[noah katz]

Let me preface this by saying that I realize this idea will offend a lot of purists.


If you’re one of them I truly sympathize, but *please* refrain from expressing your horror and turning this into another unresolvable debate.


My aim is to use all of the pj’s pixels, all of its light, and all of my screen, all of the time (barring the few % of movies I watch that aren’t 16:9 or 2.35), as well as eliminating the need for masking.


Personally, I like 16:9 better than 2.35; the latter gives me the feeling of looking through a letterbox, and a diminished sense of scale.


2.05 gives equal image area for 16:9 and 2.35.


This can be done w/anamorphic compression to 2.05:1, and using a VP as follows:


1) For 16:9 material, the image would be stretched horizontally 7.5 %, and 3.75% of the image is cropped from both the top and bottom edges


2) For 2.35 material, the image is stretched vertically 7.5 %, and 3.75% of the image is cropped from both the left and right edges


I’ve done the compression/expansion on a circle, and I’d be hard pressed to tell that it’s not a circle.


I also think that rarely, if ever, would anything vital be lost by the cropping.


Can I interest anyone else in this scheme?


The aim would be to get Panamorph to look into what it would take to make a suitable lens, or hopefully modify existing ones (see also http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15407896 )

 

[ilsiu]

I think the Prismasonic lenses will do what you want. The website product description states that it has adjustable terminal stops, which I interpret to mean that you can adjust to custom stretch ratios.


I have to say that I'm not too interested in this scheme. I actually like the fact that different movies come in different aspect ratios, be that as annoying in integration issues as it may. Speaking from a prospective of a photography enthusiast, even small changes in distortion/cropping can have a profound impact on the visual impact of an image.

 

[Lonely Surfer]

"Personally, I like 16:9 better than 2.35; the latter gives me the feeling of looking through a letterbox, and a diminished sense of scale."


What you need to do is go CIH. Then you would love 2.35.

 

[noah katz]

"What you need to do is go CIH. Then you would love 2.35."


Nope, then I'd have to settle for a shorter/smaller 16:9 image than I'm enjoying now.


If this doesn't pan out I'll stick w/plan A, which is to use the zoom to fit the image to the 2.05 screen.


Which reminds me of another advantage to the scheme - you wouldn't need to fuss w/zoom.


In my case, I'm limited to pj's with power zoom/focus because mine is behind the back wall.

 

[tvted]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15408326


"What you need to do is go CIH. Then you would love 2.35."


Nope, then I'd have to settle for a shorter/smaller 16:9 image than I'm enjoying now.

Then you wouldn't be "going" CH which is by definition......

Is this because you are width restricted for your chosen height?


I'm tight for my chosen height and coupled to a short throw setup so I utilize a Panamorph to max out 2.35 source and push it aside for 1.78 and less.


Interesting thoughts, however.

ted

 

[noah katz]

"Then you wouldn't be "going" CH which is by definition...... "


Right, because I don't want to.


"Is this because you are width restricted for your chosen height?"


Yes (coincidentally 2.05 also maxes me out vertically), but I like my idea regardless.

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15407919


Let me preface this by saying that I realize this idea will offend a lot of purists.


If you're one of them I truly sympathize, but *please* refrain from expressing your horror and turning this into another unresolvable debate.


My aim is to use all of the pj's pixels, all of its light, and all of my screen, all of the time (barring the few % of movies I watch that aren't 16:9 or 2.35), as well as eliminating the need for masking.

First things first, a Prismasonic should do what you want. Just stretch it by 1.15x or whatever the factor happens to be.


Here's a potentially big issue with your plan, you'll need a rather nice outboard video processor to support this setup, one which can set the output DAR to 2.05:1 and do the appropriate cropping of the inputs. There are no source devices, and no projectors that can do this.

Quote:
Personally, I like 16:9 better than 2.35; the latter gives me the feeling of looking through a letterbox, and a diminished sense of scale.

Then your 2.35:1 image is not set up right. This is why most CIH'rs go CIH. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a properly configured CIH setup will produce a satisfying size for all ARs.

Quote:
Can I interest anyone else in this scheme?

Probably a few, but I'll pass. I'd go constant area before I'd go "constant crop"

 

[R Harkness]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/15409336



Then your 2.35:1 image is not set up right. This is why most CIH'rs go CIH. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a properly configured CIH setup will produce a satisfying size for all ARs.

That depends on who is supposed to be satisfied.


A number of us do not find CIH to be fully satisfactory at all ARs (hence some people go for CIA and I'm going for a variable image size set up with 4 way masking).


YMMV I think is more the rule of thumb.

 

[noah katz]

"Here's a potentially big issue with your plan, you'll need a rather nice outboard video processor to support this setup"


I think a moderately priced Lumagen Visioin HDP or DVDO Edge will do it.


AFAIK Prismasonics are all horizontal expansion.


That means I'd have to work at the longer end of the throw ratio range and lose lumens.


But wait a sec, since I'm cutting the amount of anamorphosis in half, that would just be a moderate effect.


I'll look into them.

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15409932


"Here's a potentially big issue with your plan, you'll need a rather nice outboard video processor to support this setup"


I think a moderately priced Lumagen Visioin HDP or DVDO Edge will do it.

I don't think the Edge will, at least not satisfactorily. I've looked a bit (to use in my CIH system) and I could not find a way to specify a custom DAR. You'd be able to use the Edge, but you'd have to custom zoom everything you watch, no presets.

Quote:
AFAIK Prismasonics are all horizontal expansion.


That means I'd have to work at the longer end of the throw ratio range and lose lumens.

Even with a compression lens, you want to work at as long a throw as possible.

 

[Free]

Interesting Noah, I will be following your progress closely. I too do not like how small 16:9 gets with a CIH set up, and prefer the way it looks on a 2.05 screen. Recently, I decided to stop zooming and shifting, and left the image zoomed to the edges, and just cropped of the top and bottom of the 16:9 image, and really like the way it looks on the 2.05 screen. If there was a way to recover some of that image I lost, and still fill the screen, as well as making 2.35 fill the screen, I would be very interested. l

 

[Bulldogger]



Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/15408326


"What you need to do is go CIH. Then you would love 2.35."


Nope, then I'd have to settle for a shorter/smaller 16:9 image than I'm enjoying now.

I agree. However, the two screen approach is the one I am going to take. A lot more hassle but at least you don't have to compromise your 16:9 image.

 

[noah katz]

"A lot more hassle but at least you don't have to compromise your 16:9 image."


I don't see why you wouldn't just get one screen that encompasses the largest dimensions of two separate ones, unless you hate masking.


Though now that I think about it, a 2nd screen could be cheaper.

 

[Free]

I have two screens, and it is a hassel. One of the issues, is, if you want a fixed screen, they are pretty heavy, and a pain for one person to take down and put up.


Alternatively, you could have one fixed, and one pull down. This is what I have, and it looks a bit cheezy. Also, the fixed screen is nicer. Finally, the pull down, doesn't pull down exactly in the same location as the fixed screen, so you end up doing some zoom, shift, and focus anyway, to get a perfect image.

 

[Lonely Surfer]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Free /forum/post/15454207


I have two screens, and it is a hassel. One of the issues, is, if you want a fixed screen, they are pretty heavy, and a pain for one person to take down and put up.


Alternatively, you could have one fixed, and one pull down. This is what I have, and it looks a bit cheezy. Also, the fixed screen is nicer. Finally, the pull down, doesn't pull down exactly in the same location as the fixed screen, so you end up doing some zoom, shift, and focus anyway, to get a perfect image.

I use two screens as well, and it takes me about thirty seconds to make the projector image changes. I come from the film world where I had a 35mm projector. We had a 20-foot screen and used different lenses and aperture plates to maintain CIH. We would mask the screen for the different ratios. Sure, it was a lot of work, but it was a once-every-few-weeks thing where the showmanship was worth it. The problem with CIH and home video is most people can't have a screen big enough to have it set up like it really should be.