AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I sent this to Shawn yesterday and since I take it he's really busy putting together the final touches on delivery of the Panny 1, I thought I post my queries here and see if any of you have anything to say that might help sort things out for me a bit.


Dear Shawn...


I am following your P2 developments and the pre-buy on that one very closely. I like the idea of realizing "all" the potential benefits out of scope movies, and not just some as it will already be possible with the P1 (resolution/brightness wise). This is great news. 4:3 panels is the way to go.


Could you please set me straight on a concern I have regarding how the P2 will work in conjunction with the P1? I currently have a masked up screen with a 16:9 frame for 16:9 movies, and an extra masking device which I just flip-up to give me a 2.35 frame for scope movies. I've set things up geometrically so that the top of both images is at the same position down about 12" from the ceiling, with the location of the bottom of the images varying of course according to masking selection used. Projector is a G-11 DILA ceiling mounted in an inverted position so that the lens is slightly below the roof line.


Question 1)

Will I be able to keep the same screen arrangement using both your P1 and P2? I really do not want to change my screen layout if I can.


Question 2)

My projector is in a hushbox. I presume I'll have to build another one to accomodate for the rail system and the two lenses, and that's no problem. However, could you please tell me how far out from the projector's own lens will the entire setup be protruding? And will the shorter throw distance mean that I have to rearrange my screen layout anyway?


Thanks Shawn and thanks guys for poppin' in.


Luca



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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
"Will I be able to keep the same screen arrangement using both your P1 and P2? I really do not want to change my screen layout if I can."


Luca, your image will be lower with the Pannie. About 8" for 15 ft throw distance, based on the ratio given by Cygnus. If you have the ability to move the image up using H Pos, I think you may be ok. If your G11 lens is less than 12" from the ceiling(assuming a level Pj), you can do this, right? Otherwise, you may have to tilt just a degree or two. It won't take much tilt to make an 8" change on the screen. I currently watch material on my G11 using about 10 degrees tilt(until I get my Pannie so I can do my final install). I know, I know, it's a lot, but that's the way it is. It isn't as bad as you might think.


"could you please tell me how far out from the projector's own lens will the entire setup be protruding? And will the shorter throw distance mean that I have to rearrange my screen layout anyway?"


I think he mentioned the exact size of the P1 on the thread where he provided the pictures.


I don't believe the lens will change the width of the image at all, but just in case, as long as you're not already fully zoomed out, you should be ok.


Chris




[This message has been edited by CCLAY (edited 06-08-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hey Chris,


That makes sense. I was mainly concerned that there would be a change in the horizontal direction that you couldn't obviate for by messing with either the positioning or zoom controls. Now, if the change is only in the vertical plane, and it's only a matter of tilting up/down, then I should be fine.


Have you pre-ordered the P2, Chris?


Cheers,


Luca


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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I know I should have already figured this out from the main threads, but wont I still be able to use the P1 with 2.35 material as long as I use the HTPC to stretch the image the appropriate amount first? It may not use all the pixels but wont it still make a useful contribution?


Sore Eyes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Yes and it will still have a 33% improvement in resolution and light. The P2 and additional processing would afford 33% more light and faux resolution on top of that.



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

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Luca,


No, I haven't ordered it yet, mostly because of Sore Eyes' question. I asked the very same thing on another thread, but got no answer. I think it's a question Shawn should really answer. I'll post it on the most recent update.


Chris
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Luca, Chris is right in that the PII image top will be lower than the PI image top. It's just the way nature wants things to happen when we ask for the best image quality. Also, neither Panamorph will change the image width/throw distance. Further, the PII is larger than the PI and will be between about 7 1/2" and 8" front to back.


Manny is also correct on the 2.35 issue. All anamorphic DVD movie versions are 33% compressed regardless of format, so the PI will exploit this to use that many more pixels.




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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Fantastic, Shawn! Thanks.


And what is that drop on the P2 in inches? Sorry if you answered this already and I missed it. As long as it won't be too far beyond the 8" drop the P1 causes, the projector should be fine in handling the tilt on that one as well, as Chris mentions.


Cheers,


Luca



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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Shawn, thanks for the quick replies. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Sorry to be the bearer Luca, but the P2 image drop will be almost double that of the P1.


This is going to take some real serious thinking and planning.


Lets try a ceiling mounted, inverted Pj with no tilt on anything for an example.


Assuming a we have both lenses, the center of G lens would almost *have* to be higher than the top of screen, and by more than just the amount changed by having the 2.35 lens in place.


Lets use 15 ft to screen. 15' x 12" = 180" x .048 = 8.6" with the P1. 180" x .081(2.35 lens ratio)= 14.5" with the P2.


So keeping your screen right where it's at, you'd have to raise your Pj by 14.5" and maybe another inch or two for some flexibility in V Pos.


Using the P2, your image would be TOS. Using the P1, the image would be 5.9" above your screen, something easily adjusted by V Pos or Dilard or even a *position* hotkey included in a 16:9 macro.


The problem with that though is that we might have to use all 3 of our SXGAs, 1 for 16:9, 1 for 2.35 and one for 4:3. When you switch sources, the image would shift with it.


That brings up 4:3. I watch a lot of 4:3 concert video. Our 4:3 image with lens slid away would put the image 14.58" higher than TOS. No room to V Pos there. You'd have to zoom in, losing image width, making side masking a potential problem. We might have to have 4 way masking. It would be a lot of zoom to bring down the image 14".


Does this make sense so far?


Chris

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Is this not a confusing way to measure ?

Should a better way be center line change's ?

By using either Panamorph (1:78 or 2:35) we are using the whole 1:33 panel and so shifting the image

becomes impossible. That is unless we cut off picture information or distort the image. (or unless we have

black bars due to wider ratios than the chosen lens 1:78 or 2:35)


The width of an image is consistent when using either a 2:35 or a 1:78 panamorph. Lets say we are using a

1:78 disc which perfectly fill's a 1:78 screen

(let say it is 100" wide x 56" height as an example).


Now if you use a 2:35 Panamorph on the same projector/screen etc. but we are now using a 2:35 disc the

image will still be the same 100" wide but it will now only be 43" height.

So this is a reduction in height of 13". You then halve this to get the drop down from the top of the actual

physical 56" height of the screen (this is also the top of the 1:33 native panel).


So the drop from a central 1:78 Panamorph filling the screen, to using a 2:35 Panamorph should be 6.5" (to

remain central to the 1:78 Panamorph).


Working backwards gives 6.5" / 0.081 = 80.24" throw distance (2:35 lens)


80.24" * 0.048 = 3.85" image drop (1:78 lens)


We can see that we have a center line problem of 3.85" difference between the two lenses in this situation.

Compensation via slight tilt on each lens may get that 3.85" difference without too much distortion.


I am probably way off here but that is how I worked it out.

Please do not flame me for being wrong.


See I goofed already. I forgot about those who want 1:33 without any panamorph in the way. This will be higher.

"Bum" back to the drawing board unless you give up resolution for 1:33 by using the 1:78 Panny and scaling to suit.


DavidW




[This message has been edited by David Wallis (edited 06-09-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Holy Friggin' Guacamole!...I think I've just struck gold!


Hmmm...Let's see...


A long ways back in the ice age, when an obscure object named Panamorph was beginning to develop a condition known as the dreaded sindrome of Godot, I decided that I was not gonna waste my time any longer and was gonna go ahead and finish my home theater anyway, irregardless of all its delays. Yes, I decided I was gonna built my hushbox no matter what, and I was not gonna wait one more painful minute to satisfy my impending urge to wrap construction of my theater up to a point where I would finally be in a position to be able to start enjoying movies in this thing for a change.


It was with a brilliant strike of sheer ingenuity (as in plain and bold luck of the draw http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ) that I went ahead and designed my screen layout next. I summoned the gods of rain and thunder and decided that I was gonna place the top of the picture at about one foot down from the ceiling line, figuring that I would have enough play for when the misterious flying, foreign object would eventually decide to make its show one day.


And so it went...And since things would most surely, eventually be thrown off by as little as some precisely calculated margin like 8" and as high as 14.5", numbers which were carefully calculated by me in my secret laboratory with formulas unknown to the rest of the mankind (as in shameful, unabashed luck http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ), I decided to go ahead and position my inverted G-11 so as to have its lens project from just right below the ceiling line, and proceed to enclose the projector in a drop ceiling/soffit, before finally covering it up with in its hushbox.


The ice age went by.....the industrial age eventually took its toll....and the technological age was not too far behind....


"Eureka," yelled out Archimedes! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


Chris, no raising projector here...no tilting needed...not even Dilard... I think I'll do another shaman dance and see what happens...Let's see...What will happen when I hit Vertical Position UP by 2.5" on the 2.35 image and Vertical Position DOWN by 4" on the 16:9 image? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


Can you tell that I am happy-happy? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Luca


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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0


[This message has been edited by propeller_beach (edited 06-09-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,106 Posts
Luca,


You sound delirious. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Are you sure you are right, though?


Both P1 and P2 will be using the full panel on our D-ILAs. What do you think positioning Up or Down is going to accomplish ? You will just end up cropping some of the image by running it off the D-ILA panel, won't you ?


Personally, I think my solution is going to be leaving the projector alone and moving my screen. Even so, since my screen is 16:9 and fixed to a frame rather than roll-up, I will have halo issues without additional masking when in 2.35 mode. Still, having my screen's frame mounted on vertical rails will allow me to raise it and lower it by about 12" dending on the AR of what I'm watching.


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

*********************

Kirk Ellis

G1000 D-ILA, HTPC, Panamorph (soon I hope),

Dish 6000 (HBOHD,SHOHD,CBS,NBC,ABC,WB,FOX,UPN, KCET -- does it get any better ?)


[This message has been edited by dreamer (edited 06-09-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Kirk,


Ok...too much valium for today perhaps http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif ...but I still think I might be right. Feel free to correct me, but my reassurance comes from just looking at things as they are currently with my setup, and then applying a twist in making room for the Panamorph in the picture.


As things stand now, I've been able to define both my widescreen and my scope images to be top-aligned at 12" below the ceiling line. I was able to get to this after a long session back and forth with Dilard image controls, coupled with the pj's own positioning controls. Everything comes up now so that either image pops up right where it should, with me just selecting the appropriate Dilard mod for each.


Enter the Pannies (panties? hmmm...) and everything stands as is except that everything is shifted down 8" or 14.5" according to image chosen. Couldn't I just reposition the images up to where they previously belonged, by a few clicks, and just fit them back as pegs into their appropriate geometrical slots?


Please tell me if I'm still hallucinating http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Luca


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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Crap!


Just when you think you've got a head start on something....... http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/frown.gif


You guys are right, the DILA 4:3 panel will be all used up, making an image shift pretty tough.


The choices are going to have to be made according to what you want to view, and in what size.


If you're going to watch 4:3 with the lens slid away, as I plan on doing, the screen will have to be at lens center.


16:9 or 2.35 will drop the image 8.5" or 14.5"(for my example)respectively, so either a manual/motorized tilt or a manual/motorized masking system will be needed.


Or heck, maybe I should just plan on a complete wall to wall to screen and masking system. Then I'll be safe. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Where's my Valium?


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Yep Chris...


I bet my wife that Manny is correct. Assuming there are no geometry issues, it then becomes a matter of whether the extra resolution/clarity is worth it or not..and that's a very subjective decision.


I too want to place an order for the scope Panamorph, but don't know how to visually quantify said jump so it'll make it worthwile considering a somewhat steep price to pay for it.


Hoping Shawn addresses this too,


Luca


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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0




[This message has been edited by propeller_beach (edited 06-09-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,106 Posts
Luca,


Sorry, but the only reason Dilard is any help in your current situation is that the image is not using the full 4:3 panel. Dilard allows you to move the image around on the 4:3 panel. To use the pannies, the image will already be wall-to-wall on that panel.


Think about this: The most Dilard can do for you is to nail all of your image sizes to the top edge of your screen. 4:3, 16:9, 2.3, so they all begin even with the top edge. The P1 will make the top edge of the image roughly 8" lower than you have your screen now. The P2 will have it even lower than that. This is where the very top-most light from the projector will hit the screen. If you set the projector height to be right for 4:3, then both P1 and P2 will bend the light downward so you will have the D-ILA halo (which is actually outside the pixels on the D-ILA panels) hitting in that 8" band at the top of your screen. If you align the projector so that the P1 16:9 image hits the top of your screen correctly, then wen you remove the P1, your 4:3 will begin above your screen -- with nothing you can do about it except to not use that top portion of the D-ILA panel.


So if you want to remove and replace the P1, and P2 depending on what you are watching, then you only have two choices. Tilt the projector or raise and lower the screen. Tilting produces keystoning. Raising and lowering the screen doesn't.


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

*********************

Kirk Ellis

G1000 D-ILA, HTPC, Panamorph (soon I hope),

Dish 6000 (HBOHD,SHOHD,CBS,NBC,ABC,WB,FOX,UPN, KCET -- does it get any better ?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Hi Guy’s

I too am waiting patiently for the Panamorph 1.I am setting up a G-15 that will have a throw of 26 feet to the 118â€x66†16x9 screen. The way I understand the Panny that will give me a drop of about 15 inches. I am mounting the G-15 to the ceiling in a Whisperflow hush box, which will put the lens center about 6 inches from the ceiling. The top of the viewing area on the screen will be mounted 14 inches from the ceiling. I am using a Rock for the scalar so aspect ratio won’t be a problem. Do you guy’s think this will work without having to tilt the projector very much?

Thanks

Earl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Earl,


You're image will be 7" below your TOS with that setup, so you'll have to tilt or lower the screen.


For fixed screen systems, using the P1, P2 and pure 4:3 viewing, the only thing I think will work is having the screen at top of lens center and mask accordingly.


26 ft throw for 118" wide? The minimum screen size you'll need at that distance will be about 10 ft wide.


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Kirk and Chris,


Please bear with me. I am not worried about 4:3 viewing, so I'm only referring to 16:9 or wider formats. In case of a widescreen image, yes, the P1 makes use of the DILA's full 1024 vert pixels, as opposed to using just 768 of them. But would this processing not happen *before* the image is shot onto the screen anyway, and in fact at the scaler stage and before the lens even gets a hold of the image? Would you then not see the 1365x1024 image as correctly squeezed back into a 16:9 frame, just as you see the 1365x768 image but with the advantage of those extra 1365x256 pixels? Is this not the purpose of these lenses, to unsqueeze back the stretched image that has come out of the scaler?


And a similar process applies to a scope image that has gone through the P2. Or am I still dead wrong?


Thanks,


Luca


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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top