AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a G11 and a Quadscan, and I have a Panamorph on

order. My screen is 16:9. I just bought Dilard, but

haven't had much time with it. The main reason I bought

Dilard is to scale the non-anamorphic material so I don't

have to use the bypass rail. There are two reasons I don't

want to use the bypass. First, I'd like to get the

brightness increase from the Panamorph even on

non-anamorphic material. Second, since the image will drop

10" with the lens in place, I'd have to tilt the projector

every time I slide the lens one way or the other (which will

really be a pain once I build a hushbox). Due to some

short-sighted cabling decisions an HTPC isn't an option for

me, and the Quadscan can't anamorphize non-anamorphic

material, as discussed in past threads. So that leaves me

with the internal scaler with Dilard mods.


There are two mods that are required for this: 4:3 and

letterbox. There was one thread I remember where Mark H

showed how the 4:3 mod would look. It leaves the vertical

dimension alone, and squeezes the image from the sides.

This will result in a 4:3 image in the middle of my 16:9

screen after passing through the Panamorph. The letterbox

mod would leave the horizontal dimension alone, and would

stretch the image in the vertical dimension. I don't

remember seeing an example of this, but I'm assuming that it

will be possible (correct me if I'm wrong!)


My first question is whether this kind of scaling is going

to degrade the picture much. The Quadscan is feeding the

projector its native resolution, but now we're messing with

it (only in one dimension though). Is there a difference

between vertical scaling artifacts and horizontal scaling

artifacts (i.e. is one worse than the other)?


My second question is probably a dumb one. Does it matter

which projector memories I use for the mods? I am assuming

that I can do something like:


SXGA1 -> 4:3 source material mod

SXGA2 -> letterbox source material mod

SXGA3 -> no mod (anamorphic source material)


What I'm really asking is whether all of the memories are

created equal, other than which physical input they are

associated with. I want to know that I am not somehow

restricted to using SXGA3, in which case I'd have to

actually modify the projector each time I changed source

formats. This wouldn't work because I normally don't have a

computer connected to the projector.


Thanks in advance for any answers to my questions. I'd be

especially interested if anyone else has a similar situation

and has come up with any other (better) solutions. The only

"better" solution I can think of would be if Focus

Enhancements would release firmware for the Quadscan with

support for anamorphic lenses.


- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Chris-

Welcome to the forum!


I haven't played with the mods much yet until I get the Pannamorph. I believe both of the mods you describe will work. Mark Hunter has a theory that the internal DILA scaler is actually pretty good for resizing (it's already proven poor for interpolation scaling. Also, I believe you can use any of the memory segment equally well. These are my best attempts to answer your questions until a better expert comes along. (This will also bump your post back to the top!)


ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Hi Chris,


I didn't want to see your thread fall through without a little more feedback.


We are discussing a similar thing on the DILA/Panamorph combination here: http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/006149.html


You have some questions that are just a bit more specific, adding the Quadscan into the mix, but the discussion on that thread is very similar.


To answer your specific questions:[*] 1) I think that the projector does a nice job with the resizing task. It's hard to tell when everything is vertically distorted, but I would like to compare a stretched/Panamorphed picture with the "normal" picture for comparison. An A/B would be the only way to say if there is any degradation in the image.

[*] 2) You can set up the mods the way that you described. However, they are not all created equal. There appear to be "families" of settings that are fairly interchangable, and can be modified and assigned any way you like. Unfortunately, you can't turn a MAC13 setting into a new SXGA3 setting, as far as I can tell (or do).


If the first 3 or 4 letters are the same, they are usually the same "family". Examples...


MAC13, MAC16, MAC19, MAC21

VGA1, VGA2

SVGA1, SVGA2

XGA1, XGA2

SXGA1, SXGA2, SXGA3

...etc...


The G20 and M40 have 10 additional "User Sources" that can be assigned any which way, which should help with their flexibility.


Anyway, all of these answers should be found quickly once the Panamorph arrives safely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks Ken and Mark. Cameron's thread hadn't really

taken off when I posted this one, and I thought there

were some different twists to my questions.


I'm very glad to hear that the internal scaler should

do a good job at this; it's something that I've been

concerned about since I ordered the Panamorph. I'm

also glad to hear that I'll be able to put the mods

on SXGA1 and SXGA2.


Thanks again for the info. Now all I need is that Panamorph!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
A simple answer please. (Start with yes, no, or maybe.)


If one has a DTC100, Panamorph, DILA (G1000) and DILARD does one need the Quadscan for HBO HD?


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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
Mark Hunter?


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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Maybe...


Sorry, Ken. I dunno. I don't have any consumer equipment at all. It's all just computers in my theater/office...7 of them in all.


All of the QuadScan, DTC100, Crystal Image questions go right over my head. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
Ken,

(too many g*d d**n Kens)


Can you provide detail.

(I just bought a G1000 off of eBay.)




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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
Hi Mark,

Could an SXGA 3 file be used to overwrite "any" of the other files? How about SXGA 1, if it wasn't being used? I'm still trying to come up with a solution to my misssing SXGA 3 inputs on my G1000. I must have a corrupted file because though I'm selected on SXGA 2 on Computer 2 and SXGA 3 doesn't even show up below it, when I first go into the menu section the line display at the top says "Computer 2" on the left and "SXGA 3" on the right.


Have heard mention of possibly a circuit board problem, but am wanting to know first if an SXGA 3 overwrite on some other correctly functioning input is a viable possibility?


Thanks for any thoughts.


Ron


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

Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Ken-

There might be too many of us - but only because it's an excellent name!


I don't have a DTC100, but I have everything else in your list. From my readings, the DTC100 puts out 1080i. The internal DILA scaler will scale it from there or you can use Dilard to set up a mod to force the scaling to achieve the screen position you want. So you don't need the Quadscan. Since, as Chris posted, the Quadscan only takes in a 480i, it won't perform the HD external scaling you would want anyway.


To make improvements to the DILA scaling, I use an HTPC which outputs a perfect pixel resolution to the DILA (1360x1024 or 768). Even for HD (using an HD card like AccessTV), this will bypass the DILA scaler altogether. I haven't seen anyone compare these scenarios (HD DILA scaling vs HTPC HD scaling) side by side, but my guess from forum postings I've seen is that you should get an excellent HD picture without the HTPC scaling. The HTPC scaling shows its best colors scaling the lower resolution DVD source.


Has anyone compared HTPC external scaling with DILA internal scaling for a HD (1080i) source?


ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
Thanks, Ken


I have an HTPC for DVDs but no OTA-HD, so I'm stuck with DirecTV or Dish.


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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
kelliot,

the first part of this does not answer your question about the DTC100, but will clear up issues with the quadscan. Because the quadscan is incapable of outputting to a 16:9 screen with a 1365x1024 resolution it is a bad mate for the D-ILA coupled with a Panamorph. In further explanation, the scaler will produce correct geometry if you feed it only anamorphic material and leave the AR controls of the quad scan alone (in standard). But when you feed the scaler anything formatted in a 4:3 frame, the images will all be short/compressed.


In order for a scaler to allow correct control of your image geometry/AR with an isco or panamorph, you must be able to pre-compensate for the expansion or compression of the optics. This is accomplished by being able to select 1365*1024 as the output resolution, but select 16:9 as the type of display device. In essence we have created a 16:9 display device by adding the lens. With the panamorph you will have to zoom out to fill the full width of the screen and with the isco you have to zoom in to fit the image on the height of the screen. In either case the scaler will allow you to map a 4:3 standard image pillarboxed in the middle of the 16:9 screen, zoom out the letterboxed material to fill the full frame of the 16:9 screen, or fill the full screen with the splendor of 16:9 enhanced disk. The only caveat is that you now use fewer pixels in 4:3 than you did without the lens. Yielding 1024*1024 pixels mapped in the middle of the screen. This is still superior to using scaler mods for a 16:9 screen, where the 4:3 box in the middle of the screen is only mapping 1024x768 pixels.

Sorry if the summary was boring, but hopefully it helps.


The DTC100 can only be scaled presently (5/2001) by the Vigatech. If you opt out of this , then you can get this combo to work by applying a modification to the 1080i HDTV source on the D-ILA. M. Foster did provide a scaler mod (it was free) that will allow you to output 1080i to a 16:9 display device, but leave the HDTV source resolution in 4:3 aspect ratio. The problems found with this setup initially is that their was synch information in the non-viewing area of the image. Unfortunately, the mod also provide correction for the overexpansion of the first generation isco lens that had a 1.44:1 expansion factor, which produced a 1.92:1 image. You may be able to utilize the tracking controls to make the adjustments necessary. But, it is likely a mod will pop up from somebody using dilard.


In conclusion, their should be minimal mods to the D-ILA necessary while using and anamorphic lens with a scaler that can concommitantly output in a 4:3 resolution (svga, xga, sxga)with a 16:9 screen setting. Small mods to the HDTV resolutions may be necessary to prevent synch info from presenting on the screen.


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

STOP HDCP on DVI

Don O




[This message has been edited by Don O'Brien (edited 05-14-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
The Vigatec is out of my price range.


The first pass will be try the projector(s) and Panamorph standalone with the DTC100.


I ultimately wanted more brightness. Maybe I'll just wait a little longer.


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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Don,


I'm not sure I understand your point when you say that the Quadscan is a "bad mate" for a D-ILA coupled with a Panamorph. If you say this because it will require Dilard modifications to make it work, then I can understand, although I don't think that is such a big deal. If you are implying that it won't work at all, I don't think this is true. And as for convenience of switching between source formats, I think that it will be a wash. Currently when I switch between formats, I change the Input Aspect Ratio on the Quadscan (4:3, 4:3LB, 16:9). I currently always leave the Output AR at 16:9B. When the Panamorph is in place, I will no longer touch the Quadscan; I will leave it set to an Input AR of 4:3 and an Output AR of 4:3. My DVD player will remain as it is now; set for a 16:9 display. In this configuration when I switch between source formats, I will be selecting between SXGA1 (modified), SXGA2 (modified), and SXGA3 (unmodified).


Also, I don't follow your discussion of zooming out and in for the different formats. I haven't zoomed my projector at all since I've had the Quadscan, and I don't expect to have to zoom it when I get the Panamorph. The width of the image will stay the same with the Panamorph. The only difference will be that the third of the panel that currently projects below my 16:9 screen will now be squeezed up into the 16:9 area.


If Mark is correct, and the internal scaler will do a good job with the required mods, then I think this will turn out pretty well. I wouldn't want others who are using the Quadscan to be discouraged against getting a Panamorph.


- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
Ron,


You either need to have your area source data files reinstalled which can only be done via JVC PSA software presently. If after this is performed you still do not have the SXGA3 available then you most likely have a problem with a board in the projector. A customer of mine had this problem recently and is currently waiting for a replacement board from Japan. His G11 was built with a G20 board installed in it which JVC service in NJ discovered. Replacement of the board will not change any of the projectors calibration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
Ghibliss,

Thank you for your input. I'm hoping not to have to drive it back down to JVC Professional....had it in once for a couple of weeks but had to pick up again prior to them getting a look. Mark Hunter is also seeing if any mods or procedures with Dilard can possibly help.


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

Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,731 Posts

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Satterlee:
Don,

1) I'm not sure I understand your point when you say that the Quadscan is a "bad mate" for a D-ILA coupled with a Panamorph. If you say this because it will require Dilard modifications to make it work, then I can understand, although I don't think that is such a big deal. If you are implying that it won't work at all, I don't think this is true. And as for convenience of switching between source formats, I think that it will be a wash. Currently when I switch between formats, I change the Input Aspect Ratio on the Quadscan (4:3, 4:3LB, 16:9). I currently always leave the Output AR at 16:9B. When the Panamorph is in place, I will no longer touch the Quadscan; I will leave it set to an Input AR of 4:3 and an Output AR of 4:3. My DVD player will remain as it is now; set for a 16:9 display. In this configuration when I switch between source formats, I will be selecting between SXGA1 (modified), SXGA2 (modified), and SXGA3 (unmodified).


2)Also, I don't follow your discussion of zooming out and in for the different formats. I haven't zoomed my projector at all since I've had the Quadscan, and I don't expect to have to zoom it when I get the Panamorph. The width of the image will stay the same with the Panamorph. The only difference will be that the third of the panel that currently projects below my 16:9 screen will now be squeezed up into the 16:9 area.


3)I wouldn't want others who are using the Quadscan to be discouraged against getting a Panamorph.


- Chris
Chris,

On a point by point basis:

1)The quadscan and crystal image are both using the genesis chip set. I have set the D-ILA up several times with both of these scalers and found little differece in image quality, but I do find that the usability of the quadscan through IR is clumsy (my opinion). The CI has discrete control of AR and memories, while being able to presqueeze (reduce the image by a width factor of 1.33) the image for a panamorph or isco lens. The quadscan is nice because you can justify the image to the top or bottom depending on your installation. I do not deny that you may be able to make this work with dilard, but you will need to have a computer hookup with RS232, macros, teach the ir code associated with those keystrokes to a learning remote to change source inputs. All possible, but alot of tweaking. Also, those will be some difficult mods for you to create-autosynch will probably be very difficult. Anamorphic disks will be a slam dunk as I noted above, but when you switch to 4:3 normal video you will have to create a mod that can allow you to map 1365x1024 incoming pixels to map to the center 1024x1024 pixels. For letterboxed material with full width of 1365 pixel, the pixel height will only appear at 768 pixels, filling only 75% of the height of the screen. You will have to modify the source resolution to scale up the 768 pixels to 1024 to fill the full screen height with the image (add 128 pixels above and below the active image area). This is alot of work compared to a scaler of identical or similiar price. The CI is plug and play with the panamorph the quadscan is not. Set the resolution to 1365x1024, screen aspect to 16:9. zoom image to D-ILA (one time setup) to fill the full width of the screen, apply panamorph and tilt projector or adjustment of panamorph lens to match to image to top of screen, use discrete AR control of CI to switch between 4:3, 4:3LB, 16:9 enhanced.

At a higher price point with superior scaling the ROCK and Vigatech will provide the same ability without scaler mods.

I believe this a fairly objective accouting of the differences between the two products with a panamorph or isco. This has been discussed from the existence of the isco1, and I do not believe much has change. If you got a great deal on the quadscan and are willing to do the work, more power to you.


2)I believe my post may have mislead you on the zooming. I was describing the disparate setups for the isco and panamorph optical anamorphic adapter. As you know, the panamorph requires you to fill the full width of the 16:9 screen while vertically overscanning the screen with the image, while the isco requires you be close enough to the screen to telephoto the full height of the image onto the screen and allow the isco2 lens to horizontally expand the image. I believe the optimal throw distance for the first generation adapter was about 1.92:1, to avoid vertical pincushioning.


3)I believe that my words were accurate, but I did fail to elaborate on the methods that would allow an individual to use the quadscan with the panamorph. I did mention Dilard, and Mark Hunter has created a tremendously powerful program with a smooth interface. Keep in mind though, that many D-ILA's are installed with scalers only (no HTPCs). If a lens was in use in that situation the quadscan would only produce correct geometry with anamorphic material. We are a small portion of the number of D-ILA projectors installed. Most are not hooked up to HTPCs, because the custom installers and home users want virtually bullet-proof usability.

It sounds like you are up to the task to make this work, and you alreay own the product. I am sure you will be pleased in the end, but for those users not locked in by current product choice, this is a long task of tasks to mate these two products for easy usability.


BTW,

I am a HTPC fan as well, but many are not.


PS Kenliles thanks for the kind work.


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

STOP HDCP on DVI

Don O


[This message has been edited by Don O'Brien (edited 05-16-2001).]
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top