AVS Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In looking at the various posts I seem to think that my projector will do an image squeeze that will accommodate an anamorphic lense for a 2.35:1 image. I don't currently have an HD player so at present my DVD's are all standard, but played through a Sony upconversion player.

My screen has dimensions app. 5 X 12. With the zoom, I get a very nice image but would like to test an anamorphic adapter which I purchased some years ago to expand 16mm "scope" prints. This adapter has a 2X expansion factor.

I notice in some of the Isco literature that the recommended factor for Cinemascope is 1.77. I have done a quick test which suggests that 2.0 may be

too large. *However* I do not know if the projector setting is correct. The most compression I seem to be able to get is with the "V-fit" setting which obviously does not compress the image by 2.

Can somebody give me guidance on how to set this projector for use with an anamorphic lense to get a 2.35:1 image? Note that I am not necessarily saying *this* anamorphic lense, but, if not this, what expansion value should I purchase?

Thank you.

Frank

Note: I get the impression that the anamorphic approach is really only suggested for HD software. I do intend to go there eventually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
I think in order to use a "scope" 2x lens, you going to have to scale way beyond the standard 33% [image 1] to 50%[image 2]. Image 2 might not work properly either and is actually displayed on the 4 x 3 portion of the panel, not the full 16:9 like image 1.


In order for a 2x lens to work, the image would need to be compressed to less than 1.20:1 on the 1.33:1 panel or (even with the highly squeezed image above, the AR would 2.66:1, not 2.40:1


Mark

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That explains why Cinemascope adapters for video projectors are 1.77:1 not 2:1.

My old "Films Incorporated" adapter would have been a 0 cost answer. (This is an all glass lense, BTW.)

I am inclined to give up on the issue, but are there any scalers that would compress down to 1.20:1 or less?

Thanks very much for your help.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
I think so, but if going down this path, you might also be in need of a 4 x 3 projector for this part...or maybe simply use the 4 x 3 portion of the 16:9 panel :rolleys: I too have a 2x lens sitting on a shelf which seems to have quite a high standard of optics including "astigmatism correction", but without the required scaling, is not much use to me in CIH.


I did have fun with it taking digital photos through it and reformatting the images in paint shop...


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I would think even using the 4:3 part of the 16:9 panel fully would afford better results than viewing just the "center strip" of the 16:9.

I guess Panasonic and the other projector manus. didn't bank on a bunch of us having Cinemascope adapters sitting around. Mine was for 16mm use and doesn't have much glass, but what it has is adequate. On ebay, there are a bunch of 35mm adapters selling for peanuts, which would of course let more light through.

I like your creativity with your adapter. Would like to know a little more about the results you got using your anamorphic lense with your digital camera.

Thanks.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
When using the 16mm 2x lens with a camera, I had to zoom in to prevent "vignetting" and was able to optically squeeze the image by turning the lens 90 degrees. The problems I found was when electrically stretching the image on the PC, it became a little "jaggie" around the edges. I would say this was simply due to the pixels storing half the amount of information that they needed for the image in the digital domain.


The other thing was to capture in horizontal expand mode and vertically stretch the image which gave better results, but didn't allow me the "scope" photos I was chasing.


The 16mm lens I have is a bit of a light sponge as well, so it was sometime a challenge to light the shot properly...


The first photo is optically compressed and the second is digitally expanded...


Mark

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Hard to tell but the stretched image really looks quite good, even with the pixels "storing half the information" as you put it.

Just out of curiosity, why would you have bothered trying to stretch horizontally then expand vertically as you'd be right back to where you started, though with lower quality?

Have you seriously considered going the Panamorph/Isco route? With my Pana AX-100U I get an excellent image with a 5X12 beaded screen with just a conventional zoom.

This even when I am running conventional DVD through a Sony upconvert player. After

the dust settles in the format wars and I finally do get an HD player, and things look even

better, I really can't see spending another $1000 for the anamorphic (1.77:1) lense. (I noted that these aren't even glass lenses at that price.) With a beaded screen (60's vintage and these do any *extraordinary* job, believe me, despite what the critics say) with a gain of about 2.5, and an extremely bright projector, brightness would not be an issue, so only sharpness would be a factor. I'd have to have it proven to me that the cost would be justifiable.

Your thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by frank1492 /forum/post/0


Hard to tell but the stretched image really looks quite good, even with the pixels "storing half the information" as you put it.

Just out of curiosity, why would you have bothered trying to stretch horizontally then expand vertically as you'd be right back to where you started, though with lower quality?

Reversing the process (vertically stretching) was again just to what happens.

Quote:
Have you seriously considered going the Panamorph/Isco route?

I did a few years ago, but the price was a concern to me...

Quote:
With my Pana AX-100U I get an excellent image with a 5X12 beaded screen with just a conventional zoom.

This even when I am running conventional DVD through a Sony upconvert player. After

the dust settles in the format wars and I finally do get an HD player, and things look even

better, I really can't see spending another $1000 for the anamorphic (1.77:1) lense. (I noted that these aren't even glass lenses at that price.) With a beaded screen (60's vintage and these do any *extraordinary* job, believe me, despite what the critics say) with a gain of about 2.5, and an extremely bright projector, brightness would not be an issue, so only sharpness would be a factor. I'd have to have it proven to me that the cost would be justifiable.

Your thoughts?

The problem with HD formats is the lack of anamorphic enhancement unless you run SD modes, which is said to still give a better image than SD as it has a matrix of 960 x 540 instead of just 720 x 540 on SD DVD.


So if you can "scale" the image to fill the panel (at least vertically) you might do OK with the 2x lens...


Mark
 
1 - 8 of 8 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