AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
From the article:


* 2560 x 1080 DLP

* "When 1.78 content is being viewed, that content is simply displayed by the projector at native 1080p resolution."

* "...throw ratios as short as .8:1 and as long as 4.5:1"


I'm sure it's not cheap, but it sounds like a great solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,466 Posts
From the article:

"Equally as important, anamorphic optics consume about 10% of the projector’s brightness while also reducing the contrast ratio. "


That's odd. Doesn't that go against prevailing wisdom of an Anamorphic lens allowing higher brightness? (I'm sure they are putting a spin to hype their non-lens solution).


So do I infer correctly that this projector resizes strictly via scaling, without any optical re-zooming? If so, I would infer that with this projector you set it up by zooming the image to fill your 2:35:1 screen and keep it there. Then, a 16:9 1080p image would be displayed full resolution, only using the central portion of the projector's panel, to appear in the middle of the screen (black side bars unprojected?). Switching to a scope movie, the image is re-scaled to full width of projector panel resolution.


This would mean a scope film would have somewhat higher brightness on this projector (since it's using the whole panel resolution) vs a similar projector based on 16:9 res, zoomed to the same width.


Also, does this suggest that brightness would...or would not change when switching between 16:9 and scope? (I'm having brain fog so the answer is not coming immediately to me).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,128 Posts
Maybe I'm missing something here - but it still doesn't seem quite like the holy grail until there are anamorphic Blu ray titles.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
3,700 Posts

·
Guest
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
The Avelio specs are as follow:


projector 2.35:1 DLP® projector

concept all glass optical design with replaceable

projection lenses, lens shift, and mech. shutter

resolution 2560 x 1080 native

brightness up to 3000 ansi lumens (tbc.)

contrast about 7000 : 1 (adjusted)

bit planes / colour depth 12 bits per colour

I/O 2x Dual Link DVI, 2x HDMI,

2x analogue RGBHV, analogue video

2x XPort TCP/IP, RS232, IR

Frame-lock sync in/out

colour management RealColor colour management suite

lenses (ranges to be

confirmed)

0.8 : 1 (EN 42)

1.2 - 1.7 : 1 (EN 43)

1.7 - 2.5 : 1 (EN41)

2.5 - 4.5 : 1 (EN 44)

setup, calibration, control,

asset management

ProNet setup and calibration tool,

with built in asset management

installation Table top or ceiling mount

conformances FCC Class A, CE, CUL

power requirements 8.4A 100-240V 50-60Hz,
size ( H x W x D) 376 x 510 x 223 mm

weight about 12.5 kg / plus lens

warranty limited 3 years warranty. Up to five years extended

warranty available. Conditions apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,553 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/20842665


From the article:

"Equally as important, anamorphic optics consume about 10% of the projector's brightness while also reducing the contrast ratio. "


That's odd. Doesn't that go against prevailing wisdom of an Anamorphic lens allowing higher brightness? (I'm sure they are putting a spin to hype their non-lens solution).


So do I infer correctly that this projector resizes strictly via scaling, without any optical re-zooming? If so, I would infer that with this projector you set it up by zooming the image to fill your 2:35:1 screen and keep it there. Then, a 16:9 1080p image would be displayed full resolution, only using the central portion of the projector's panel, to appear in the middle of the screen (black side bars unprojected?). Switching to a scope movie, the image is re-scaled to full width of projector panel resolution.


This would mean a scope film would have somewhat higher brightness on this projector (since it's using the whole panel resolution) vs a similar projector based on 16:9 res, zoomed to the same width.


Also, does this suggest that brightness would...or would not change when switching between 16:9 and scope? (I'm having brain fog so the answer is not coming immediately to me).

That's higher brightness than a zoomed image of the same size. But if one takes into account the additional 25% or so of brightness because of the additional lit pixels, the screen will receive 10 to 15% extra light the remainder is consumed by the anamorphic optics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,423 Posts
If the resolution is 2560x1080, why would the projector also have an anamorphic lens? It should be one or the other. I'm confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,067 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/20842665


From the article:

"Equally as important, anamorphic optics consume about 10% of the projector's brightness while also reducing the contrast ratio. "


That's odd. Doesn't that go against prevailing wisdom of an Anamorphic lens allowing higher brightness? (I'm sure they are putting a spin to hype their non-lens solution).

An Anamorphic lens allows higher brightness because it uses the whole chip, and therefore more light, than if you just zoom in without a lens. With a chip that is actually anamorphic sized, you'd still get the full lamp power being reflected from the chip, just not the light loss from an extra lens. They all have their benefits and cons:


Zoom method: No scaling artifacts, lower light output

Lens method: Higher light output than zoom, possible lens distortion, possible scaling artifacts, expensive

Native chip: No lens needed, no scaling artifacts on 16x9, possible scaling artifacts on 2.35 content, possibly higher light output, very very expensive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,553 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Horstkotte /forum/post/20842805


Maybe I'm missing something here - but it still doesn't seem quite like the holy grail until there are anamorphic Blu ray titles.

Anamorphic encoding will need anamorphic lenses for viewing.


What we need is wide screen encodes where the pixel mapping as we have now (1920 x 810) is encoded to 2560 x 1080.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx /forum/post/20843429


Anamorphic encoding will need anamorphic lenses for viewing.


What we need is wide screen encodes where the pixel mapping as we have now (1920 x 810) is encoded to 2560 x 1080.

HJ is right. For this projector to truly in front of anything else CIH, it needs a true 2560 x 1080 source. Of course at this time, there are none. True anamorphic titles would be a step in the right direction.


So it says native 2560 x 1080 and this is not the masked down 2560 x 1600 chip?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX
HJ is right. For this projector to truly in front of anything else CIH, it needs a true 2560 x 1080 source. Of course at this time, there are none. True anamorphic titles would be a step in the right direction.


So it says native 2560 x 1080 and this is not the masked down 2560 x 1600 chip?
Can't they say that even if they don't lite the pixels on the 2560p chip. So if zooming is Poor Man's CIH, is this Rich Man's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda
Can't they say that even if they don't lite the pixels on the 2560p chip. So if zooming is Poor Man's CIH, is this Rich Man's?
Yeah, you can say that is it is the same projector I saw at CEDIA 2010 at $45K
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX
HJ is right. For this projector to truly in front of anything else CIH, it needs a true 2560 x 1080 source. Of course at this time, there are none. True anamorphic titles would be a step in the right direction.


So it says native 2560 x 1080 and this is not the masked down 2560 x 1600 chip?
These projectors offer all the benefits of an anamorphic lens (where the lens is kept in place and pure scaling is used to change between ARs) and none of the drawbacks. You maximize display panel pixels in scope, which is the largest AR on this projector, you have constant brightness on the screen no matter what AR you watch, and you get none of the distortions/artifacts associated with anamorphic lenses.


Are those benefits worth the price tag? As with the use of an anamorphic lens, only the individual user can answer that question. I couldn't afford this projector, but if I could I'd give it consideration over a 16:9 projector with an anamorphic lens.


And it's counterproductive to argue that scaling an image to the full panel size of a 'scope projector doesn't give you any benefit when you argue that there is benefit from scaling to full panel height to use a 'scope lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
I just don't see this as having an impact. I believe we'll move past this to 4k pretty quickly. Resolution drives the panel market and the projector market will follow. Even the new iPad 3 will have 2048x1536. Once I had seen 1080 source on a 2160 display I was sold. It'll drive the panel market then the studios will resell us all our blurays in 4k. We will begrudgingly replace our libraries yet again. This has repeatly happened and we have shown a willingness to adopt. This time won't be any different. Onkyo releasing receivers with 4k ability isn't just to one up competitors. If you buy a 4k tv you'll, need a 4k receiver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda /forum/post/20846035


I just don't see this as having an impact. I believe we'll move past this to 4k pretty quickly. Resolution drives the panel market and the projector market will follow. Even the new iPad 3 will have 2048x1536. Once I had seen 1080 source on a 2160 display I was sold. It'll drive the panel market then the studios will resell us all our blurays in 4k. We will begrudgingly replace our libraries yet again. This has repeatly happened and we have shown a willingness to adopt. This time won't be any different. Onkyo releasing receivers with 4k ability isn't just to one up competitors. If you buy a 4k tv you'll, need a 4k receiver.

Hopefully that will drive the price of blu-rays down even more, I'm fine with 1080p (for now, ohhh wait a second! I see whats going on here)


-Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Saw this projector at the latest dpi show and got a bit of lowdown from the techs. From what I was told it does use a 2560X1600 chip and you're effectively just using 1080 of the vertical resolution on a scope screen.


And the reason this looks like the projection design unit is because they are. Both the ivision and division lines from them are projection design units, don't think they are trying to keep that a secret. Not sure if they are modified in some way but they are definitely one in the same.


I'm personally looking at one of their Titan 3d units soon and my only refrain, as usual, is spending the dough with 4k possibly around the corner. Maybe not for movie content for a long while, but I won't be surprised to see high end PC games allow for that resolution in the near future. Gonna need another stack of video cards. ; )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda /forum/post/20846035


I just don't see this as having an impact. I believe we'll move past this to 4k pretty quickly. Resolution drives the panel market and the projector market will follow. Even the new iPad 3 will have 2048x1536. Once I had seen 1080 source on a 2160 display I was sold. It'll drive the panel market then the studios will resell us all our blurays in 4k. We will begrudgingly replace our libraries yet again. This has repeatly happened and we have shown a willingness to adopt. This time won't be any different. Onkyo releasing receivers with 4k ability isn't just to one up competitors. If you buy a 4k tv you'll, need a 4k receiver.

4K BD anytime soon ,such as the next five years, is a joke. 4K displays may have advantages but 4K films at home, forget it, for a long long while.




Art
 
1 - 20 of 38 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