[Tin_Can]

If you have a projector that accepts a 1920x1200 signal, a panamorph vfx200 (vertical compression) lens, and a lumagen, can you play a 2.35:1 movie, have the lumagen remove the black bars, scale up to 1920x1200, and have the lens compress it to fit the screen?

Is there any reason not to do that?

 

[stanger89]

It should work (is it actually a 1920x1200 projector? Just because it accepts 1920x1200 doesn't mean it is), but you'll still have some small bars left since the lens won't compress enough due to the image being 1.6:1 instead of 1.78:1.

But why? If you don't have the lens/Lumagen already, it's a waste of money IMO. You could get a very nice projector for the cost of an FVX200+Lumagen, and likely have a much better overall experience than using a "data-grade" 1920x1200 projector. Or buy a lot of movies or something else. Lots of added cost/complexity to not change the size/impact of scope content at all.

 

[Tin_Can]

Thanks. I'm not sure if it's a "data grade" projector, but it's a Digital Projection Cine M320. Maybe it doesn't actually project 1920x1200. I think I may be confused a bit as to how this all works, and whether or not I'd get an improved picture using a lens with this method over just using the lumagen (lumagen is already purchased).

 

[stanger89]

That's 1080p, that's a pretty nice projector:
http://www.digitalprojection.com/dp-projectors/m-vision-cine-320/

Won't be as high contrast as some other HT Projectors due to lack of dynamic IRIS though.

I still say a VC lens is a waste of money, it doesn't change the experience/size of scope at all which, IMO is the primary reason to go down that path. You will get a brighter, more dense (pixel density) image, but that's not needed when you make the image smaller, which is what a VC (Vertical Compression) lens like the FVX200 is.

 

[Tin_Can]

That's 1080p, that's a pretty nice projector:
http://www.digitalprojection.com/dp-projectors/m-vision-cine-320/

Won't be as high contrast as some other HT Projectors due to lack of dynamic IRIS though.

I still say a VC lens is a waste of money, it doesn't change the experience/size of scope at all which, IMO is the primary reason to go down that path. You will get a brighter, more dense (pixel density) image, but that's not needed when you make the image smaller, which is what a VC (Vertical Compression) lens like the FVX200 is.

So, I can't actually project a 1080x1200 image? It says the chip is 1080x1200, but maybe it doesn't actually let you use it all?

My reasoning for the vc lens was to get increased brightness and pixel density, but maybe I don't really need it. I'll try it with just the lumagen and maybe add a lens later.

Thanks for the input!

 

[stanger89]

So, I can't actually project a 1080x1200 image? It says the chip is 1080x1200, but maybe it doesn't actually let you use it all?

Is it not the one I linked above? Because the spec sheets there say it's 1920x1080 native. Now DPI does make 1920x1200 projectors so maybe I found the wrong one.

My reasoning for the vc lens was to get increased brightness and pixel density, but maybe I don't really need it. I'll try it with just the lumagen and maybe add a lens later.

Well theoretically you've already got plenty of brightness and pixel density for 16:9, that won't change when you watch scope content. Without a lens scope is the same brightness and density as everything else.

Where you really "need" a lens, or where it becomes useful, is when you're trying to make scope the same height as 16:9 (ie Constant Image Height, CIH). When you do this, because scope is larger, it is necessarily dimmer and less dense. A lens mitigates some of these "losses" relative to 16:9. If you've got a 16:9 screen, I just don't see the point in the cost/complexity of a lens setup since everything you watch will be the same brightness/pixel density.

Now if you've got a scope screen, that's a different story. A VC lens can work in such a case, but you either need to leave the lens in place all the time, or be able to zoom (which requires a 1.33x zoom range, which your Cine probably doesn't have), either way a Horizontal Expansion lens is a much better choice for a scope screen/CIH setup.

 

[Tin_Can]

Yup, that's the correct projector (the HC version). If you look at the spec sheet, it shows 1920x1200.

It is a scope screen, and the lens would likely be left in place. I was advised to at least try the lumagen before committing to a lens, as the isco lens recommended to me was more than I wanted to spend, but I was curious about the vc lens from panamorph.

 

[Seegs108]

Yup, that's the correct projector (the HC version). If you look at the spec sheet, it shows 1920x1200.

It is a scope screen, and the lens would likely be left in place. I was advised to at least try the lumagen before committing to a lens, as the isco lens recommended to me was more than I wanted to spend, but I was curious about the vc lens from panamorph.

The spec sheet shows a .95" DLP DMD at 1920 x 1080 pixels, but below it says:

Computer Compatibility
Up to 1920 x 1200

This just means it can accept a 1920 x 1200 image but the native resolution of the chip is still 1920 x 1080.

 

[Tin_Can]

The spec sheet shows a .95" DLP DMD at 1920 x 1080 pixels, but below it says:

Computer Compatibility
Up to 1920 x 1200

This just means it can accept a 1920 x 1200 image but the native resolution of the chip is still 1920 x 1080.

What's the difference between "accept" and "native"?

 

[stanger89]

It is a scope screen, and the lens would likely be left in place. I was advised to at least try the lumagen before committing to a lens, as the isco lens recommended to me was more than I wanted to spend, but I was curious about the vc lens from panamorph.

For a scope screen (sorry I missed that), definitely get a lens, otherwise you're wasting 25% of your light and pixels. And given it's a DLP with limited zoom, you can't even zoom back for 16:9, though you could use the shrink method.

As for VC vs HE, I'd definitely go with the HE, it's a lot more versatile, VC will work, but in a CIH setup it would have to remain in place all the time, and offers really no benefits vs HE. I don't think it's even cheaper than a similar HE lens. HE lenses have the benefit of being (re)movable for 16:9.

 

[Seegs108]

What's the difference between "accept" and "native"?

Native = actual pixel count on the chip.

Accept = what the video processor will accept through HDMI

If you feed the projector a 1920 x 1200 signal it will simply scale that image to 1920 x 1080 to fit the pixel count of the DLP DMD chip. You cannot display 1920 x 1200 pixel perfect video. This goes back and is similar to the days of 720p projectors. They often could accept 1080i but would only display a deinterlaced and scaled version of the 1080i signal at the native 720p of the imaging chip.

 

[Tin_Can]

Oh, OK. Well, that squashes what I wanted to accomplish, anyway.

Thanks!

 

[stanger89]

What was that?

 

[Tin_Can]

What was that?

Be able to use the full 1200 vertical pixels.

 

[stanger89]

FWIW, you'd need a 1.48x Horizontal Expansion or 0.67x Vertical Compression lens to do that. At least for standard scope content.

 

[Tin_Can]

I know, right? Wait, what?

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

FWIW, you'd need a 1.48x Horizontal Expansion or 0.67x Vertical Compression lens to do that. At least for standard scope content.

Yeah, no way around the fact that you need a 16:9 source aspect ratio projector to get 2.37:1 through a 1.33x HE or 0.75x VC lens. (or a 4:3 projector to get a 16:9 image).

But anyway it sounds like his projector is actually 16:9 AR anyway since it's 1920x1080 native, so it's all good to use a lens to get scope out of it.