AVS Forum banner

12221 - 12240 of 29479 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Scope bigger than everything else never made sense to me.

The panels in these projectors are 16:9, or more accurately in the NX line they are 17:9.

If you are using a scope screen, then you are not using the full panel of the projector. You are using a smaller piece of the panel. You are not using the all the pixels or all the light. It only makes sense to me that 16:9 or 17:9 would be bigger than scope, as you are actually using more of the projector's panel and accessing more of its light.

Of course if you use an anamorphic lens that's a whole different story. But an anamorphic lens is not something that these projectors come with by default. They are an extra addon.
Well film presentation is either important to you or it isn't. If it is then it should be apparent what formats are supposed to be larger and why ARs are expressed with height as the constant :)1).

So you feel black pixels in the screen border vs black pixels outside the border is better. Why exactly? You're not activating any more of the panel showing a scope film on a 16:9 screen. In fact it's likely you're using native and using less pixels than a person using zoom on a wider AR screen. Front projection frees you from the limitation of flat panels and a fixed AR.

An anamorphic lens is simply a different approach to the same solution with added costs and benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
Again it's really about your goals. If film and a theatrical experience is what you want, then scope makes a lot of sense (and should be the largest non-IMAX presentation). If you primarily watch TV and play video games, then I'd say 16:9 is a good fit. Based on the media out there I'm seeing more people look at 2.0:1 screens simple because they offer a great compromise between both.

I do want to repeat the point that 16:9 content should have the same impact on a scope screen. Mainly because I think there is an incorrect assumption that going with scope has to diminish narrower AR content. My 16:9 picture is just as big as it was when I had a 16:9 screen.

And some food for thought. Good Omens is 2.3.5:1. Star Trek Discovery Season 1 is 2.0:1 and Season 2 is 2.35:1. Star Trek: Picard looks to be 2.35:1 as well from the previews. Many Netflix originals are 2.0:1. So there are a lot of cases with premium TV that 16:9 isn't optimal for.
There is such a mix these days that I would never want a 2:35 screen. TV shows at 16:9, 2.0, etc... Then there are the AR switching movies and a small number of movies in 16:9 (some quite good). Doesn't make sense anymore. UNLESS, you have 2 screens like some do. That's the ultimate IMO. I get along fine with a 16:9 screen that I mask for 2.35 content. I definitely watch a lot more non 2.35 content these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Well film presentation is either important to you or it isn't. If it is then it should be apparent what formats are supposed to be larger and why ARs are expressed with height as the constant :)1).

So you feel black pixels in the screen border vs black pixels outside the border is better. Why exactly? You're not activating any more of the panel showing a scope film on a 16:9 screen. In fact it's likely you're using native and using less pixels than a person using zoom on a wider AR screen. Front projection frees you from the limitation of flat panels.

An anamorphic lens is simply a different approach to the same solution with added costs and benefit.
I mean I understand, but to me it seems that projectors inherently are constant image width. I mean, I can leave my lens at a fixed setting and I can display all the aspect ratios, by using more and more of the panel, vertically.

Varying the image width means I have to change the zoom level of the projector and that means I will have to realign and potentially re-focus the image every time as moving the lens, even with lens memories is never perfect. If I go with constant image width and vary the height, I never have to touch the lens. I just have to stick horizontal masking panels on my screen to shrink the AR.

You can say that scope is supposed to be bigger, but then that means it's also supposed to be lower quality (lower PPI) technically than something like an TV show since it's actually encoded with fewer pixels (1920x800). If your pixels and your PPI stay constant, then 16:9 is actually larger of course (1920x1080).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,794 Posts
The person asking the question is not vertically constrained and is considering masking as an option. Therefore, their scope image will be the same size horizontally regardless of which aspect ratio they choose, and your point is irrelevant.

Feel free to try and argue with me about this again for another 100 posts, but I won't partake.
Except that you are wrong. Everybody should be height constrained. Height should be your limiting factor, based on your viewing distance. Your viewing distance and your viewing height should be tied together, even if you ignore the 16:9 vs scope debate. You do not just go as tall as you can. A well designed room takes into account vertical viewing angle and seat location in the room. You do not want your seats at the back of the room due to audio performance reasons. Nor do you want your seating in the middle of the room for audio performance reasons. A well designed room will put the seating about 2/3rds back from viewing wall and base the height of the screen on the wanted vertical viewing angle. Then buy that height 16:9 screen. Now if you are designing the room from the ground up, then you could pick a screen height that you want and work out viewing distance and then room size, but sounds like an expensive way to do things. :)

Then if you do not want to compromise your scope image and it works in your room and you have the budget for it, buy a scope screen that is the same height. Zero compromise on your 16:9, you just get a larger scope image. Now the problem for most people is either the room is not wide enough or the budget not big enough to do this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
I bought a scope screen a couple years ago and I'm kicking myself for not doing it sooner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,794 Posts
Scope bigger than everything else never made sense to me.

The panels in these projectors are 16:9, or more accurately in the NX line they are 17:9.

If you are using a scope screen, then you are not using the full panel of the projector. You are using a smaller piece of the panel. You are not using the all the pixels or all the light. It only makes sense to me that 16:9 or 17:9 would be bigger than scope, as you are actually using more of the projector's panel and accessing more of its light.

Of course if you use an anamorphic lens that's a whole different story. But an anamorphic lens is not something that these projectors come with by default. They are an extra addon.
Not a very good argument. You are using the exact same number of pixels (panel size) on a scope screen as you use on a 16:9 screen. This applies to projecting scope or 16:9 image. Only time you use more pixels is if you have an A-lens in place for scope content.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
I mean I understand, but to me it seems that projectors inherently are constant image width. I mean, I can leave my lens at a fixed setting and I can display all the aspect ratios, by using more and more of the panel, vertically.

Varying the image width means I have to change the zoom level of the projector and that means I will have to realign and potentially re-focus the image every time as moving the lens, even with lens memories is never perfect. If I go with constant image width and vary the height, I never have to touch the lens. I just have to stick horizontal masking panels on my screen to shrink the AR.

You can say that scope is supposed to be bigger, but then that means it's also supposed to be lower quality (lower PPI) technically than something like an TV show since it's actually encoded with fewer pixels (1920x800). If your pixels and your PPI stay constant, then 16:9 is actually larger of course (1920x1080).
There is a reason lens memory/installation mode exist and has been steadily gaining traction over the years. They have and continue to work extremely well. I use the full 17:9 panel width for any AR wider than 1.85:1, so I'm using the same or more pixels.

You can "shrink the AR" if you like. I'm not arguing that no one should use any AR other than X. The post I replied to was in essence "put up big 16:9 screen and the rest doesn't matter". But it can depending on your goals. In fact it matters a lot if theatrical presentation is important to you. Spielberg shot E.T. in flat (1.85:1) and Close Encounters in scope (2.35:1) and he didn't choose the latter to have it seen smaller.

I couldn't see the pixels on my RS520 zoomed for scope and I certainly can't on the NX7. I couldn't care less what the PPI is as long as it isn't obtrusive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,794 Posts
I mean I understand, but to me it seems that projectors inherently are constant image width. I mean, I can leave my lens at a fixed setting and I can display all the aspect ratios, by using more and more of the panel, vertically.

Varying the image width means I have to change the zoom level of the projector and that means I will have to realign and potentially re-focus the image every time as moving the lens, even with lens memories is never perfect. If I go with constant image width and vary the height, I never have to touch the lens. I just have to stick horizontal masking panels on my screen to shrink the AR.

You can say that scope is supposed to be bigger, but then that means it's also supposed to be lower quality (lower PPI) technically than something like an TV show since it's actually encoded with fewer pixels (1920x800). If your pixels and your PPI stay constant, then 16:9 is actually larger of course (1920x1080).
If going with the PPI argument, then maybe all the kids viewing movies on 4k smart phones have it right. PPI sure is a lot higher with 8.3 million pixels on a tiny cell phone, vs any normal sized 16:9 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Not a very good argument. You are using the exact same number of pixels (panel size) on a scope screen as you use on a 16:9 screen. This applies to projecting scope or 16:9 image. Only time you use more pixels is if you have an A-lens in place for scope content.
You miss the point.

My point is that if scope is supposed to be bigger. Then why make projectors with a 16:9 panel area that is physically bigger than the panel's scope area?

If scope is supposed to be bigger, then the projector should be native 3840x1600 (then 16:9 content will be smaller) or it should come with an anamorphic lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Folks this is probaby asked and answered but I have a question about Anamorphic lens.

What is it? What does it do?


Currently on my NX7, I use the the full panel and then the Zoom function to use the entire panel, and get the max light output.


If I use an Anamorphic lens - will I be able to get even more light output? Can someone please tell me / point me to a resource on what is it and what does it do?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,794 Posts
You miss the point.

My point is that if scope is supposed to be bigger. Then why make projectors with a 16:9 panel area that is physically bigger than the panel's scope area?

If scope is supposed to be bigger, then the projector should be native 3840x1600 (then 16:9 content will be smaller) or it should come with an anamorphic lens.
How are you going to use that argument for 16:9 when all the native 4k projector panel sizes are 17:9? 16:9 is not using all of the panel either. The chips are 17:9 because the chip size works commercially with 17:9 DCI content, but works with the smaller size 16:9. As I said earlier, you are using the exact same panel size when projecting on a scope screen as you do when projecting onto a 16:9 screen, if using zoom method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
You miss the point.

My point is that if scope is supposed to be bigger. Then why make projectors with a 16:9 panel area that is physically bigger than the panel's scope area?

If scope is supposed to be bigger, then the projector should be native 3840x1600 (then 16:9 content will be smaller) or it should come with an anamorphic lens.
Projector panels follow economics of scale like anything else. If the HDTV body had decided on 2.0:1 then panels today would be close to that. Instead they split the difference between 4:3 and 2.35:1 and we got 16:9. So panels followed suite. We've got a 17:9 panel because cinemas went that way and it's cheaper to follow that established product line. Luckily with front projection we're not constrained to the panel AR.

Scope has had a variety of film stock, lenses and cameras used to capture it over the years. None of the underlying technology has anything to do with it's presentation relationship vs. other film ARs. You don't have follow the theatrical standards in your room, but they certainly exist. Theatrically scope is supposed to be shown the largest of conventional film formats, there is no "if". The only standard that is supposed to be presented larger is IMAX.

Again that doesn't mean that it fits your goals for your room. If you look at all the options and what you watch and end up with 16:9, then no worries. One size doesn't have to fit all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
How are you going to use that argument for 16:9 when all the native 4k projector panel sizes are 17:9? 16:9 is not using all of the panel either. The chips are 17:9 because the chip size works commercially with 17:9 DCI content, but works with the smaller size 16:9.
I said that they are 17:9 earlier, and that's irrelevant to my entire point anyways which you keep missing.

My only point is that a 2.40:1 scope movie uses the smallest amount of the panel, (and that panel could be 16:9 or 17:9, that doesn't matter).

If 2.40:1 is supposed to make a larger picture, then they shouldn't be designing projectors where 2.40:1 content occupies the smallest amount of the panel.

Again, these projectors are inherently constant image width simply based on how their panels are designed.

There's no point in arguing, it's simply a point of view based on how the projectors are physically built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
You miss the point.

My point is that if scope is supposed to be bigger. Then why make projectors with a 16:9 panel area that is physically bigger than the panel's scope area?

If scope is supposed to be bigger, then the projector should be native 3840x1600 (then 16:9 content will be smaller) or it should come with an anamorphic lens.
I think the reason that panels are manufactured 4k 16:9 is because the panels are used in many devices that predominately operate for UHD-4k content. Scope when it was defined was meant to be an enlarged version of standard 4:3. Later 16:9 was added for HD presentation. So basically the definition is calling for constant height with the width increasing from 4:3 => 16:9 => 2.35:1 => 2.4:1 .

But I understand what you are saying. It would be nice if panels were designed native 2.4 or 2.35:1 and I think you are starting to see that in wider format computer monitors, phone screens, and some TVs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,794 Posts
I said that they are 17:9 earlier, and that's irrelevant to my entire point anyways which you keep missing.

My only point is that a 2.40:1 scope movie uses the smallest amount of the panel, (and that panel could be 16:9 or 17:9, that doesn't matter).

If 2.40:1 is supposed to make a larger picture, then they shouldn't be designing projectors where 2.40:1 content occupies the smallest amount of the panel.

Again, these projectors are inherently constant image width simply based on how their panels are designed.

There's no point in arguing, it's simply a point of view based on how the projectors are physically built.
You are using the same amount of the panel for both. Scope on a scope screen and on a 16:9 screen uses the same amount of the projector panel. Same goes for 16:9 projected onto a scope or 16:9 screen. The size of the image is only limited to the throw range and the throw distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
I think the reason that panels are manufactured 4k 16:9 is because the panels are used in many devices that predominately operate for UHD-4k content. Scope when it was defined was meant to be an enlarged version of standard 4:3. Later 16:9 was added for HD presentation. So basically the definition is calling for constant height with the width increasing from 4:3 => 16:9 => 2.35:1 => 2.4:1 .

But I understand what you are saying. It would be nice if panels were designed native 2.4 or 2.35:1 and I think you are starting to see that in wider format computer monitors, phone screens, and some TVs.
Yeah I agree.

And there is just a compromise to have a screen either way.

There are compromises to having a 16:9 or 17:9 panel projector and a 2.40:1 screen, and there are also different compromises to having a 16:9 screen. It all depoends on the content you are displaying on it.

Personally I did something that most people would probably consider strange, but I built a 17:9 screen. My reasoning is that in my opinion it has the least compromise for me, and I am actually able to use the entire panel, every pixel, and every lumen. It also means that I get the largest image I could possibly get in every AR as I have my projector with its back up against a wall and with the lens zoomed out to its max.

I watch things in 2.40:1, 2.35:1, 2.0:1, 1.85:1, and 1.78:1 so this seemed like the best, because I wanted as big of an image as I could get in my room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Folks this is probaby asked and answered but I have a question about Anamorphic lens.

What is it? What does it do?


Currently on my NX7, I use the the full panel and then the Zoom function to use the entire panel, and get the max light output.


If I use an Anamorphic lens - will I be able to get even more light output? Can someone please tell me / point me to a resource on what is it and what does it do?

Thanks!
So there are 2 types of anamorphic lenses: Horizontal expansion (HE) and vertical compression (VC)

So we'll start with an HE lens. You have a 2.35:1 screen. You have your 16:9 image in the middle of it with a letterboxed scope movie showing. So you have the unused space on the sides as well as the letterboxed bars above and below the content floating in the middle. You now engage the anamorphic mode on the projector appropriate for an HE lens. What this does is take the scope portion in the middle of the 16:9 picture area and stretches it to fill the panel vertically. What you have at this point is a full 16:9 image (no letterbox bars at this point) that is distorted vertically. There is still unused bars on the side and any person in the frame looks like you severely stretched them out. You then slide the lens in place and the lens then stretches the distorted 16:9 image horizontally to fill the 2.35:1 screen.

A vertical compression lens you zoom the image to the width of the 2.35:1 screen. Engage the anamorphic mode to again which fills the panel, except now the image is spilling above and below the frame. Slide the vertical compression lens into place it again restores the geometry.

The image shows what each lens is doing. Top 3 are HE and the bottom 3 are VC. The bottom is a bit confusing because you start off filling the frame properly with the unused pixel above and below. And there is no easy way to quickly show that. The point is that both lens type use the full panel (and thus more light) while restoring the correct geometry to the picture.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,139 Posts
Folks this is probaby asked and answered but I have a question about Anamorphic lens.

What is it? What does it do?


Currently on my NX7, I use the the full panel and then the Zoom function to use the entire panel, and get the max light output.


If I use an Anamorphic lens - will I be able to get even more light output? Can someone please tell me / point me to a resource on what is it and what does it do?

Thanks!
This will explain it -

And yes - you will get more light output - on a scope screen. I get 38% more light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I ordered my RS2000 March 15th. I receive it Wednesday. Fingers crossed that there are no issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
I said that they are 17:9 earlier, and that's irrelevant to my entire point anyways which you keep missing.

My only point is that a 2.40:1 scope movie uses the smallest amount of the panel, (and that panel could be 16:9 or 17:9, that doesn't matter).

If 2.40:1 is supposed to make a larger picture, then they shouldn't be designing projectors where 2.40:1 content occupies the smallest amount of the panel.

Again, these projectors are inherently constant image width simply based on how their panels are designed.

There's no point in arguing, it's simply a point of view based on how the projectors are physically built.
I see what you mean I think, and I kind of agree, but the issue is all the devices standardize and default to 16:9 content as the source 'aspect resolution'.

So if they make the panels Natively 2.35/2.40, then the source resolution will be degraded for 16:9 because fitting a 1920x1080 image into 1920x800 is a loss of resolution. So they'd have to oversize the panels anyways to maintain the true 1080p resolution, in which case they'd then have to add true auto-masking in the lens in order to compensate having no extra black bar spillage for the oversized panel in ALL modes.

I would say your point was more valid before we moved to Native 4k, now it doesn't matter as much because the perceivable resolution difference is tiny between 16:9 and 2.35 with native 4k content. Although having to have lens memory or an anamorphic lens is inconvenient...

Scope is close to 1920x800 = 1,536,000 pixels
16:9 is 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

You get about 25% less pixels with 1920x800 and because you are also zooming the image, so you are technically watching it at a lower resolution, despite what some people believe (not wanting to go into that argument again). However, with 4k content the argument is moot for the most part.

What we really need is MORE 4k content and better remasters, and we need them to stop making fake upscaled remasters (so annoying).
 
12221 - 12240 of 29479 Posts
Top