[tonypeps]

I'm relatively new here, so I was unable to get in on the original Panamorph pre-buy, so I figured I'd wait until the lens was readily available and get it then. But, I am thinking about taking advantage of the Panny 2 pre buy and I need some opinions before sign up.


I use a DLS8/HTPC combo. The projector's SVGA resolution could definitely use the added resolution and brightness that either lens offers, the more the better, which is why the extra compression of the P2 is so tempting. Also, like many of you, I'm a big fan of Constant Height Variable Width when it comes to HT, which the P2 offers. Here's what I'm thinking:


For 2.35:1 material: use YXY aspect ratio controller to stretch the image into the full panel.


For 16:9 material: use YXY to stretch the picture vertically (if it is non anamorphic) and squish the picture horizontally so when the P2 compresses it, it is displayed in the proper aspect ratio.


For 4:3 material: I'd bypass the P2 and zoom into the screen.


I read in the first Panamorph 2 post that many of you are considering using both. But the cost of both lenses would be about equal to I paid for my projector so it would be very hard to justify (especially to the wife).


What do you guy's think? Would the loss of horizontal resolution on 16:9 material have too many negative impacts on the image? Am I missing something about this setup which would make my idea impossible? Any comments or suggestions would be welcome.


Thanks,

Tony

 

[JoeFloyd]

Both the Panamorph I and the Panamorph II are constant width variable height lens systems. The ISCO II lens is a constant height variable width. Each of these lenses have their benefits and short falls.


Identifying the important constraints for you particular installation is the key since the different lenses do lend themselves to different installations. In particular, the ISCO lens is well suited if you want to get the biggest possible image with the shortens throw. The Panamorph lenses increase your throw for the same image size, but most projectors have fairly decent zoom range. So the increased throw may or may not be important.


Also, the Panamorphs are designed to fit on a track that will allow them to slide out of the way for bypass mode. Depending on your screen, this may require the projector zoom setting to be changed.


There are some other details but for the most part the major difference is constant height or constant width. When it comes to which lens to pick, there is little doubt that the Panamorph I will be a very popular lens for year to come. This is based on the current expectations for the lens and the long term use of the lens with expected 16:9 home theater projectors. When 16:9 home theater projectors become common, then the Panamorph I can be used with these projectors to achieve 2.35 That makes this lens useful for the foreseeable future. The Panamorph II will be around for a long time also, but it's primary use will always be with 4:3 aspect ratio projectors. Of course, this aspect ratio is the most common today and will continue to be so for a number of years, so this lens will remain useful as long as 4:3 projectors are being produced.

 

[Dean McManis]

Tony,


This is a pretty close choice.


If you included watching 4:3 material I'd pick the 16:9 lens because you would lose too much horizontal resolution going from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1 retaining only about half the horizontal resolution.


But with 16:9 and 1.85:1 material it's not that great of a loss, and it's offset by getting to use the full 600 vertical pixels for 2.35:1 (16:9 enhanced) widescreen material as opposed to 450 with a 16:9 lens and 360 without an anamorphic lens.


-Dean.

 

[tonypeps]

Thanks for the replies.


Joe,


I've definitely thought about the future use of each lens and I came up with the same conclusions as you did. I figure that if I can get the P2 at the pre-buy price, I shouldn't have too many problems selling it for about what I paid if I decide to upgrade to a 16:9 projector.


Dean,


If my math is correct, then I'd be using 610 of the 800 horizontal pixels to create the 16:9 image.


The main reason I'm considering the P2 is because I think it is the best way to push the SVGA resolution of the projector to the largest possible screen size without causing pixelization. I'd like to use the largest screen possible with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Right now, I'm using a homemade screen with blackout material. The blackout fabric limits me to a height of 52" but the width can be as long as I want. So, this gives me a screen that is 122"x52" and a 16:9 picture that is 93"x52". I like to sit pretty close to the screen, around 8 to 10 feet, and throw distance isn't an issue. The main question is, given the seating distance and the added bonus of the P2, "Is 122 inches too much for 800 pixels?"


Any thoughts?


Tony

 

[Dean McManis]

Tony,


As far as the future value of the 2.35:1 lens goes, I agree that there should be a good market for it for some time because all business-class digital projectors are 4:3 format reflecting their 4:3 computer source material.


As far as having enough horizontal resolution to support a 122" wide screen with 800 pixels, or a 93" wide image with 610 pixels from a viewing distance of only 8-10 feet away, I don't know. Some people would enjoy the huge immersive size, and some would get visibly distracted by the pixel gap.


Anamorphic lenses reduce the picture height relative to the width, and that results in reducing, and sometimes eliminating the vertical pixel gap, but it only softens the horizontal pixel gap rather than eliminating it.


Maybe Larry or Alan will chime in here with their first hand experience with SVGA FPTVs and 2.35:1 lenses.


Their earlier comments were quite positive, but I'm not sure if they had such a large screen, or close viewing distance.


-Dean.

 

[Larry Davis]

You rang? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Ok, I'll chime in. I think Tony should bear in mind that the Panamorph 2 will increase vertical (vertical: length in the north-south axis) pixel gap by 77%. That is, compared to the horizontal (horizontal: length in the east-west axis) pixel gap. In reality, the horizontal pixel gap is being reduced. So, when you look at your SVGA image at 10' wide, the vertical pixel gap you have now, is exactly what you will have with the P2. I used a similar lens on my SVGA projector. It overstretched the image by ~23%. The result was a beautifully bright picture with a nearly 3D look. The downside was the occasional distraction of the vertical pixel gap, which was magnified by 2x. In the end, I decided to stick with my 1.44x ISCO I (which I have since sold, as it is incompatible with my current projector).


Here are a few things that may provide food for thought.


Cinemascope films contain a whopping ~56% more vertical resolution than 1.85:1 films. That is a humongous difference. Anamorphic cinemascope DVD's contain only ~75% of the vertical resolution of anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD's. There is a huge disparity here! The relationship of resolution to aspect ratio between film and DVD's is totally opposite. In a movie theater, 2.35:1 films have much higher resolution than 1.85:1 films. On DVD, 1.85:1 movies have 33% more vertical resolution. I would like to take the same approach to my HT that a theater does with it's films, but the resolution isn't there. So in my mind (and I admit this is very subjective), I don't want to drop resolution with my 1.85:1 DVD's, particularly if I'm using an SVGA projector. And that is exactly what you're going to do if you go for the P2 instead of the P1 or the combo of the two of them.


Don't get me wrong. I have placed my own pre-order for the P2. But a P2 as my exclusive anamorphic lens with my SVGA projector wouldn't be right, FOR ME. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif Other people can have different priorities. Having said all that, I could be wrong. It could be that you are much better off with the P2. I think the P1 is more versatile and I am hoping to use both in my HT.

 

[Larry Davis]

I'd like to make a clarification. If I were using a D-ILA with an HTPC to watch DVD's, a 2.35:1 screen and I could only buy one lens - the P2 would be the best choice. Why? I could resize the image (with YXY on the PC) to the full height of the display with 2.35:1 material and I could shrink the image horizontally (also with YXY) with 1.85:1. So this would provide me with a coinstant height, variable width setup, yes, just like movie theaters. This won't work with HDTV, unless you can manipulate the image with some software/scaler. Would the Vigatec do this? Then you would be in business. But for an SVGA unit, my previous remarks apply - TO ME. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif