16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen

[Prof.]

The cheapest one that I know of would be the Lumagen Video processor..
You should be able to pick one up for less than $900.00..
http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=dvi_details

[Mark Techer]

blaser wrote:

OK and for projectors who do not have a scaler for HD, is there a cheep video processor to do do?

Your signature suggests that you have not yet bought the Epson, so may I suggest you look at another projector that does offer scaling for HD?

Mark

[Blaser]

Mark Techer wrote:

Your signature suggests that you have not yet bought the Epson, so may I suggest you look at another projector that does offer scaling for HD?

Mark

There is not projector with similar quality and black level at its price delivered here in Egypt. I really like it and I already paid for it, just waiting, should be here mid march.

B rgds
Ahmed Saleh

[Blaser]

Prof. wrote:

The cheapest one that I know of would be the Lumagen Video processor..
You should be able to pick one up for less than $900.00..
http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=dvi_details

That is a good price, but it does not accept 1080p I think

Is there any quality improvement from a video processor? Rather than just doing VS thing?

[Mark Techer]

blaser wrote:

Is there any quality improvement from a video processor? Rather than just doing VS thing?

If you spend money on them like the Realto (spelling ?), then yes...

Mark

[Prof.]

blaser wrote:

That is a good price, but it does not accept 1080p I think

To get 1080p you will have to go to the Vision HDP model, at about $1200.00..

You would save yourself a lot of extra expense if you went for a projector that has VS as Mark suggested..
The Epson is a good projector, but there are other excellent projectors that have VS..

[Mark Techer]

Interesting add for the Marantz

Vertical Stretch - Eliminate those unwanted black bars

I do notice there is no mention of the need for an anamorphic lens, but at least it represents a plug and play solution for CIH...

Mark

[SQCherokee]

wow...very informative thread...think I need to read this over a couple more times.

[Prof.]

If there is anything that you don't understand or not sure about...ask away..

[basementjack]

not entirely related to this thread, as I don't have an anamorphic lens, but I recently replaced my screen with a DIY 2.4:1 screen

for normal 16x9 source material (such as an xbox game) I have black bars on the left and right.
a nice bonus I hadn't thought about was that the mind/eyes don't notice the black bars on the left and right nearly as much as they do top and bottom.
I think this is because when the projector is zoomed to project a 16:9 image, there is no light spill onto the 2.4:1 screen on either side.

for wide screen movies in the 2.4:1 range, I zoom the projector lens and the movie fills the screen perfectly.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

Everyone who's seen it thinks it's fantastic!

[Prof.]

Well you've made a good start Jack, with a 2.4:1 screen..

More and more people are going this route now for their standard 16:9 projection..
It does make life a bit easier with just side masking for 16:9, or not bothering with it at all..
I've never found the need to mask my 2.4:1 screen..

However, you are missing out on full image quality, when you zoom to fill the screen..The pixels are being stretched horizontally and vertically, which degrades the image to some degree..

To give you an idea of how much better it would look, when you use an anamorphic lens..
Next time you have a 2.35:1 movie up on the screen, take a close look at how sharp and detailed it is, prior to zooming..
This is almost the same detail you will see, when a lens is used to expand the image..

If you go the DIY way or buy a lens kit assembly, it's not all that expensive to have a very reasonable anamorphic lens..

[basementjack]

Hey Prof, there's no doubt the anamorphic lens is the way to go
currently, I have a 720 projector, and I sit just beyond the point where I would see screen door when the image is 10 feet wide (thats how wide my screen is)

I've sat on the lens sidelines watching people with more disposable income than myself enjoy some really spectacular setups.

What are the DIY lenses costing these days?

[Prof.]

basementjack wrote:

Hey Prof, there's no doubt the anamorphic lens is the way to go
currently, I have a 720 projector, and I sit just beyond the point where I would see screen door when the image is 10 feet wide (thats how wide my screen is)

That's very nice wide screen and it would look absolutely brilliant with Anamorphic projection..

What are the DIY lenses costing these days?

OK..There are two ways of going DIY..

1. Buying prisms from someone like this http://www.crystalfactory.com/CWD46-CWD57-CWD68.asp
The 5"x7" is the size you need, and if you have just rudimentary carpentry skills, it's very easy to make a case for them..
Mark and myself can give you all the info. you need to do this..

2. You can buy a lens kit from HT Brothers or CAVX..I have the CAVX lens..http://cavx.blogspot.com/2007/04/4-prism-lens.html
Just scroll down for pricing..

As you can see, a considerable saving on buying commercial lenses..

[AngelEyes]

This is a really useful thread, thanks

I don't even have a projector but when I do I would like to do it 'properly' and go for a CIH setup. This thread has helped me understand what actually happens and the benefits.

Can someone tell me the downsides to this approach?

Assuming I have a 2.35:1 screen, do I need to remove the lens when using some sources or can you just put up with black bars at the sides? I expect most of my movies will be HD and at least 2.35:1 but some DVDs will be 16:9, the only 4:3 I have will be something like Star Trek on HD-DVD.

What I would prefer is a setup I don't have to keep fiddling with each time I want to play a disc; I use an HTPC as a source so have to jump through enough hoops already

Thanks,

Adam

[Prof.]

AngelEyes wrote:

Assuming I have a 2.35:1 screen, do I need to remove the lens when using some sources or can you just put up with black bars at the sides? I expect most of my movies will be HD and at least 2.35:1 but some DVDs will be 16:9, the only 4:3 I have will be something like Star Trek on HD-DVD.

Adam,

I leave my lens place for 1.78 :1,1.85:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios..
I don't bother about any black bars at the sides.. and with my current screen the blacks are so good that it almost looks like it's masked anyway..
Some people do however prefer to mask the sides when showing 1.78:1 movies..

The other thing that helps to minimize adjusting procedures is that some 1.78:1 movis can be shown in 2.35:1 AR..I do this with a number of my movies..

[takumi]

what is the best projector for Anamorphic viewing?under $5k

[Prof.]

Hi takumi and welcome..

The best projector for Anamorphic projection will depend on several things..
Firstly, we need to know whether you prefer DLP or LCD..
What your projection distance and throw ratio will be..and whether you need a projector with vertical stretch, or whether you have a scaler or DVD player that will do the vertical stretch..
I presume your looking at getting a 1080p projector for that budget..

[tenzip]

And does that budget include the anamorphic lens?

[takumi]

thanks, now i will search for the difference between dlp and lcd projector. the only info i can give u is that i have 16'x23' media room with french doors in the back, its also pre wired for 5 speakers.

[takumi]

scaler? vertical stretch? i have a lot to learn.

[Prof.]

takumi wrote:

scaler? vertical stretch? i have a lot to learn.

OK..so it looks like you're starting from scratch..
This makes it a simple choice if you follow what a lot of people have done, who have an anamorphic system..

DLP projectors have a number of makes that provide vertical stretch..and is generally the preferred type of projection system..

Vertical stretch is where the projected image is electronically stretched vertically by the projector, which makes people look tall and skinny..and then the lens expands the image horizontally to restore the correct geometry..
Without going into all the other aspects of this..I suggest that you have a good read of my "16:9 vs 2.37:1 CIH Screen" in this forum..as well as the postings by Mark Techer..
You will find all you need to know about Anamorphic projection..

As far as the makes of projector to look at..These would be my choices..

Benq
Optoma
Sony
Panasonic

All have the vertical stretch facillity..but some of the earlier models may not..

I see your theatre room is 23' long..so I would get a projector that has a fairly long throw lens, to help reduce pincushion effect..

[takumi]

long throw lens, i guess that would narrow my choices. I will do a search on the pincushion effect

[Mark Techer]

A long throw can be determined by two methods -
1. The Throw Ratio where the native 16:9 image width is divided into the distance from the screen to the projector.
2. How many image heights the projector can be back from the screen.

If we take my BenQ W5000, at the min zoom (smallest image) the TR (from 1) is about 2.2) or 3.1 times the image height. Therefore I would really consider the BenQ W5000 to me a mid range throw device, not a long throw device which would be closer to 3.7x the image height...

Mark

[Prof.]

Mark Techer wrote:

If we take my BenQ W5000, at the min zoom (smallest image) the TR (from 1) is about 2.2) or 3.1 times the image height. Therefore I would really consider the BenQ W5000 to me a mid range throw device, not a long throw device which would be closer to 3.7x the image height...

Mark

Mark...At a 2.2 TR..do you notice much difference in pinchusion effect over your previous Sony projector..which had a much lower TR I believe.?

I always thought that the earlier BenQ projectors had a fairly short throw lens, but I'm at 3.5 times the image height, with a 1.8 TR.!!

[Mark Techer]

Prof. wrote:

Mark...At a 2.2 TR..do you notice much difference in pinchusion effect over your previous Sony projector..which had a much lower TR I believe.?

I always thought that the earlier BenQ projectors had a fairly short throw lens, but I'm at 3.5 times the image height, with a 1.8 TR.!!

Prof,

Maybe I have got the math wrong...and it looks like your right...

My screen is 949mm high x 2.37 = 2250mm.

1st row 2000mm.

2nd 3000mm (a bit tight).

Projector, just behind that at about 3200mm.

Therefore TR should be 3200mm / (949 x 1.78) = 1.89:1

Sorry for the confusion about the 2.2TR...

So anyway, the pincusion was less than the 1.3:1, but not totally reduced. My screen is adjustable, so I can compensate here.

I am however looking to extend the Throw Ratio, so will most likely go to a VC lens next.

The TR won't change as TRs for VCs are taken off the Scope Image width, not the 16:9 image width, but the projection distance will increase 3200mm to over 4250mm allowing better spaced seating.

Also with a VC, you don't get pincushion at all and I can actually go back to a flat screen. What you get is "barrelling" but the barrelling is much less than the pincushion.

CA that normally runs vertcially with a HE will now run horizontally, but I am not expecting to see any CA with my new lens (a shamless plug ) that is under development right now and will use achromatic doublets.

Lastly is the focus issue where typically a DIY prism lens tends to loose a bit of shapness towards the edges, the VC maintains sharpness all the way and this is why Panamorph used the VC design for so many years. If there is to be any loss in sharpness with the VC, it will be seen at the top and bottom of the image not the sides.

My lens is also cylindrical, not prismatic, so I have designed anstigmatism correction into the design as well...

The only problem with using a VC is that the lens must remain in the light path all the time or the 16:9 image become much taller. This is not really a problem (with 1080 anyway) as the light levels, pixel density and colour all remain the same when leaving the lens in place - which I have been doing anyway with my HE lens. Removing the lens may even reqire two (or more) calibration settings...

Mark