AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As far as I know the only cinemascope / wide projector is the Barco Bragi 5K UHD Resolution (5,120 x 2,160).
It took me quite a bit of research even to find one cinemascope projector. Why manufacture do not seem to go after this format ? Barco is the only one that uses it and it is probably out of my price range ( Barco does not seem to publish any price anywhere and also they do not seem to be advertising their consumer line projectors anywhere ... I have no idea why, don't they want to sell it?) - Anyway I was also not able to find any test or comparison on YouTube like Barco vs JVC or Barco vs Sony.
Anybody knows of any projector coming to the market soon with a native 5,120 x 2,160 Resolution. It would be ideal for both 21:9 and 16:9 ... I think....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
I am 99.9% sure the Bragi is still not actually native 4k, its a pixel shifter chip like they use in the lower models. The hint is in the 120hz resolution being only 2560x1600.

It also onnly accept 3840x2160p, so you are instantly doing scaling if you want to use the full 'panel'.

This is a really weird projector.

Edit: Make that 100% Sure. :)

3048505
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
What would be the benefit of this resolution? There is no content available at this resolution that I know of.
3840x2160 fits exactly 1:1 in the 16:9 portion of the display so there is content.

For Scope you scale to full the whole display, other ratios scale to fill the height. This way you can do scope properly without compromising 16:9 resolution.

Personally I don't care much about 16:9 as there seems little content I watch that is 16:9 any more. Even some low budget TV productions are presenting at 2:1 or 2.2:1.

It's a better way to do scope natively rather than zooming or anamorphic lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paolo Nascimbeni

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I was going to answer but Andre Already explained. Anyway here is my reasoning:
Right now I own a Sony 295 which works great in 16x9 but in order to fill a Cinemascope screen 2.37:1 I would need a $7000 Panamorph lens. This creates the addition problem is that the lens has to be on the projector even when we use the 16x9 format and surely having the image go though the lens even when in 16x9 mode cannot improve the quality.
The advantage of using a projector with 5,120 x 2,160 (21x9) pixels is that we could watch all the "normal" 16x9 programming just using the 3840x2160 (16x9) portion of the panel ( in this case having black bars on the side ) - and we could use the entire pixel array when projecting 2.37:1 ( would work also for 2.4:1 ) - This should give a cleaner way to switch between 16x9 and 21x9 -
PS In order to watch Netflix content in 2:1 we could just use the 4320x2160 portion of the panel
 

·
Registered
JVC NX5 at 140", Denon X4200W (5.1.2) with Axiom Audio speakers + Bass Shakers
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
I was going to answer but Andre Already explained. Anyway here is my reasoning:
Right now I own a Sony 295 which works great in 16x9 but in order to fill a Cinemascope screen 2.37:1 I would need a $7000 Panamorph lens. This creates the addition problem is that the lens has to be on the projector even when we use the 16x9 format and surely having the image go though the lens even when in 16x9 mode cannot improve the quality.
The advantage of using a projector with 5,120 x 2,160 (21x9) pixels is that we could watch all the "normal" 16x9 programming just using the 3840x2160 (16x9) portion of the panel ( in this case having black bars on the side ) - and we could use the entire pixel array when projecting 2.37:1 ( would work also for 2.4:1 ) - This should give a cleaner way to switch between 16x9 and 21x9 -
PS In order to watch Netflix content in 2:1 we could just use the 4320x2160 portion of the panel
Isn’t that all solved by just supporting lens memory zoom?

I can fill a scope screen with my JVC and have a lens memory for 16:9 that doesn’t waste any pixels.

All aspects are always 1:1 pixel mapping and no need for an a-lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Isn’t that all solved by just supporting lens memory zoom?

I can fill a scope screen with my JVC and have a lens memory for 16:9 that doesn’t waste any pixels.

All aspects are always 1:1 pixel mapping and no need for an a-lens.
Yes all true, I do exactly that also with a JVC.

I'd still rather have a native cinemascope projector. :)

Barco seem to have been the only people manufacturing one, even real cinema projectors aren't scope they change lenses either to anamorphic or a different focal length (zoom equiv) or more often these days just project with black bars, no better than a big television :(

There was a mid range DLP a few years ago that had a nice feature for zoomed scope, if you configured the projector as "scope" it would scale any 16:9 input to fit in the constant height area in the middle of the chip. Not so great when the whole chip is 1080p but the concept would work much better now many projectors are >1080p. I had some discussions with a projector manufacturer about doing this with the XPR DLP chips, they can do 1:1 1080p in the middle but they didn't think a scope 1080p projector would be a thing they could market.

Thing is even if no-one produced a 21:9 DLP or LCOS or whatever chip it would still be a lot cheaper (edit: than an external lens) to make the projector lens inherently anamorphic and scale in software, which all the major manufacturers do anyway to support external anamorphic lenses. Even a drop in back element wouldn't be impossible (would have to be vertical compression) and a lot smaller so much cheaper than those external monsters.

Maybe we could commission something and glue it into the DCI filter holder in a JVC, I think the "shotgun" that operates that sounds like it was engineered for something more substantial than a tiny dichroic filter. ;) Maybe the alignment wasn't good enough so they decided to use it for a filter instead.

A friend commissioned a miniature anamorphic lens in low numbers for sports photography and it cost less than a Panamorph DCR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,914 Posts
Yes all true, I do exactly that also with a JVC.

I'd still rather have a native cinemascope projector. :)

Barco seem to have been the only people manufacturing one, even real cinema projectors aren't scope they change lenses either to anamorphic or a different focal length (zoom equiv) or more often these days just project with black bars, no better than a big television :(

There was a mid range DLP a few years ago that had a nice feature for zoomed scope, if you configured the projector as "scope" it would scale any 16:9 input to fit in the constant height area in the middle of the chip. Not so great when the whole chip is 1080p but the concept would work much better now many projectors are >1080p. I had some discussions with a projector manufacturer about doing this with the XPR DLP chips, they can do 1:1 1080p in the middle but they didn't think a scope 1080p projector would be a thing they could market.

Thing is even if no-one produced a 21:9 DLP or LCOS or whatever chip it would still be a lot cheaper (edit: than an external lens) to make the projector lens inherently anamorphic and scale in software, which all the major manufacturers do anyway to support external anamorphic lenses. Even a drop in back element wouldn't be impossible (would have to be vertical compression) and a lot smaller so much cheaper than those external monsters.

Maybe we could commission something and glue it into the DCI filter holder in a JVC, I think the "shotgun" that operates that sounds like it was engineered for something more substantial than a tiny dichroic filter. ;) Maybe the alignment wasn't good enough so they decided to use it for a filter instead.

A friend commissioned a miniature anamorphic lens in low numbers for sports photography and it cost less than a Panamorph DCR.
Key word there is miniature. Scale it up to the size needed and the cost greatly increases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Key word there is miniature. Scale it up to the size needed and the cost greatly increases.
Yes, hence the comment about installing it internally.

The lens Steve got made was small and fairly low quality but it was completely custom, he bought only six I think.

There are back of lens anamorphics available in the film industry and they are often under a thousand dollars due to the small size, I'm just looking at a few right now. The main complaint about rear over front lenses is usually about poorer bokeh quality which is irrelevant in a projector lens.

It's a completely mad idea but if I can find someone who has taken a JVC lens of the last few generations apart and taken pictures I'll be interested to know if I can do a heinous bodge and install one for a laugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,824 Posts
I have never understood the desire for this or that AR in a projector. As long as the unit brightness is correct and the resolution is non discernable from your seating distance just cut and mask out whatever part of it you wish to use. I wouldn’t care if my projector 1:1 as I know every AR fits inside that shape, but realistically speaking for me 16:9 is perfect as the largest image both in height and width is IMAX media and that is mostly 16:9 or 1.89:1 in some cases. If you want to view that at relative immersion and I do then a 16:9 projector is perfect and everything else is smaller and fits inside, including even Academy 1.37:1 and many feel it plays well taller than scope. CIH+IMAX would be what I call that form of presentation. If you want to zoom to get it or scale to get it that’s fine with me. Foot Lamberts are Foot Lamberts and resolution is resolution.

Put the money into 4way masking if that’s an issue for you.

I just think too many people are hung up on equipment AR and for me AR is a form of cinematic artistic expression.
Immersion is a individual preference and the reason when I go to a theater I pick out the row I want to sit in. Some people myself included feel that all the formats are interrelated in terms of immersion and that is proper presentation. That doesn’t mean on any given day with any given movie I might feel like sitting in a different row in a commercial theater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,779 Posts
3840x2160 fits exactly 1:1 in the 16:9 portion of the display so there is content.

For Scope you scale to full the whole display, other ratios scale to fill the height. This way you can do scope properly without compromising 16:9 resolution.

Personally I don't care much about 16:9 as there seems little content I watch that is 16:9 any more. Even some low budget TV productions are presenting at 2:1 or 2.2:1.

It's a better way to do scope natively rather than zooming or anamorphic lenses.
I find at least 45% of what I watch is 16:9. There are still plenty of movies coming out that are 16:9, so a native scope projector won't solve everyone's needs. I just use a Panamorph DCR lens for scope, that's easily removed for 16:9. Problem solved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
I have never understood the desire for this or that AR in a projector. As long as the unit brightness is correct and the resolution is non discernable from your seating distance just cut and mask out whatever part of it you wish to use. I wouldn’t care if my projector 1:1 as I know every AR fits inside that shape, but realistically speaking for me 16:9 is perfect as the largest image both in height and width is IMAX media and that is mostly 16:9 or 1.89:1 in some cases. If you want to view that at relative immersion and I do then a 16:9 projector is perfect and everything else is smaller and fits inside, including even Academy 1.37:1 and many feel it plays well taller than scope. CIH+IMAX would be what I call that form of presentation. If you want to zoom to get it or scale to get it that’s fine with me. Foot Lamberts are Foot Lamberts and resolution is resolution.

Put the money into 4way masking if that’s an issue for you.

I just think too many people are hung up on equipment AR and for me AR is a form of cinematic artistic expression.
Immersion is a individual preference and the reason when I go to a theater I pick out the row I want to sit in. Some people myself included feel that all the formats are interrelated in terms of immersion and that is proper presentation. That doesn’t mean on any given day with any given movie I might feel like sitting in a different row in a commercial theater.
Same here. I have 16:9 because IMAX is the biggest film format and I adjust everything to that. 2.35 looks fine on 16:9 screen. And flat panels are 16:9 too. The media is all 16:9 format even if it's 2.35. The resolution isn't formatted for 2.35. And it's nice for those expanded AR movies which open up for the IMAX filmed scenes, perfect on a 16:9 screen. Hmm...kind of feel like watching Dark Knight now or Interstellar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,824 Posts
Same here. I have 16:9 because IMAX is the biggest film format and I adjust everything to that. 2.35 looks fine on 16:9 screen. And flat panels are 16:9 too. The media is all 16:9 format even if it's 2.35. The resolution isn't formatted for 2.35. And it's nice for those expanded AR movies which open up for the IMAX filmed scenes, perfect on a 16:9 screen. Hmm...kind of feel like watching Dark Knight now or Interstellar.
There are a few of us that feel this way I guess.

Don’t forget those pesky subtitles and menus that like to get down in the black bars as well.

If you have the capabilities of projecting to an area why not have screen there if you need it.

There are some people who have wide big rooms and pick CIH because they are height limited and there are others that are just attracted to the non TV AR of a fixed scope screen even when not projecting.
Screens are not one type fit all that’s for sure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,594 Posts
The Bragi is a pixel shifting projector, I looked at one a couple weeks ago and showed the Barco rep that it is indeed a shifter and not native. I'd stick with going with an Alens or lens memory with a Sony/JVC over this. It will still cost less, you'd have native 4K, and you'd have considerably better dynamic range performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I did the whole wall screen paint thing at my last place, really great for music visualisation, screen savers etc. Really nice to be free to watch "TV" with a smaller 16:9 and get the extra brightness for lights on watching, I never felt happy with movies though.

I was at an office in Sweden earlier this year, he had three mini laser projectors running 247 playing mixed AR music videos (he was a Club DJ) on the walls, nice atmosphere for the industry he's in. I think I'd like to try this again but not for my main system, small laser projector running the whole time, when the laser fails get another.

We moved a couple of years ago and decided to do the CIH Scope screen thing instead, IMO a huge improvement for movies and I feel the CIH setup gives me the "right" size for TV stuff. The odd 16:9 Movie looks off so I sometimes run them at 2:1 and crop, even an Academy zoom and crop helps more than expected. I would say this is less than 10% of what we watch, it's actually a surprise when a widescreen frame appears on screen.

Those AR shifting movies just drive me nuts but they did with the screen paint wall too, less so but still nuts. These days I just crop them to scope, it's what they did for a lot of cinemas anyway so it seems legitimate.

A scope screen has some compromises with zooming, an anamorphic lens is probably a huge improvement but I don't have the budget for one. My father had one for our 8mm home cinema, one for his cine camera too so our home movies were in scope, maybe I was indoctrinated to scope at an early age. :)

It's never going to happen but I do feel that the mid to high end home cinema projectors should have a native scope option. Maybe in the NX9, VW790ES price bracket, built in anamorphic or scope resolution chip, I'd prefer scope resolution but either would be good.

I do think it's telling that there was never an anamorphic bluray standard, I was expecting that to be rectified when UHD bluray came out (there was something discussed apparently) but quite surprised when it wasn't there. I guess this tells us what the studios think about us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Used ISCO IIILs do pop up on eBay for quite affordable prices, worth keeping an eye out.
Always seem to be in the US though, haven't ever seen one in Europe never mind UK.

I think I need a wider throw than an ISCO IIIL can do, only the DCR will work in my room. need to keep saving...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
TBPH I would rather want the consumer electronics industry to look at the prospect of introducing 18:9 flat screens and front projectors.

IMHO, the Univisium aspect ratio of 2:1 would benefit 2:35:1 program content (less letterbox bars) much better than all the 16:9 viewing devices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Always seem to be in the US though, haven't ever seen one in Europe never mind UK.

I think I need a wider throw than an ISCO IIIL can do, only the DCR will work in my room. need to keep saving...
What's your target throw ratio? I can do 170" scope at 14'10" with an x790r and Isco IIIL.

Edit: maybe I misread you, by wider do you mean longer? I read as "wider screen"
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top