Using an anamorphic lens?

[f300v10]

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.

Sure. I am using a Benq W5000, and the screen is a DIY 108x45.5. My seating distance is 10 ft, so I am right at the 1.1 screen width I was after. I studied projector options for 6 months, and finally decided the W5000 was the right mix of performance and cost for me. It's not perfect, but it does throw a very nice image, extremely sharp and detailed with good (if not RS-1level) blacks and accurate color. LCD was out for me due to the non sealed light path. My projector is mounted in a closet, and it is impossible for me to keep it dust free. I also considered the Sony VW-40 and 60. The 40 did not include anamorphic stretch, and the 60 was above my price range. The RS-1 would have been nice, but again did not support stretch and was a little above what I wanted to spend. In the end I got the W5000 and the UH380 for less than the cost of the RS-1. I look at the UH380 as a long term investment, and I was able to get it at a very nice price. Projector technology is constantly improving, so a PJ upgrade is probable in the next few years. Anamorphic lens design on the other hand will not change much, and there really is very little room for improvement above the UH380 anyway. So I will likely have the lens long after I have moved on from the W5000.

 

[jostenmeat]

One day I will have a curved AT weave, 2.35:1, 1:1 viewing, anamorphic, with three towers as my front sound stage.

*fingers crossed*

Btw, you need to scoot up another foot to get at 1:1, right? Im at about 42 degrees viewing angle. I didn't even set up the front row for that, rather for THX recommendations, but it kept getting pushed more forward and more forward. And the back row follows the leader.

 

[f300v10]

One day I will have a curved AT weave, 2.35:1, 1:1 viewing, anamorphic, with three towers as my front sound stage.

*fingers crossed*

Btw, you need to scoot up another foot to get at 1:1, right? Im at about 42 degrees viewing angle. I didn't even set up the front row for that, rather for THX recommendations, but it kept getting pushed more forward and more forward. And the back row follows the leader.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I am at 1.1:1 (120/108) which is what I wanted, not 1:1 which as you point out would be 1 foot closer.

 

[rolyasm]

Sorry, but this is all very confusing. So some of you are saying there is no native 2.35:1 content, or is that only for Blu-ray? I know a lot my DVD's are 2.35. If I had, say an RS1(which I don't) that had internal scaling, I would have a few options:
1)16:9 screen with no lens or anything extra. This setup would give me a a full screen with 16:9 movies, and black bars top and bottom with 2.35. Same with Blu-ray?Am I understanding that all Blu-Rays are 16:9?

2)2.35 screen with lens. This way, all my 2.35 DVD's would be full screen, and my 16:9 movies would have some of the picture cropped from the sides to fill the screen?

3)2.35 screen with sled and lens. When using the lens my screen would be filled up. However, when I remove the sled/lens, what happens to my 16:9 picture. Do I have to use the zoom to get the 16:9 to fill the screen?

4)16:9 screen with sled and lens. This way when you don't use the lens and have a full picture, and then you use the lens and it fills the screen with 2.35 as well?

I guess I am not understanding how by using a sled, you can always have a "full-screened" picture. Can you only have full screen on one or the other. Does anyone have any good pics on how the picture changes when using the sled/lens and with different format screens?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Sorry, but this is all very confusing. So some of you are saying there is no native 2.35:1 content, or is that only for Blu-ray? I know a lot my DVD's are 2.35.

No, your DVDs are 720x480 (or less), which is what all DVDs are. You don't actually have 'true' 2.35:1 material on the discs, and it is likely that you have anamorphic encodes which try to squeeze extra resolution onto the limited resolution which DVD offers.

The DVD player automatically handles it and shows you 2.35 on screen WITH black bars on top and under the image you see on screen.

If I had, say an RS1(which I don't) that had internal scaling, I would have a few options:
1)16:9 screen with no lens or anything extra. This setup would give me a a full screen with 16:9 movies, and black bars top and bottom with 2.35.

Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that all live HDTV content, such as HD sports, and the Superbowl, are 16:9 native.

Same with Blu-ray?Am I understanding that all Blu-Rays are 16:9?

Yes, but no. 2.35:1 films put on Blu-ray include black borders above and below the image. It appears similar to how DVDs work, but Blu-ray is encoded differently onto the disc.

2)2.35 screen with lens. This way, all my 2.35 DVD's would be full screen, and my 16:9 movies would have some of the picture cropped from the sides to fill the screen?

No, 16:9 is 1.78:1 which is narrower than 2.35:1. You would have to remove the anamorphic lens and 16:9 content would leave black bars on the left/right sides of the screen. If you leave the lens in place, the projector would cut off the top and bottom of the image, or if it had the right zoom mode, it would scale the image to appear 16:9 on screen with bars on the left/right sides of the image.

3)2.35 screen with sled and lens. When using the lens my screen would be filled up. However, when I remove the sled/lens, what happens to my 16:9 picture. Do I have to use the zoom to get the 16:9 to fill the screen?

When you remove the lens, you also must change the aspect ratio of the projector, and then you have a 16:9 image with black bars on the left/right sides of the image.

4)16:9 screen with sled and lens. This way when you don't use the lens and have a full picture, and then you use the lens and it fills the screen with 2.35 as well?

No, this would not be done under any circumstances I know of. You would never do this.

I guess I am not understanding how by using a sled, you can always have a "full-screened" picture. Can you only have full screen on one or the other.

You can't have a full screen and maintain proper aspect ratio ever with a single screen and different aspects. Simple as that. You need a screen with a masking system if you want the appearance of filling the screen always, but generally, you either have black bars to the left/right of the image, or above/below the image.

Does anyone have any good pics on how the picture changes when using the sled/lens and with different format screens?

Not really, the best I've put together talks more about how 2.35:1 is important to maintain when viewing, regardless of screen type.

http://www.avintegrated.com/aspect_ratios.html

 

[mainly]

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.

hey interesting points ....

im just getting in the market for a projector and really want to go with a cinemascope setup, as my main use for a projector will be for movies, but after reading all this im really torn on which setup to go with??

i saw the panasonic PT-AE3000 which has the zoom out , lens memory feature which emulates the anamorphic lens setup.

i saw a demo of an anamorphic lens setup in an audio store recently , an epson projector, and a 115 2.35:1 screen. but the lens he was selling was 5000 dollars!! by the time i add screen and projector id be looking at 12000 dollars!!

definatly more than i want to spend.


what do you think? id probably spend between 5-6000. (ive already got the sound setup covered, my speakers and amplifier are about $9000.

i found the comment interesting on how the anamorphic setup, for the price, was not a significant enough improvement over zooming out to be justified.

just cant figure out what to do???

 

[mperfct]

I've ran both setups. I think the lens setup added too much distortion/smearing around the periphery of the picture. That said, it was nice to have it setup to where I could go between 16x9 and 2.35 with the push of a button for the PJ to switch modes. I had a CavX lens MkII, which was a great lens, but to get what I wanted, you had to spend a lot more on the lens than that.

 

[jostenmeat]

Hey mperfct, this is a complete and unabashed hijack, but I just found this link from elsewhere. Seems the thing you've been waiting for is a little bit closer.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2009/07/28/Vivitek-H9080FD-LED-DLP-Projector/p1

 

[mperfct]

Hey mperfct, this is a complete and unabashed hijack, but I just found this link from elsewhere. Seems the thing you've been waiting for is a little bit closer.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2009/07/28/Vivitek-H9080FD-LED-DLP-Projector/p1

That thing is awesome. Too bad I need a new car otherwise I could just throw all that money at the Vivitek.

 

[AVRat]

Mainly, do you find vertical black columns less objectionable than horizontal black bars? If not what is the appeal for the 2.35 screen since you'll have the columns when viewing 16:9 material? I've thought about different ways to set things up for a CIH screen and had a few different ideas. The latest that I think would work well with the Panny is to use a custom sized 2.10 screen. You'd still have bars OR columns but I think it maximizes size and makes the best use of the screen area .

 

[BMXTRIX]

hey interesting points ....

im just getting in the market for a projector and really want to go with a cinemascope setup, as my main use for a projector will be for movies, but after reading all this im really torn on which setup to go with??

i saw the panasonic PT-AE3000 which has the zoom out , lens memory feature which emulates the anamorphic lens setup.

i saw a demo of an anamorphic lens setup in an audio store recently , an epson projector, and a 115 2.35:1 screen. but the lens he was selling was 5000 dollars!! by the time i add screen and projector id be looking at 12000 dollars!!

definatly more than i want to spend.


what do you think? id probably spend between 5-6000. (ive already got the sound setup covered, my speakers and amplifier are about $9000.

i found the comment interesting on how the anamorphic setup, for the price, was not a significant enough improvement over zooming out to be justified.

just cant figure out what to do???

The Panasonic makes it interesting because it does add that automatic ability to switch from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 with only a touch of a button. If you are interested in 2.35:1, and you can live with the smaller size of the 1.78:1 screen which you will end up with, then by all means, go that route. Personally, I would scale my size to ensure the 1.78:1 setup is accurate for my viewing distance and shoot for the screen to be .66 times my viewing distance in width - so a 12' viewing distance would give me a 8' wide 16:9 image (about 110" diagonal) or about a 136" diagonal 2.35:1 screen.

As I've said earlier - if you aren't going to drop $12K to do anamorphic with a great lens, but you REALLY want it and it works in your space (not always the case!) then the Panasonic and using zoom to adjust is a great alternative.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Hey mperfct, this is a complete and unabashed hijack, but I just found this link from elsewhere. Seems the thing you've been waiting for is a little bit closer.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2009/07/28/Vivitek-H9080FD-LED-DLP-Projector/p1

Didn't I post this a month ago...
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56450

I'm wondering how Vivitek is claiming first 1080p status a month after the fact? We're still a few years away from this being the standard, but it'll be awesome!

 

[mperfct]

Mainly, do you find vertical black columns less objectionable than horizontal black bars? If not what is the appeal for the 2.35 screen since you'll have the columns when viewing 16:9 material? I've thought about different ways to set things up for a CIH screen and had a few different ideas. The latest that I think would work well with the Panny is to use a custom sized 2.10 screen. You'd still have bars OR columns but I think it maximizes size and makes the best use of the screen area .

To answer your question, yes. I built my theater to be a theater and to watch cinematic material. It's functionality for watching sporting events and etc is all secondary.

 

[AVRat]

Personally, I would scale my size to ensure the 1.78:1 setup is accurate for my viewing distance and shoot for the screen to be .66 times my viewing distance in width - so a 12' viewing distance would give me a 8' wide 16:9 image (about 110" diagonal) or about a 136" diagonal 2.35:1 screen.

Totally agree. But I've found that with my vision I think I'd go with a slightly narrower screen hence the aspect ratio change. To each his own. Just some options to consider.

To answer your question, yes. I built my theater to be a theater and to watch cinematic material. It's functionality for watching sporting events and etc is all secondary.

Hey mperfect, my reply was to mainly's question but I totally concur with your usage.

 

[jostenmeat]

Mainly, do you find vertical black columns less objectionable than horizontal black bars? If not what is the appeal for the 2.35 screen since you'll have the columns when viewing 16:9 material? I've thought about different ways to set things up for a CIH screen and had a few different ideas. The latest that I think would work well with the Panny is to use a custom sized 2.10 screen. You'd still have bars OR columns but I think it maximizes size and makes the best use of the screen area .

I've usually maintained that a wider AR typically allows better center speaker placement, while still maximizing screen size. I suppose it really comes down to the dimensions/setup. The 2.10 is a very interesting idea. How did you come up with that particular number, if you don't mind me asking?

Didn't I post this a month ago...
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56450

I'm wondering how Vivitek is claiming first 1080p status a month after the fact? We're still a few years away from this being the standard, but it'll be awesome!

My bad. I honestly don't remember it, but I should have run a search first. I wouldn't even have posted anything about in all likelihood, but I saw mperfct posting.

Totally agree. But I've found that with my vision I think I'd go with a slightly narrower screen hence the aspect ratio change. To each his own. Just some options to consider.

Hey mperfect, my reply was to mainly's question but I totally concur with your usage.

As with mperfct, mine's all about the movies. There is no TV hooked up at all, nor video games. What I will say is that a lot the movies that I've seen in 16:9 really look great, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Galapagos, etc, and so at least in my case, getting it right for 2.40 doesn't make it too unforgivable with most 1.78 films I have. I think I have more 1.85 movies that look worse than I do with 1.78.

 

[AVRat]

I've usually maintained that a wider AR typically allows better center speaker placement, while still maximizing screen size. I suppose it really comes down to the dimensions/setup. The 2.10 is a very interesting idea. How did you come up with that particular number, if you don't mind me asking?

I agree if you go with an in-room center. My next theater, if it ever comes to fruition, will use an AT screen.

I figured my comfortable viewing height to be 0.353 x viewing distance.
I figured my comfortable viewing width to be 0.74 x viewing distance.
Then divided the width / height = 2.1

 

[mainly]

Mainly, do you find vertical black columns less objectionable than horizontal black bars? If not what is the appeal for the 2.35 screen since you'll have the columns when viewing 16:9 material? I've thought about different ways to set things up for a CIH screen and had a few different ideas. The latest that I think would work well with the Panny is to use a custom sized 2.10 screen. You'd still have bars OR columns but I think it maximizes size and makes the best use of the screen area .

if you were talking to me(i think a couple other guys already answered you)...

yes. i definatly want to prioritize my setup for movies.(cinemascope) i think that bars on the side will be less of a letdown watcing tv than vertical bars will be when watching movies. i totally cant understand why they havent made a 2.35:1 projector!!! i mean this is "HOME THEATRE" afterall. if all i were gonna watch was dallas reruns i would have just kept my 42" plasma.

i almost went with the 3000. but set my sights higher to a mitsubishi hc7000, and then finally settled on the JVC RS10. which i think is superior to both of them. and i think if im gonna be doing the zoom to fit in 2.35:1 screen i may as well get the best possible picture i can afford, and it should only take 10-20 seconds to make the zoom/focus adjustment on the remote anyway. and for a screen i think im gonna go with a carada criterion fixed 125" 2.35:1. i think that will be around 50 " vertical which should be big enough. ill be sitting about 12 - 13 feet away.


what do you guys think?

i think the carada is a safe bet. i only read 1 negative review on them. and a comparison against 2 other much more expensive screens(one of them being a stewart) said that the carada was holding its own and even looked brighter then one of them( i think it was a da lite)..

 

[mainly]

i dont use a center channel. my amp is just 2 channel stereo. buts its a badass amp so the imaging is so good that i find i dont miss surround sound

 

[AVRat]

Looks like a good setup. Some people would go bigger, but I think that would be a comfortable size for most people.

 

[jostenmeat]

i think the carada is a safe bet. i only read 1 negative review on them. and a comparison against 2 other much more expensive screens(one of them being a stewart) said that the carada was holding its own and even looked brighter then one of them( i think it was a da lite)..

The Carada IS a safe bet. But if brightness is your bag, then some people swear by the Dalite High Power, and I am one of them. However, the setup has to be right. The PJ needs to be close to the same angle as the viewers, and the viewers need to be in a reasonable viewing cone.

the HP thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=773065

5 screen shootout by one consumer
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1067231

Looks like a good setup. Some people would go bigger, but I think that would be a comfortable size for most people.

what he said. the best advice I ever give about this stuff, IMO, is to fire it at the blank wall for a whole week. Then you can rest assured. A story that I've told way too many times was about a guy who build custom cabinetry into the front wall, after "guessing" the display size he would prefer. After just a bit of time, he realized he desired much larger, and so ripped the cabinets out.