[Fernando Schaeffer]

I've been reading many projector reviews and articles lately and the term "native 16:9 widescreen" has been mentioned a lot. Can anyone explain what this really means?


I have an Infocus LP-340V projetor. Is this unit native 16:9? If so, how do I take full advantage of this feature, that is, do I need to set my DVD player to play 16:9 or does it play it automatically depending on the movie, etc..)


Regards,

Fernando

 

[Jason Turk]

Digital projectors, whether they be LCD, DLP, or D-ila, have a panel that is a certain number of pixels wide by high. A 4:3 panel is just that. For example, 800x600 or SVGA, is a 4:3 panel. That is that for every 4 units wide, there are 3 units high. A native 16:9 panel works the same way, but there are more pixels in the width then a standard 4:3. The advantage is that when watching HDTV, for example, you are taking full advantage of the whole panel (with a 16:9 projector). With a 4:3 projector, you will only be using part of the panel to view widescreen material.


Hope that helps!


Thanks!


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

Jason Turk

AV Science, Inc.
http://www.avscience.com

716-454-1460 ext.204

[email protected]

 

[michael goldman]

Jason

Could you add to the above by explaining the advantage of an anamorphic lens to a 4:3 projector

Thanks in advance

michael


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

tuckerdog

 

[JustMike]

I'll take a crack at that.


Let's say that you have a projector with a 4:3 element. If you want to display widescreen content on this projector, then there are two approaches:


1) You can use a strip across the middle of the element (exactly like watching a program "letterboxed" on a TV).


2) Or, you can display using the entire panel, with the 16:9 picture "squeeed" horizontally to fit. Then, you put an anamorphic lens on the front of the projector, and this lens stretches the picture back out to 16:9.


The advantages of approach #2 are:


1) You are able to use the full light output of the projector. If you use the letterbox approach, then some of the light from the lamp is hitting a portion of the element that's just displaying "black" the whole time and not contributing to the picture at all.


2) You take advantage of the full resolution of the panel. If you display a 16x9 picture on a 1024x768 panel, then your picture has 1024 pixels of horizontal resolution, and 576 pixels of vertical resolution, with the remaining 192 pixels "wasted" in the letterbox.


If, on the other hand, you use the anamorphic technique, then you still have 1024 lines of horizontal resolution, but you have 768 lines of vertical resolution. Your pixels aren't square -- they're rectangular -- but the extra vertical resolution should make for a sharper picture.


Now, if you want to display 4:3 material on a 4:3 projector with an anamorphic lens, you have two choices:


1) Take the lens off and use the whole panel.


2) Leave the lens on and use a processor to "squeeze" the 4:3 picture horizontally, allowing the lens to stretch it back out.


I hope this was helpful. Please correct me if I got any of this screwed up.


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

Mike Kobb

(Formerly "ReplayMike", but no longer affiliated with the company; these opinions are mine alone.)

 

[srauly]

JustMike, one correction:


If you let an XGA projector squeeze an anamorphic image digitally, the result (as you say later in your reply) is 1024x576. At the beginning of your reply, you state that this is exactly like a letterbox DVD, but it isn't. A letterbox DVD is showing significantly less than the 480 lines. So, while using an anamorphic lens would be the best option, squeezing/scaling an image digitally will still provide a significantly better image than you'll get with a letterbox DVD.


Scott

 

[michael goldman]

Thank you both for a clear expaination. I've said it before but it bares[sic?] repeating. Yes people may get pissy on this forum, but the bottom line is that most people are extremely helpful and more than willing to help those less conversent in technical matters. The CRT forum may be less contentious, but I think some of that may simply be a reflection of a more staid technology, with less "issues" to deal with.

Thanks again


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

tuckerdog