[jeffleonard]

Thread title says it all.


I have my z2 on order, and unless someone gives me a really good reason no to, I'm ordering a Panamorph. The idea of a 10-11 foot wide 2.35 screen is worth the panamorph bucks to me.


There's a couple guys here that I've been stalking through the panamorph threads, but I've never heard a poster say they didn't like the panamorph. Does everyone love this thing?


Pros? Cons? Let me hear it!

 

[JohnKurtz]

Well, I'd like to know too...


Are you planning to use an HTPC as the source?


If not, I have never gotten a completely satisfying answer to whether the Z2 and Panamorph can stretch a 16:9 to 2.35.

 

[leadfoot]

I, too, woud like a final answer on how this is achieved. I mean, there's no option in my DVD player to tell it I've got a 2.35:1 aspect TV set...so aren't the black bars always part of the image. Even if you use an HTPC, don't you end up just scaling the image vertically to remove the black bars? I'm soh confus-ehd.

 

[jeffleonard]

yep. I'm going to run it through a dedicated HTPC.


Looks like I may be the guinea pig on this one...

 

[Trepidati0n]

You'll be fine if your HTPC can do the proper zooming (fill the screen w/o black bars). The Zoom feature on the Z2 is disabled if you use the DVI port in 720p or 1080i, so you have to do it in software.


-tReP

 

[jeffleonard]

There shouldn't be any problem using the pc for the scaling. I'm in good shape there.


If the Panamorph is everything I've been led to believe, I don't understand why everyone doing FP wouldn't do a constant height setup. It's an expensive option, but it sure seems worth it.


I'll sleep on it one more night, unless someone reports in with the z2/panamorph combo. Then I will do it today.


EDIT: One more question for panamorph owners: When you slide the panamorph out of the way for HD 16:9, do you have to re-aim your projector?

 

[Rick Guynn]

Quote:

If the Panamorph is everything I've been led to believe, I don't understand why everyone doing FP wouldn't do a constant height setup. It's an expensive option,

You're talking about a lens that costs half again as much as the projector. That's going to dissuade alot of people (including me) from going this route. I really like the concept, but can't spare the bucks... maybe in another year or two....


RG

 

[ShagnWagon]

It is an interesting experiment, but I dont see the advantage of doing this with a 16:9 native projector not to mention one with as high a resolution as the Z2. And the cost would discourage me as well. I would be much quicker to do it with a 4:3 native projector.


On another note, my Z2 should finally be here in about a week...

 

[rlundy]

There is a thread about a guy who did this with his panny 300-16:9 PJ for 2:35 movies. It can't be more than 3-4 pages down-the word WOW! is in the title.


Robert

 

[edwardr132]

Then he ended up trying to sell his Panny projector a few weeks later.......

 

[majozx3]

The advantage would be that you have a constant height set up , so movies shot in 2.35 is shown the widest on your screen 1.85 narrower and teh 1.33 the narrowest. This was the widescreen movies will remain truly widescreen asopposed to compresssed vertically.

In all fairness to 2.35, it should look th emost magnificent on any display IMO.


All that said, doing it with a Z2 might be very difficult if not impossible. I'm not sure that it has enough zoom range to swicth to 16:9 if needed.

If someone can pull this off I will do it too, but I just can't see it happening.

Please prove me wrong!

Zed

 

[jcebedo1]

a constant height setup is incredible.


mine is quasi constant height. it is 2.15:1 ratio. I zoom up or down depending on the aspect ratio. wider is better! i am not going back to 16:9 anymore after experiencing this.