AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all of you DILA guys that have preordered the Panamorph...


How many of you guys are going to install your panamorph permanently in front of your projector lens without the bypass?


If so, why? If not, why?


Thanks,


Cameron the undecided


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

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So Ken, what kind of screen do you use?


I have a 16:9 and if I were to do the bypass and want to use all of the display, I would have to zoom the image and then adjust the height.


Of course I could always just do the 1024x768 in bypass mode.


BTW I just changed the location of my ceiling mount today so that the Panamorph will be able to fit between the wall and the projector. I am going to see if the projector will fit in the bracket now.


This has been harder than I thought it would be. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Cameron


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

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
I have an odd setup. I used a special gray tint paint and painted the wall. I shoot directly onto the wall. Then I put up tongue and groove paneling on the entire wall except where I shoot the image (sort of created an inset screen area). To your point though, the screen area is basically 4:3, but because of the gray paint a 16:9 image doesn't look to bad. If I had a 16:9 screen as you do, I think I would leave the Pannie in permanent and let the HTPC scale the 4:3 material, so the Pannie image puts it back into 16:9 with bars left and right.


Moving that damn projector around is a major pain. I'm still worried I won't have room either;

I'm not dealing with it until I have the motivation of the Pannie actually sitting in my hands!


ken
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
I think I'll wait until I actually have the Pannie in my hands. I'd like to be able to just leave the lens alone all the time, but I don't know how that can be done when feeding the Pj 4:3 images from my DTC100 and PC. The DTC would have to expand a 4:3 image height wise for the lens to be able to compress it back to proper form. Same with the PC, but I'm expecting Dilard will handle that.


Chris
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I had to deal with it now because I have the fabric guys coming real soon to setup the walls.


My projector is located in the ceiling of the hall behind the theater and therefore I have some issues when moving the projector because of the hole in the wall that it needs to shine through.


I just got finished moving the projector back 5 inches and sure enough, the hole that the projector shines through is too small. so I will have to cut out a hole and such.


Cameron



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

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Cameron:


I asked basically the same question last week in this thread. The basic conclusion I reached (and nobody seemed to disagree) is that with a 16:9 screen, there's no reason to remove the lens with a D-ILA, unless you're willing to zoom in to view 4x3 material. With the lens in place, you can view 4x3 by sending the projector 1024x768, and having the projector stretch this vertically to 1024x1024. The lens compresses it back to restore the original aspect ratio. If you slide the lens away, all you have is 768 lines anyway, unless you want to zoom in. Seems like kind of a pain to have to zoom in, and even then you have to get everything to line up. And,1024x768 is enough resolution to support most (all) 4x3 sources you'd ever use.


I'd still like to hear if anyone disagrees - I'm in the same situation as you - finishing up a room - and it would be nice to know if I'll end up needing to support removing the lens.

- Dave


[This message has been edited by Dave T (edited 05-13-2001).]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Dave T-

I'm not the expert a lot of the guys are on this forum, but I see it exactly as you describe. If I had a 16:9 screen, I see no reason to move the Pannie at all., just stretch scale 4:3 stuff with HTPC, external scaler, or DILA scaler and let the Pannie resqueeze to 16:9


ken
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Tony:


Depends on what you've got. If you're using an HTPC, I believe you could use YxY to make your DVD software stretch the image. Otherwise, you could use an external scaler, or the scaler in the projector, to do the same.


- dave
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
So what do I do for my Dish6000 1080i feed with the Panamorph??


Thx,


Cameron


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

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
I think that you all might be surprised...


I might be wrong when the Panamorph ships, but I think that we are going to like the picture...even if the projector does the scaling!


Just to prove I wasn't going crazy, I did the Panamorph mod on my projector just now. I stretched the image vertically. It looked great, but tall and skinny.


I then wanted to see what 4:3 material looks like. Although I don't own much 4:3 material myself, I wanted to try it out just to see how it looked.


Here is a picture:

http://www.dilard.com/dilard/images/...panstretch.jpg


This is one of the few 4:3 DVDs I own. It is an IMAX film called "Mysteries of Egypt". The projector is modified to compress the material horizontally and expand it vertically at the same time.


I still think that if the source material has adequate resolution, then the projector's scaler is more than capable of doing good things with it. It's the deinterlacing and upscaling algorithms that need work. Neither of which comes into play when you pass a progressive scan image of adequate resolution.


Anyway, time will tell, but I'm still planning on feeding the projector as always (nothing changes at source) and just telling the projector to Panamorph-stretch all material before spitting it out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Well, that answers my question of HOW the projector will do the stretch. By using Dilard(or YXY?). A Gxx without Dilard would not be able to do this, right Mark? I've just spent some time doing a few scenarios to which might apply with Daves thought of using 1024 x 768. That res Auto switches to XGA1 or 2, so a setup that had SXGA3 as a constant setting would have to be changed to Auto, not exactly what I wanted to have to switch to for a permanent situation. Without actually DOING a mod on XGA1 to get the image expanded like Mak did, I couldn't, for the life of me, see how the G was going to do a "stretch" of 4:3 material.


As far as HD images, while just watching(boy was it GOOD)The Patriot on HBO, simply switching the G11 to 4:3 instead of 16:9 should do the trick for accurately resizing images through the Pannie.


Chris
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
If using HTPC (for HT use) I cant see the issue...


DVD is covered with anamophic by default and 4:3 + letterbox with YxY...


TV (Tivo, VHS, Direct TV etc etc) is all covered with dTV (does anamorphic stretch)...


I am only concerned about gaming on my setup as I am resolutionally challenged only having SVGA... I am unsure how the HDTV cards work.. can a anamorphic stretch be applied or can the operate in a window for YxY.. As I have no source and so no HW...


I am assuming a scaler can do all the above too ??


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

[email protected]
HTPC without using windows... GUI Front Ends for Home Theater
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
In a nutshell, there are probably several good ways to do the Panamorphic stretch.


I am sure that it will only take us a few weeks to find out the best solution(s).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Because nobody has yet posted the actual numbers, I thought I'd figure it out. I'm talking about what you'd give up keeping the lens on, when viewing 4x3 on a 16x9 screen with a D-ILA.


With a 16x9 screen, you could zoom in until the bottom of the image lined up with the bottom edge of the 16x9 area. Doing this, you'd be able to get a maximum of 896 vertical lines. This is assuming that the white area of the screen is centered vertically within the 4x3 area - the default place the projector will put 16x9 images, and that you have that much zoom range to play with. If you had your 16x9 area at the top, you might be able to gain more, as long as you could zoom in that much.


So, with the 16x9 centered vertically, you'd be able to use a resolution of 1194x896. This is about 1/3 more resolution (pixels) than 1024x768. 1/3 more resolution isn't chicken feed, but I still think 1024x768 is fine, as long as your source is significantly lower resolution anyway.


And, Mark, thanks for taking the time to post that picture.


- Dave
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
I dont get where the 896 figure comes from... For 4:3 if desired you have the full panel 1365x1024 ??..


I agree that 1024x768 will be fine for most 4:3 sources (and my machine would not give desirable FPS at SXGA with high res textures for games, even if I do drool at the prospect) and more is not required, I just dont understand why you feel you cant have the full 4:3 panel for 4:3 source without lens... with lens you have 1024x1024 which will compress to 1024x768...


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

[email protected]
HTPC without using windows... GUI Front Ends for Home Theater
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Phred:


Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well (or maybe I'm just wrong!).


First of all, with a 4x3 screen, you're absolutely right - you'd get the 1365x1024. The 896 number is when you're using a 16x9 screen. Remember that the top of entire 4x3 area is level with the projector lens. If the top of your 16x9 screen is there also, you also might be able to achieve 1365x1024, if you can zoom in that much. I was describing what happens when the 16x9 screen is lower, which is where you'll need to have it when using the Panamorph. If the 16x9 area is centered vertically within the 4x3 area (which is where mine is, and I think is pretty common), you'll only be able to regain half of the vertical resolution lost when zooming in. When you work out the math, that comes to 896 pixels.


I don't know if that's any clearer, and it's really describing what my situation is, but I believe that the way I have my 16x9 screen mounted is pretty common.


- Dave
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Dave, I can't speak for anyone else, but my top of screen will always be at lens height. Even with the difference of what the Pannie will do to image height, I still will call it "lens at top of screen". From memory, I believe most users go with this configuration.


Chris
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Chris:


Maybe you're right. My screen is centered vertically inside the 4x3 image the projector produces. That's where the projector defaults to locate the 16x9 image, too. I thought that was what most people did - maybe not.


However, with the Panamorph, that may still be what you'll have to do. Remember that the Panamorph will lower the image .048 times the throw distance. For my throw distance and screen size, that's right about where my screen already is. Maybe you can tilt the Panamorph to raise the image to where the top of the lens is. If you can do that without affecting the Panamorph's compression ratio, or generating too much keystoning, etc, and if your throw is such that you can zoom 4x3 all the way in so that it fits in your 16x9 screen, that might be the way to go for you.


- Dave
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top