Using an anamorphic lens?

[EJ1]

I have an Epson HC720 and I'm curious if I would be able to use a Prismasonic or another brand anamorphic lens with this projector and if so, would I need an external video processor/scaler? I'd love to go from a 1.78:1 screen to a 2.35:1 if I'm able to. Thanks in advance.

 

[BMXTRIX]

From the projector central website...
"Many projectors these days allow aspect ratio switching while using HD signals, which allows them to be used with an anamorphic lens without the assistance of an external scaler. The Cinema 720 lacks this feature. However, since people spending only $1299 for a projector are unlikely to invest an additional $2000 in an anamorphic lens, the lack of this feature is irrelevant."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/epson_cinema_720_home_theater_projector_review.htm

I'm a huge anti-2.35:1 ratio screen person. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you would want to distort the native 16:9 image coming into the projector to fill the panel, just to stretch it out to 2.35:1. You aren't gaining resolution, nor, due to optics, are you going to gain much in brightness.

Just zoom the projector out a bit if this is what you want to do! You will open up the aperature a bit which increases brightness, and you fill a 2.35:1 screen.

Or: Use some black masking to make your 1.78:1 screen 2.35:1.

IMO, 2.35:1 is a gimmick that custom installers are using to sell more products to consumers they don't need, for way to much money. The biggest issue is that to get really good 2.35:1 results, you will need to spend about $10,000 for solid quality and ease of use.

 

[deedubb]

From the projector central website...
"Many projectors these days allow aspect ratio switching while using HD signals, which allows them to be used with an anamorphic lens without the assistance of an external scaler. The Cinema 720 lacks this feature. However, since people spending only $1299 for a projector are unlikely to invest an additional $2000 in an anamorphic lens, the lack of this feature is irrelevant."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/epson_cinema_720_home_theater_projector_review.htm

I'm a huge anti-2.35:1 ratio screen person. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you would want to distort the native 16:9 image coming into the projector to fill the panel, just to stretch it out to 2.35:1. You aren't gaining resolution, nor, due to optics, are you going to gain much in brightness.

Just zoom the projector out a bit if this is what you want to do! You will open up the aperature a bit which increases brightness, and you fill a 2.35:1 screen.

Or: Use some black masking to make your 1.78:1 screen 2.35:1.

IMO, 2.35:1 is a gimmick that custom installers are using to sell more products to consumers they don't need, for way to much money. The biggest issue is that to get really good 2.35:1 results, you will need to spend about $10,000 for solid quality and ease of use.

It may be a gimmick, but when you see one, it just looks so damn cool! And yes, you do gain brightness, because with a 2.35 movie on a 16:9 screen, a significant amount of the projector is used to project black bars. This is no longer the case on a 2.35 screen.

 

[EJ1]

I'm a huge anti-2.35:1 ratio screen person. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you would want to distort the native 16:9 image coming into the projector to fill the panel, just to stretch it out to 2.35:1. You aren't gaining resolution, nor, due to optics, are you going to gain much in brightness.

Just zoom the projector out a bit if this is what you want to do! You will open up the aperature a bit which increases brightness, and you fill a 2.35:1 screen.

I wasn't planning on distorting a 16:9 image. 16:9 material would stay that way. I'd be going 2.35:1 to watch movies in that native resolution on a 2.35:1 screen. After some info gathering, the anamorphic lenses are too expensive and I'd need a DVDO (or like it) processor. Too much work and money for me.

 

[deedubb]

There are some inexpensive lenses.
http://www.hometheaterbrothers.com/23901.html

 

[BMXTRIX]

I wasn't planning on distorting a 16:9 image.

This means that you would manually have to remove the lens, and possibly refocus the projector every time you went from 2.35 material to 1.78 material.

I'd be going 2.35:1 to watch movies in that native resolution on a 2.35:1 screen.

If you have a 1.78 projector, then you must distort the incoming signal from the player to fill the 1.78 grid.

For example, if you are taking Blu-ray, then you take something that is 1.78:1 matted to 2.35:1, you then vertical stretch the image so it fills the full 16:9 frame of the projector - without any additional lenses, you have distored this vertically.

Now you add a lens in front of the projector to turn the square 16:9 pixel layout to rectangular pixels to force 2.35:1 aspect.

Have no doubt, you aren't just distorting the image, you are distorting it in two directions.

You aren't STARTING with native 2.35:1 material, and pushing it natively to a 2.35:1 projector, so you are introducing distortion.

 

[BMXTRIX]

\And yes, you do gain brightness, because with a 2.35 movie on a 16:9 screen, a significant amount of the projector is used to project black bars. This is no longer the case on a 2.35 screen.

The problem is that you may lose about 10% of that brightness due to the extra optics which are put in place due to internal lens reflections, and that doesn't include the loss in image quality for image distoration that is taking place.

In reality, if you zoom a projector out to fill a larger screen without the use of optics, you can gain as much as 45% brightness in the image by that action alone due to the aperature opening up.

Likewise, you have to understand that you don't want to change the brightness of the projector constantly, but should have a projector calibrated to the room and screen in use. A 16:9 screen/projector calibrated for best color and image quality cropped down to 2.35:1 is going to maintain that identical brightness for the room and will look best done this way.

There are projectors and lenses which can handle 2.35:1 phenomenally and can exceed the quality you can get with masking or zooming, but you will not find those setups for under around $20,000.

To often people hear about it, think it's great, but don't understand how much you have to spend unless you are going to give a ton of quality up.

Digital Projection, at CEDIA, was displaying their 2.35 setup only on projectors utilizing lenses that cost thousands of dollars, with motorized systems that costs thousands of dollars more, and projectors that cost well over 10 grand a pop.

Basically NOBODY else was displaying content that switched between 1.78 and 2.35 because it would have compromised their image quality to much.

 

[mperfct]

Have no doubt, you aren't just distorting the image, you are distorting it in two directions.

You aren't STARTING with native 2.35:1 material, and pushing it natively to a 2.35:1 projector, so you are introducing distortion.

Aren't you introducing some sort of "wanted" distortion/digital processing when you upscale or upconvert in any case? Unless all of your sources are 1:1 pixel mapped to your display, I don't think that your argument is reasonable. Now, if all you do is watch BR/HD-DVD discs on a 1080p display, then maybe you have a valid point (assuming like for like refresh rates).

 

[jostenmeat]

TBH, I love the idea of a 2.35:1 screen. The price to do it is prohibitive for me, no doubt.

Sorry for the hijack...

BMXTRIX, how important do you find outboard VP to be? I now forgo all standard def movies, no tv hooked up now. I can see, at times, how colors can be a tad bit more accurate, but for now I just use a calibration disc.

I am using an open-box RS-1 in a light controlled environment. Even if you did tell me that VP would be extremely beneficial, I still probably wouldn't spring for it, because it would probably cost just as much as the PJ. But, I am curious for your opinion. Any particular models you recommend for the price. It seems the nutty videophiles really like Lumagen, but there are a few that are using models that I am unfamiliar with.

Thanks.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I have no real statement on outboard processors. I really think that there are some excellent products on the market and it's best to get a DVD player with top shelf processing of DVD material, and then go with HDTV and Blu-ray for everything else. Spending thousands of dollars on products designed to make really cruddy images look like somewhat cruddy images is why I have a 32" LCD. If I am going to be burning through the lamp on my projector and watching on a 106" screen, I'm going to watch quality above all else - and that's what I recommend.

I really don't dwell on things beyond that... I just don't. It makes absolutely no sense to me to be spending so much money on inferior and outdated presentation modes.

For processing to 2.35... Well, then I guess I might go this route and care some more, but then it's about spending $20,000+ to get all the right stuff including the motorized sled for the lens and another several thousands of dollars for decent control and installation.

I like the idea of a 2.35:1 screen, but with a projector like the RS-1 you can get true 2.35:1 simply by zooming in to fill a 2.35:1 screen if you want, or look at a masking system such as that by Carada if you want. But, don't squeeze and stretch images to fill it artificially if you don't have to. I have seen both anamorphic and zoomed 2.35:1 and it just didn't look significantly better, or brighter, to use a lens to accomplish the feat.

You just go with a dark room, overshoot a 2.35:1 screen by a bit on the top and bottom, and VIOLA! you have 2.35:1 without spending one cent on any lenses or anything else.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Aren't you introducing some sort of "wanted" distortion/digital processing when you upscale or upconvert in any case?

Absolutely - but this will be 1:1 distortion - that is, you are taking a 16:9 source at 720p and converting it to a 16:9 source at 1080p. With 2.35:1 720p we would take a 2.35:1 source, change it to 1.78:1 and then also scale it to 1080p. Then take it through what may, or may not be, a good lens to stretch it back into 2.35:1. That's two extra scaling steps involved which leave me with little faith that they can do as good of a job as simply taking the native source and scaling it up...

But your next point is what I would think more on.

Unless all of your sources are 1:1 pixel mapped to your display, I don't think that your argument is reasonable.

How much is 1:1 mapped to the display?

Now, if all you do is watch BR/HD-DVD discs on a 1080p display, then maybe you have a valid point (assuming like for like refresh rates).

Yes, but a fair amount of HDTV is going to be 1080i, which scales cleanly to 1080p. And DVDs are well under all those resolutions, so what real benefit are they getting when put through even more processing?

I'm not saying 2.35:1 is bad, I'm saying that anamorphic lenses, to accomplish the goal of 2.35:1 is rarely proven to produce better results than simply zooming in with the projector to fill a 2.35:1 screen. Especially when you consider that we do have BD at 1080p now and so much HDTV is 1080i. The extra scaling truly is adding intentional distortion that we don't have to deal with anymore like we always used to with DVD and SDTV.

 

[sremick]

I'm a huge anti-2.35:1 ratio screen person. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you would want to distort the native 16:9 image coming into the projector to fill the panel, just to stretch it out to 2.35:1. You aren't gaining resolution, nor, due to optics, are you going to gain much in brightness.

Sorry to dig up this old thread, but this is something that interests me greatly and I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part.

I can't see how you're not gaining (vertical) resolution? Given that all widescreen projectors are 16:9, displaying a 2.35:1 "Cinemascope" image means a loss of 24% of potential vertical resolution. Example: A 1080-line projector hooked to a Blu-Ray playerwould have to shrink the Cinemascope image down to the point of only displaying 817 of those 1080 lines of resolution, in order to get it to fit in a 16:9 frame.

By stretching the image vertically, you fill all 1080 lines. Then with a anamorphic lens, you correct the aspect ratio, giving you a properly-sized 2.35:1 image with full 1080 lines of resolution.

However, I agree that setting this up is far too much of a hassle (unless you never watch anything but 2.35:1 material) and costs a fortune.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Sorry to dig up this old thread, but this is something that interests me greatly and I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part.

I can't see how you're not gaining (vertical) resolution? Given that all widescreen projectors are 16:9, displaying a 2.35:1 "Cinemascope" image means a loss of 24% of potential vertical resolution. Example: A 1080-line projector hooked to a Blu-Ray playerwould have to shrink the Cinemascope image down to the point of only displaying 817 of those 1080 lines of resolution, in order to get it to fit in a 16:9 frame.

But the Blu-ray Disc only has about 817 lines of resolution. You are getting proper, square pixels out of a 1080p disc on Blu-ray with 2.35:1 material. You don't get 1920x1080 that the projector is squeezing into 2.35:1, you get 2.35:1 with black borders above and below the image. When shown pixel for pixel on a 1080p display, you get 100% of the available resolution of that disc. If you want to get more resolution, you would need a different disc, or to artificially introduce the resoltuion, in an uneven pattern (1080 isn't a perfect multiple of 817), and that is a long way from 'gaining resolution'.

If Blu-ray started with 2.35:1 encodes filling 100% of the 1080p matrix with video, instead of black bars, then I would agree - we would be losing resolution when we forced it to 2.35:1, but since we start with 2.35:1 with black bars filling above and below the image to create 1.78:1 1080p native material, we can't gain more directly, it must be artificial.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a 2.35:1 Blu-ray disc for movies. They are all 1.78:1 1080p (or lower) at this time. 2.35:1 films are masked with black to make them feel like 2.35:1, but they are not really natively encoded with rectangular pixels to fill the 1080p content space available on Blu-ray.

Maybe someday this feature will become standard and part of the norm.

Heck, maybe someday we will see some higher end LCD/DLP projectors which are native 2.35:1 with a 2,400+ matrix for width, and 1080 for height or so, and then 1.78:1 1080p material will scale down perfectly, and 2.35:1 Blu-ray discs could come to market.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It may be a gimmick, but when you see one, it just looks so damn cool! And yes, you do gain brightness, because with a 2.35 movie on a 16:9 screen, a significant amount of the projector is used to project black bars. This is no longer the case on a 2.35 screen.

If the projector is capable of placing 16FL on screen, I don't see a need for a brighter picture as very few theaters even meet that standard. If the projector is not able to, perhaps a better projector is needed?

 

[f300v10]

IMO, 2.35:1 is a gimmick that custom installers are using to sell more products to consumers they don't need, for way to much money. The biggest issue is that to get really good 2.35:1 results, you will need to spend about $10,000 for solid quality and ease of use.

I think you are way over stating the cost of a quality anamorphic setup. Yes, if you pay retail for an ISCOIII and motorized sled you can spend $10000, but excellent quality can be had for far less. Many new projectors offer the scalling modes needed built in, so this can be done without an external video processor. As for the lens it is possible to find the Panamorph UH380 for under $1800, and the newer UH480 for under $2500. Both of these lenses offer excellent focus and near zero chromatic aberration. And you do end up with a brighter picture with one of these lenses than with the zoom method. The UH380 passes 92% of the light to the screen. Combine that with a 33% increase in light output from the projector and you have a net gain of 22% to the screen. As far as ease of use, you can build your own manual sled for under $100. How hard is it to walk up to the projector and slide the lens out of the light path? That is less effort than having to adjust the zoom and lens shift every time you swap from 2.35:1 to 16:9 via the zooming method. But if using a manual sled is just not acceptable, a motorized sled can be found for under $2500. That still puts the total cost at less than $5000. Me, I spent less than $1300 on my anamorphic setup, and the results are excellent.

 

[jostenmeat]

I think you are way over stating the cost of a quality anamorphic setup.

I think his opinion regarding the costs is the norm. You have succeeded in doing it for less, somehow, but most opinions would agree with BMX as far as exorbitant costs. I'd personally love to have 2.35:1. The MAIN BENEFIT BEING AUDIO, . being a better placement of center speaker. That improvement is not worth thousands of dollars to me at the moment.

Many new projectors offer the scalling modes needed built in, so this can be done without an external video processor.

Not my RS-1 that I got for $3k. Damned if Im going to pay more for CIH than for the PJ itself.

As for the lens it is possible to find the Panamorph UH380 for under $1800, and the newer UH480 for under $2500.

Damned if Im going to pay as much for the lens as the PJ itself.

How hard is it to walk up to the projector and slide the lens out of the light path? That is less effort than having to adjust the zoom and lens shift every time you swap from 2.35:1 to 16:9 via the zooming method. But if using a manual sled is just not acceptable, a motorized sled can be found for under $2500. That still puts the total cost at less than $5000. Me, I spent less than $1300 on my anamorphic setup, and the results are excellent.

Damned if I will pay as much for a motorized sled as the PJ itself. Do you have pics of DIY sleds? Im curious, thanks. That being said, damned if I did, and damned if I didn't. The RS-1 has manual zoom and shift, and that is my #2 complaint on this unit. Complaint #1 would be to have it a little quieter. However, neither complaint is substantial when considering the PQ for the money, IMO.

Carry on.

 

[f300v10]

I think his opinion regarding the costs is the norm.

It may be the norm, but it is not necessary to spend anywhere near that and get excellent results.

Not my RS-1 that I got for $3k. Damned if Im going to pay more for CIH than for the PJ itself.

That is a very good price for an RS-1, so well done on that. Why JVC did not include vertical stretch on that unit I don't know. It would have been in the running for me if it had.

Damned if Im going to pay as much for the lens as the PJ itself.

Well $1200 is not as 1/2 much as the PJ itself, and that is what I paid for my UH380.

Damned if I will pay as much for a motorized sled as the PJ itself. Do you have pics of DIY sleds? Im curious, thanks. That being said, damned if I did, and damned if I didn't. The RS-1 has manual zoom and shift, and that is my #2 complaint on this unit. Complaint #1 would be to have it a little quieter. However, neither complaint is substantial when considering the PQ for the money, IMO.

Carry on.

No way would I do a 2.35 setup if I had to deal with manual zoom and lens shift. Way to much hassle. Here is a link to a nice manual DIY lens sled:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1035479

This guy took it even further and made a motorized sled for $86:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1055315

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion on what is and is not worth it in there mind. I was just trying to inject a little balance into this thread. There are upsides to using a lens based solution for CIH theater, and it can be done for much less than $10000.

 

[jostenmeat]

I appreciate your post, cheers. While I do think BMX's opinion is the norm regarding costs, his opinion is definitely unique in that he finds anamorphic setups to be undesirable. Everyone else seems to want it.

Those DIYs are awesome. Wow. Wish I knew how to do that.

Thanks for your input. May I ask what PJ and screen you are using? Welcome to the forum, btw.

 

[mperfct]

Beware the prepositional phrase...

I'm shooting a 1080p image with my HD80 through Cavx lens onto a SeymourAV 110" wide 2.37 screen. Is it perfect? No. Is it enjoyable? Hell yes. I'm not a pixel counter/measurer/worshipper. I prefer to sit back and enjoy the experience. All my friends/family/concubines enjoy the cinematic experience that we have in our theater as well, if not more so.

Maybe after time I'll start looking for a better picture. My upgrade path would probably be projector then lens. The HD80 is no slouch, but to spend $4-5k on a futuristic laser PJ or something a bit quieter, more energy efficient, cooler, and sharper is more appealing than plunking 1.5k on a nice piece of stretch glass.

All told, I probably spent about $3k for my PJ/lens/screen. Certainly on the cheaper side, and if you stayed 720p, you could probably do it <2k. 2.35/anamorphic is very enjoyable, but I'm not spending your money either.


That's my two cents.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I think you are way over stating the cost of a quality anamorphic setup. Yes, if you pay retail for an ISCOIII and motorized sled you can spend $10000, but excellent quality can be had for far less. Many new projectors offer the scalling modes needed built in, so this can be done without an external video processor. As for the lens it is possible to find the Panamorph UH380 for under $1800, and the newer UH480 for under $2500. Both of these lenses offer excellent focus and near zero chromatic aberration. And you do end up with a brighter picture with one of these lenses than with the zoom method. The UH380 passes 92% of the light to the screen. Combine that with a 33% increase in light output from the projector and you have a net gain of 22% to the screen. As far as ease of use, you can build your own manual sled for under $100. How hard is it to walk up to the projector and slide the lens out of the light path? That is less effort than having to adjust the zoom and lens shift every time you swap from 2.35:1 to 16:9 via the zooming method. But if using a manual sled is just not acceptable, a motorized sled can be found for under $2500. That still puts the total cost at less than $5000. Me, I spent less than $1300 on my anamorphic setup, and the results are excellent.

I would avoid forums in which $5,000 is 'reasonable' for the average person to spend on a anamorphic lens setup. The reality is that for 90% of the people looking for front projection, the $2,000 outlay for a 1080p projector tends to be about twice (or more) what their budget is. I don't come to this conclusion without several years of seeing both AVS and Projector Central's forums and seeing tons of people who just don't have a budget, but do want the best in HD results.

Keep in mind, I'm not explicitly against 2.35:1, I just think that it is a very pricey addition with a minimum typical cost for high quality gear that will maintain the overall image quality tending to run the cost, or more, of the projector itself...

and this, in my opinion (nothing more) is unacceptable to most people who actually do some research.

On the other hand, to the custom install side of the world, this represents a 100% increase in the hardware which is sold to a client and is a phenomenal boom to selling custom items which are incredibly pricey, and are not likely to go down in cost anytime soon.

I don't care how anyone chooses to spend their money, and those who are wise enough to do their homework, put in the research, and know exactly what they are getting themselves into, can get some great deals.

But most people who say they want 2.35:1 really don't fall into that category... they just want 2.35:1 and they want it cheap, so they compromise the optics, and they don't put a sled in place, and they lose out on pixel for pixel 1080p HD programming to stretch an image and then pincusion it through a poorly designed lens.

The flip side is (I believe), those who do actually hire (and pay) a custom installer and put out the cash for a decent projector and lens, which gives them a great final product, but sure as heck cost them a extra bundle of cash - which they likely could afford. They get a great experience.

The downside is those who see it and then try to emulate it on the cheap, and end up with a product that takes away from the overall possible experience... Maybe they never know it, but I wouldn't ever feel good about not warning people that it is often the case that cheap optics can be cruddy optics.

A few select do it very well themselves for not a lot of money, and my hat is off to them.