something was wrong with the aspect ratio of the dvd player and so it looked wonky at first. I paused the dvd, it was the image of the girls face at the beginning of Little Miss Sunshine, and then I fixed the aspect ratio of my dvd player and then we just stared at the screen kind of shocked. It was so smooth and so detailed I just left it up looking at the detail for another few seconds before continuing the movie. Just zooming the image was no where near as good.


I think you would have to try it and compare. For most of us with 720p constant height setups, we won't discard our CH setups when we upgrade projectors. I think if you tried the JVC RS1/HD1 with an anamorphic Horizontal Expansion lens like the Prismasonic H1400 or Panamorph UH380 you would probably produce an absolutely stunning 2.37:1 image. If you are buying a JVC DLA, Sony Pearl or a 1080p LCD projector consider another $1000 to $2000 USD for a lens and video processor to make the most of the projectors brightness and contrast. As always, perhaps it will take a comparison to convince some. I have done the zoom with my Hitachi and it doesn't come close to matching the proper use of a video processor and lens.


Before passing judgement, wait until more people with the newest projectors start giving feedback regarding their CH setups. While it is possible that geometry and optics issues from adding a lens could negatively affect the picture in some ways, I still can't see it making such a negative impact that it looks worse.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts

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



If you are buying a JVC DLA, Sony Pearl or a 1080p LCD projector consider another $1000 to $2000 USD for a lens and video processor to make the most of the projectors bright......

cpc,


As I am on the RS1 prebuy and have a 122" wide x 52" high scope screen installed and waiting, please provide suggestions for a scaler and lens for the above price of $1000 to $2000 USD? I trully hope that JVC will implement the needed stretch for 2.35 projection. If not I don't know of any lens and scaler combinations in that price range that are "up to the task". Most of the scalers mentioned in the processor scection will exceed the $2000 price point?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts

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


My setup: bat cave + SMX 10 foot wide screen + Pearl + Lumagen HDQ + Panamorph UH380 + M380 Sled + HD-A1 (XA2 on the way for SD disks). Scope 10' wide image zoomed vs lens - to my eyes - no contest, the Lumagen stretch + lens version wins every time. The lens version has some pincushion, but it is very minor, and I have never noticed geometry issues in the projected image. The zoomed version looks good - that is what I was viewing while I waited for the Lens + sled to arrive.

usualsuspects,


not to take anything away from your great setup but you are using a Pearl as you stated so, since the RS1's lense is far superior to the Pearls as stated in many threads, using the zoom as apposed to a lense and an external VP may turn out better for RS1 owners which is why maybe JVC did not implement the stretch feature in their design to begin with. Maybe they just know or tried using these lenses & noticed a degradation in the picture hence no stretching.


Also remember that most VP's have DVI ins and outs and if I am not mistaken to get a full 1080P from any BD player or HD DVD player one must stay in the HDMI domain or it will be downsized to 720p so what is the point of an external VP unless it utilizes HDMI inputs? Most don't.


Another bonus with the RS1 is the Gennum VXP which is rated as one of the best processors today if not the best so why use inferior processing buying an external device? I can see why the Pearl may benefit or many other PJ's for that matter as well but I can't see the RS1 benefiting at all.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,405 Posts
I think my iScan HD+ does a good job. They can be found for reasonable prices. An iScan VP50 also works and has the added bonus of doing top-notch 1080i to 1080p de-interlacing. Worth a look, but yes, a VP50 alone is worth around $2K at the very least.


In terms of a lens, a used Prismasonic H500/H600 or H1000/1200/1400 is a good choice. Again, they must be used to fall in the lower end of the price spectrum. A Panamorph UH380 is a great lens but again, a bit more of an investment. Lastly on my list is the ISCO III which is above my budget.


I paid around $750 USD for a used HD+ and it does the vertical stretch perfectly. I am using an H600 I bought for around $650 USD but I am hoping to upgrade to an H1000 or better. The H1000/1200 Prismasonic lens can be found for around $800 USD or less I believe.


I am buying these items cheap because I am stretching my budget to accomodate them. Check out AVS pricing for new units and watch for sales and deals. You may be surprised what you find.


As always, contact AVS and the Prismasonic and Panamorph people in order to determine what will work best with the JVC. I haven't any experience with that projector to know what will work for sure. The above are simply suggestions to look into.


My final thought is this. If you can find a lens/processor combination that works well and projects a 2.37:1 image with geometry that saisfies you and looks sharp enough for you, then that would be ideal. The JVC and other projectors like this are going to take you to a higher level of contrast and image quality, so why not keep all the contrast and brightness you can? Zooming reduces you from the best possible image. It all depends on what it is worth to each individual. I figure if it was worth it for my Hitachi TX200, then I would be surprised if it wouldn't be worth it for something like the JVC. I would certainly try it out before deciding, that is for sure
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
If one uses an external VP for stretching "ONLY" how would you by-pass the internal video processing of the VP50? I am 100% sure that the VP50 does NOT have better Video processing than the Gennum VXP that is in the RS1.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,405 Posts
Yes, that is true. Ok, so my idea of the iScan HD+/VP30/VP50 isn't the best solution in this case. I guess I shouldn't be making these suggestions because I really am not familiar with the JVC. If the JVC does not do the vertical stretch, that will create a problem. I cannot imagine the VP50 having poor processing, but I guess the Gennum VXP is pretty amazing. I guess you cannot bypass the video processing of the VP50. Here is hoping the JVC does offer variable vertical stretch/zooming for source material wider than 1.78:1.


Could you do output vertically stretched 1080i from an HTPC to the JVC? Just a thought.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Dallas /forum/post/0


usualsuspects,


not to take anything away from your great setup but you are using a Pearl as you stated so, since the RS1's lense is far superior to the Pearls as stated in many threads, using the zoom as apposed to a lense and an external VP may turn out better for RS1 owners which is why maybe JVC did not implement the stretch feature in their design to begin with. Maybe they just know or tried using these lenses & noticed a degradation in the picture hence no stretching.


Also remember that most VP's have DVI ins and outs and if I am not mistaken to get a full 1080P from any BD player or HD DVD player one must stay in the HDMI domain or it will be downsized to 720p so what is the point of an external VP unless it utilizes HDMI inputs? Most don't.


Another bonus with the RS1 is the Gennum VXP which is rated as one of the best processors today if not the best so why use inferior processing buying an external device? I can see why the Pearl may benefit or many other PJ's for that matter as well but I can't see the RS1 benefiting at all.

Well, many things here. First off I don't want to fall into the trap of "my stuff is best"
I have no illusions, the Pearl is not the best projector ever made. I think it is best that when the JVC RS1 people have a chance to try scope on a lens and scaler vs zoomed, perhaps they can comment. I'm sure that will happen as soon as the RS1 ships. Also I would like to point out that at this point, it is premature to say what projector is superior at what at this point. The JVC is not shipping yet, there have been many projectors that have been the holy grail BEFORE they shipped, and slightly more down to earth after they shipped and can be compared to other projectors. This is taking nothing away from the RS1 pre-order people - more power to you!



As to the HD must stay in the "HDMI" domain to not be downrezed to 720p - this is without a doubt a total myth. I have a HD-DVD player (HD-A1) and I have a 1080 resoultion test disk. Trust me, I am getting 1080p resolution out of it even though my scaler only has "DVI" inputs. One of the interesting things about Lumagen scalers is the games they play with the EDID. The whole concept of HDMI vs DVI becomes very nebulous once you start messing with the EDID.


As to the Gennum VXP processing. It is not setup to do the stretch on the RS1.

I say again, seeing is believing. Lets see what the RS1 people say when that projector is available. I have a Toshiba XA2 player on order under the theory that it with the Reon chip will do better at 1080p scope even with another scaler used to do the final stretch. I will report my impressions of the setup vs the HD-A1.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,411 Posts
I believe the question of whether or not an anamorphic lens will degrade the image is related to how high the qualty of the anamorphic lens is.


Based on using test patterns with 1 pixel wide lines with the Qualia, which I am sure has a projection lens that is equivalent to the new JVC, the Isco does not degrade the resolution or any other attributes of the image.


Vern
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
One of the interesting things about Lumagen scalers is the games they play with the EDID. The whole concept of HDMI vs DVI becomes very nebulous once you start messing with the EDID.

A little off topic, but have you ever been successful in using this with the HD-A1 to get BTB/WTW to pass to the pj? PM if you want to not stray on this thread. Or maybe you've discussed elsewhere and can give a link?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts

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


I have a Toshiba XA2 player on order under the theory that it with the Reon chip will do better at 1080p scope even with another scaler used to do the final stretch. I will report my impressions of the setup vs the HD-A1.

I've heard a lot of great things about the AX2 and Reon chip. Given that the VP has to stretch the final image, doesn't that mean that the image is processed again by the VP, negating the processing advantages of the AX2?


It's such a drag that the RS1 doesn't support CIH
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top