[Alan Gouger]

As most of us know there are currently no scope lens on the market for us perfectionist who want to squeeze that last drop of performance out of our digital machines.

By placing the Isco 16x9 anamorphic lens in front of any (almost any) digital projector with 4x3 panels you end up with a 16x9 image using the projectors full panel resolution.


Now add to this the Panamorph in front of the Isco and you have a 235:1 aspect ratio.


You will also need YXY if using a HTPC or a scaler or projector that allows custom aspect ratio conversion to stretch a scope movie in the vertical plain to fill the full height of the 4x3 panel for this to work. You should no longer see the black bars at the top and bottom of the movie as these bars will be replaced with picture information.


Keep in mind by using ether the Isco or Panamorph separately

with a projector that has a native 16x9 panel you will also achieve a 235:1 aspect ratio.


I tried this using the Seleco 200DM. The downside is the you need to have the Seleco zoomed as small as it will go in order for the whole image to fit the Panamorph.


The Seleco has a long throw lens so you will end up with a small image unless you have the space to put the projector further back in your room to achieve a larger picture. That's what I will be doing tonight.


I must say I did not loose much light output using 2 lens as one would expect. I was also able to get 95% perfect focus.

It was a little tricky at first but once you fool with the combination for a while you learn what works and what does not.


The improvement in picture quality was very film like. Very smooth. Also very bright.


I only ended up with a 5 foot wide image but will have more time tonight to play around with projector placement to achieve a larger image.


Just wanted to let everyone know this combo does indeed work if your projector has a long throw ratio.


Ill post more after tonight.




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

Alan Gouger

Thanks for supporting AV Science.
www.avscience.com

 

[adaseng]

thanks Alan for letting us know. please come back to update your findings. I was thinking of doing the exact same thing with the isco and pano with my g20. let me know how it turns out please. thanks


seng

 

[Phil Olson]

So now that the pannys are shipping and there are a few in the field, has anyone tried this with a D-ILA?


Just curious,

Phil

 

[Art Lloyd]

I am having trouble deciding whether this is getting good or if it is just getting silly. I can't help but picture this endless series of lenses. I know: anamorphic spectacles. We could hand them out as people file into our HT's....... Art

 

[Jimakros]

I remember Alan using a Scneider lens with his SIM2 200.

Wasnt this working?I have a NECvt540,hooked up with Denon28oo+cinemtrix.I can get the sqeezed image for the scope lens to work.Unfortunately the prime lens is not proper for the setup to work and i get slightly cut angles and some other slight problems.But the image quality has that film look that is so elusive without the lens.My question is ,is it possible to remove the prime lens and change it with some lens that will work?

Most of DVDs i watch are2.35/1 anyway so to me there is little reason to bother with 1.33 stretch.The fact that it may not be perfect 2.35 /1 doesnt seem obvious.It looks fine to me.Maybe the stretch of the cinematrix is the proper it says so on the trigger you use.My scope lens is pretty good and the image is focused and fine colorwise. So everything would be fine if not for that d**n pime lens.

 

[MRJAZZZ]

CAN any one tell me if i will still be able to see a 2:35 anamorphic dvd, as now see it,when i am using the 16/9 mode on hitachi 500(formats the pic to fill a 16/9 screen).Will there be any change at all in terms of image being stretched,etc,ie:will i still see the same size black bars,above and below the image?Finally,if i under stant it correctly, with just the isco in front of the hitachi, will i be able to actually fill up a some what lager area( i have the hitachi all the way to the back wall and image is zoomed to its max,and i still cant quite fill up the 16/9 area)of the 16/9 screen.

 

[Muzzarelli]

So theoretically we could always leave our dila in 4:3 mode and fill a 2.35:1 screen regardless of scource, maintaining full resolution of the projector or am I missing something?

 

[Muzzarelli]

Ya know somehow it seems like not to long ago I was playing with leggos!

 

[Mark Rejhon]

I really like constant height varying width setups. There are two big reasons in my opinion to go for constant-height-varying-width setups with a 2.35:1 projection screen and an anamorphic lens:

• You can go with a bigger screen such as 12 feet wide, 14 feet wide, even 15 feet wide, with some of today's digital projectors, without needing a super-high-gain screen. GrayHawk would be a bit too dark for these screen sizes, especially 15 feet width, but your blacks will be darkened enough at larger screen sizes to accomodate a slightly higher gain screen like 1.3 gain like those used by many CRT users.
  
• It is good because high-resolution material is usually widescreen (DVD, HDTV) and low-resolution material is usually 4:3 (television). Naturally you want the low-resolution image to be smaller and the high-resolution image to be bigger. Thusly, no need to sit further back -- viewing distance 1.5x screen width or slightly less, rather than 2.0x screen width.

It's actually easier than many people think if you have the right scaler or HTPC. Although if you use only one anamorphic lens (and can't use full panel resolution) such as 16:9 lens on a 4:3 projector, you need a scaler that can also top-align the image (ie HTPC, ROCK+, TeraNex). No hassle of zooming is necessary for DVD material -- the scaler/HTPC can display the correct aspect ratio in a constant-height varying-width fashion. Although you can optimally zoom down to 16:9 in the middle of a 2.35:1 screen, if you wanted to, it's not absolutely necessary since the scaler can digitally do that.


Some interesting information about constant-height varying-width setups can be found at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&postid=889173


If you do a torus 2.5 gain screen, you could even go almost 20 feet wide with a G15/G20 DILA with a fresh Cermax lamp while still having sufficiently bright whites similiar to a local multiplex... About 18 wide feet for sure, maybe even actual 20 feet width. (I can say that 10-12 feet would be too blindingly bright for this scenario. Over a year ago, I witnessed Alan test a G15 with an ISCO anamorphic lens and an approx 10-feet-wide M2500, and it was indeed blindingly bright)

 

[MRJAZZZ]

THANKS for all your input,,,,here is what i plan to use,,,,HITACHI 5500, with isco 11, scaled from a vigatech dune,,,screen is 93" wide by 52.5" tall(should be 16/9),,,i use 2.8 gain da lite,beaded glass,i think(2.8 for sure,not sure of material),,i have used this gain screen for some time now, with both crt;s and dlp, and really like it,,,,i find you really never can have to much brightness(well there are some scenes, where you should be wearing your "RAYBANS")and i find this screen just gives the image a lot of "punch" or "jump factor",,,,so haveing said this, do you think i will be over driving, so to speak, the screen , and my room,( i sit back apprx 15 feet)with this set up(i have all above equipment now,except the ISCO 11),,,,,finally, what will the added pixel utilization give me,,,,will the pic,really be that much "cleaner",,,smoother?etc, with the addition of the ISCO 11?.

 

[MRJAZZZ]

I just read another post, on a differnent thread, the person said they were able to utilize the full pixel count of their jvc dila pj(g 11, i think)by telling the leeza,(key digital) scaler, to use a 4x3 screen, than set the out put for anaomorphic,,i am not sure if am qetting this right as to what the poster said, but in effect they were getting full pixel count of 1365 x 1024 with out using an anamorphi lens,,(their system is a 16/9 based system),,is this possible?

 

[anson]

That's not possible. Using the full 4x3 resolution of the D-ILA without a lens will get you just that, a 4x3 image. Something must be used to modify the output into 16x9 for viewing an anamorphic DVD, so an anamorphic lens must have been in use.