AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 86 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
If someone could post some background on this I would appreciate it. I seem to be missing a few pieces of the puzzle. Are we talking about "special" DVDs? How many movies are there that have this special encoding?

Confusaled.



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

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

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
Shawn,


I would be interested if it would work with my current coming Panamorph. I would work if there were a new sliding mounting bracket that goes both ways or something like that.


Cameron


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

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
To all:


You would need a projector with a 4:3 display to use this lens.


The increase in brightness ("punch") would be huge. I know, because I've used a similar type of lens on my DL450. Until you see this for yourself, you don't know how much of a difference it makes. It really improves depth.


The extra resolution (76%, just as Shawn stated) is obviously the other benefit.


Of course, this lens would be limited to use with 2.35:1 material.


I think it's a great idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Manny, the special DVD's are those that include enhanced anamorphic versions of the movie which are vertically stretched by 33%. You can show these on a 4:3 projector with the current Panamorph and get the correct 16:9 format with no scaler. If you use the 2.35:1 lens instead, you will have to use a scaler to stretch normal content by 76% or anamorphic by another 33%.


Cameron, that's the idea in mind. There would be a rail that goes both ways so that you have options of 4:3, 16:9 or 2.35 if you had both lenses.


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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Although I've been lurking here for over a year, here goes my first post...


I understand that 16:9 corresponds to 1.78:1. 'Most' movies have theatrical aspect ratios of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. When these movies are encoded to anamorphic DVDs, are the black bars that display in the 16:9 frame when you 'unsqueeze' actually encoded as well? I know that they are for non-anamorphic 4:3 'widescreen' movies, thus reducing the number of lines that actually contain picture information. What I have never been sure of is whether anamorphic DVDs above 1.78:1 actually use some of the 480 lines to letterbox the picture for a 16:9 frame.


From what Shawn wrote above, I suspect this is the case. It sounds like some form of external aspect ratio control is required. This would vertically 'stretch' a 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD frame to fill a 4:3 panel (essentially pushing the black bars, if they exist, off the top and bottom of the frame). Correct?


My main motivation for understanding this is that I plan on purchasing a 16:9 projector by year's end, and I would likely be interested in the regular Panamorph for 2.35:1 movies. If external AR control is required (as I am guessing), my pockets may not be deep enough...


Thanks.


- Dieter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
Shawn, a related question: can the Panamorph be used if you are using an IMX Processor as well, such as with the 10HT or the Sanyo PLV-60? I am specifically thinking about it's use with a 16:9 LCD projector for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Is there any problem that might arise with using essentially three lenses in that application? Would you lose brightness or resolution, or have some other problem? Will the Panamorph even fit over or in front of the IMX?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Smitty,


You can use an IMX processor in combination with the Panamorph. Note that the pixel structure is more difficult to see with the Panamorph since it squeezes the image. So, you may not need the IMX. If you want to keep the IMX though, the extra space it needs means you have to have a throw distance of at least about 1.85 times the image width.


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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by xp800:
From what Shawn wrote above, I suspect this is the case. It sounds like some form of external aspect ratio control is required. . . .


If external AR control is required (as I am guessing), my pockets may not be deep enough...
For people using an HTPC, isn't the YXY PC-software capable of providing this "external" aspect ratio control? If so, then "external" doesn't nececessarily mean an "external" box, just "external" as in "external" to the normal DVD player software. -- Herb

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
I don't get this. I can understand where the panamorph will help with Anamorphic dvd's, but a 2.35 panamorph will require processing to stretch the image.


Anamorphic dvd's have roughly 33% more resolution that standard. This increased resolution is actually encoded on the disk. This 2.35 to one idea doesn't increase the real resolution at all, it just magically creates more resolution using a processor. But since this extra resolution isn't on the disk, instead of getting a more detailed image, you just get the same image, but with more lines.


So in reality, you're NOT getting 76% more resolution, you're getting the exact SAME resolution exact spread over more lines. There's no additional image information that is reavealed by using a 2.35 lens. In fact, it could worsen quality if you have a lousy scaler.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Digitalhorde,


You are certainly correct that the image must be vertically stretched and that a poor scaler could result in a poor image. What is a certainty is that the image will be brighter, the feint top and bottom gray bars will be removed for 2:35 content, and the signal will be able to access significantly more pixels to create the image. As far as resolution, the basic question is whether a display pixel count greater than the source can be used to provide a better image. Again, this depends on the scaling technology used, but I think you'll find a lot of support in the affirmative in various threads of the forum.


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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
To display a 2.35:1 movie full field on a 4:3 projector requires some special scaling.


The Rock can do it. An HTPC can do it. But you are going to be hard pressed to find any other scalers that can do the operation. It is definitely a special setting.


I would also like to mention that there is a level of dimenishing returns here because none of the material out there is recorded any more anamorphic than 16:9. Eventually your horizontal resolution will be the limiting factor. This is the minor problem TI is having currently when trying to present 2.35:1 movies off of their 1.25:1 SXGA DMD. The vertical 1024 is fine but the horizontal 1280 could use some more pixels.


I would recommend to diehard 2.35:1 fans to use the normal panamorph with a 16:9 projector. (and yes you will more than likely still need a special signal processor).


It just makes more sense. However, in practice who knows if it would actually be worth it.


-Mr. Wigggles


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

The Mothership is now boarding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
the 2.35 anamorphic lens to me is the real stuff: 2.35movies ( anamorphic enhanced or not) will benefit much more than using an anamorphic only lens: many projectors today are capable of digital anamorphism to benefit from 16:9 enhanced dvds ( wheter they are 1.85 or 2.35 format). But none can do a digital squeeze to use the entire 4:3 or 5:4 panel capability.


So what to do ?

1. use a scaler like the Vigatec or a Cinematrix player or a Radeon HTPC, thus 3 of the most popular and affordable http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif systems: they will send the projector a pure 2.35 anamorphicaly enhanced image, that the projector will output distorted of course.

2. there intervenes the 2.35 anamorphic lens: it will put things back in order and physically allow all pixels to be used to display the image, meaning the entire luminosity will also be used: you end up seeing a 2.35 movie without black bars, anamorphically enhanced, with all pixels (like 1024x768 if the projector uses XGA panels) and all the brightness capacity! It should be stunning ! Like what 3DLPs in digital cinemas use ( if I am correct ).

To summarize the effect, it's like if your projector was all of a sudden using 2.35 anamorphic capable panels! and you end up seeing 1024 pixels horizontally and 768 pixels vertically instead of 1024x430 pixels ( no digital anamorphism function on the projector, no Panamorph lens). you gain also 78% of brightness ! and no more "grey-black bars" http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif



Take into account these scalers and HTPC or Cinematrix can anamorphose also non anamorphic 2.35 movies ( there are still such dvds and ALL 2.35:1 laserdiscs !!) so the market is quite important. there's about 40% 2.35 movies I think ( check IMDB ).


These are my 2 cents and how I understand it.


regards

David



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

for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.


[This message has been edited by David600 (edited 05-24-2001).]


[This message has been edited by David600 (edited 05-24-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
If your scaler supports leterbox to "anamorphic" upconversion, all you need to is apply that to your anamorphic 2.35:1 source and voila - the 2.35:1 movie fills the full height of your display. I believe the CI from AVScience supports this. This won't work for non-anamorphic material, unless you have an HTPC and your projector accepts it. Then all of this is academic. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Mr. Wiggles,


The Crystal Image Scaler will also fill the entire panel with a 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD. It seems to do it quite well I might add.


To all,


Even though this extra 33% resolution is not encoded on the disc, the perception should be more resolution(I beleive Larry Davis can back this up). Especially if you have a lower res projector that is now allowing more detail to be shown.


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
I think that this is a great idea.


There would be a little more pre-processing required than with the 16:9 Panamorph, but it seems that all of the great, truly theatrical movies are 2.35:1.


The preprocessing could be performed by either an HTPC, the Rock or pre-stretching in the projector itself (like D-ILA).


Having said that, I think that a price over $2K is getting quite steep. That is more than it costs for some of the entry-level projectors!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
Hi Jeff,

Yes, the combination of the extra resolution and much brighter image yields a picture with much greater depth. It is very impressive and not subtle. It's easy to create the illusion of higher resolution source material with anamorphic lenses and (relatively) low res projectors. It works - and it works great, particularly with our HTPC's, which have excellent scaling capabilities.


The one potential downside is the widening of verical pixel gap. With an ISCO scope lens, this was noticeable on my 800x600 machine. Cinemascope lenses stretch the horizontal image by 2x. The 2.35:1 Panamorph would be the equivalent of 1.76x. So that would exaggerate pixel gap less than cinemascope lenses. I've been told that pixel gap is not an issue with D-ILA's. My ISCO 1 lens stretched the image by 1.44x and I didn't notice an increse in pixel gap. So hopefully this wouldn't be an issue with a 235 Panny. Just trying to keep you informed. This is a great idea and someone is going to do it, eventually.
 
1 - 20 of 86 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top