16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen

[Mark Techer]

Prof. wrote:

Mark..How is the progress going on the Mk.111..Do we have a release date yet?
Also can you tell us what the difference will be over the MK.11.?

Unfortunately, no set date. The MKIII will be released in stages –
1. Injection Molded Plastic case that allows both future upgrades as well as backwards compatibility.

2. Focal correction or “astigmatism correction” element

3. CA correction where the new prisms will be made from two different types of glass that have been bonded together.

All of this takes time and money, and so a slow process when developing and funding a project like this yourself...

Mark

[Prof.]

Mark Techer wrote:

Unfortunately, no set date. The MKIII will be released in stages –
1. Injection Molded Plastic case that allows both future upgrades as well as backwards compatibility.

2. Focal correction or “astigmatism correction” element

3. CA correction where the new prisms will be made from two different types of glass that have been bonded together.

All of this takes time and money, and so a slow process when developing and funding a project like this yourself...

Mark

This sounds like one serious lens!!...And my guess is that it will compete with the best of them..
Good luck with it all and keep us up to date with your progress..

[Mark Techer]

Prof. wrote:

This sounds like one serious lens!!...And my guess is that it will compete with the best of them..
Good luck with it all and keep us up to date with your progress..

In order to make CIH a real success, there needs to be quality products that are affordable. This is part of the reason it will com out in stages...

Mark

[maikeldepotter]

This seems to be the right place to ask the following question:

If you have a high resolution (HD) and "screendoor free" 16:9 projector like the Panasonic PT-AE2000that is able to fill up the total width of your 2,35 screen without seeing any pixel structures, and you can electrically zoom out from 16:9 to 21:9 without having to adjust focus and/or lens shift. What does an anamorphic lens bring you? More lumen, more sharpness, more contrast? And will this be easily noticable?

Thanks.

[Mark Techer]

maikeldepotter wrote:

This seems to be the right place to ask the following question:

If you have a high resolution (HD) and "screendoor free" 16:9 projector like the Panasonic PT-AE2000that is able to fill up the total width of your 2,35 screen without seeing any pixel structures, and you can electrically zoom out from 16:9 to 21:9 without having to adjust focus and/or lens shift. What does an anamorphic lens bring you? More lumen, more sharpness, more contrast? And will this be easily noticable?

Thanks.

The HD panel is 1920 x 1080. When you zoom, you only see 1920 x 810 with the remainder being projected off the top and bottom. As you zoom, the pixels increase both horizontally and vertically.

Adding an anamorphic lens allows your projected image to be made from the entire panel instead of just 75%. The lens expands the pixels, but only in the horizontal direction, so the vertical size remains the same. This is benificial as we are more sensitive to vertical than we are to horizontal pixel structure...

Mark

[maikeldepotter]

Mark Techer wrote:

The HD panel is 1920 x 1080. When you zoom, you only see 1920 x 810 with the remainder being projected off the top and bottom. As you zoom, the pixels increase both horizontally and vertically.

Adding an anamorphic lens allows your projected image to be made from the entire panel instead of just 75%. The lens expands the pixels, but only in the horizontal direction, so the vertical size remains the same. This is benificial as we are more sensitive to vertical than we are to horizontal pixel structure...

Mark

Thanks for your reply Mark. I understand what you are saying. The question remains what the maximum viewing distance should be to actually benefit from this improved vertical pixel structure. On a 2 meter wide screen the pixels measure 1x1 mm. Even from the the shortest recommended viewing distance of 1,45 meter (field of view 140 degrees) I am not able to see any pixels. Maybe you can still see a difference in sharpness? I really don't know . Has anyone experienced this in a side-to-side comparison: "Zooming out" versus "Anamorhpic projection" with a HD beamer at different viewing distances?

[Mark Techer]

Acually you should work your seating distance from image height, not the width, where you should be no closer than 2x the image height and no farther back then 4x.

The beauty of CIH with a lens is that those pixels stay the same size (vertically) as you change ARs, so you do not loose sharpness*.

*pending the type of lens.

When you zoom, your pixels do increase vertically, so it is almost like going back from 1080 to 720, but not quiet, it is actually about 810...

Mark

[maikeldepotter]

Mark Techer wrote:

Acually you should work your seating distance from image height, not the width, where you should be no closer than 2x the image height and no farther back then 4x.

The beauty of CIH with a lens is that those pixels stay the same size (vertically) as you change ARs, so you do not loose sharpness*.

*pending the type of lens.

When you zoom, your pixels do increase vertically, so it is almost like going back from 1080 to 720, but not quiet, it is actually about 810...

Mark

In my set-up the viewing distance is 3x the image height using 2.37:1 projection (34 inch high; 80 inch wide), and 2.5x the image height using 16:9 projection (41 inch high; 73.5 inch wide).

So I don't have real CIH projection (constant image height). But in this way I keep the bottom of the projection at the same height (measured from the floor 31 inch) when going from one format to the other just by zooming. I have a variable masking screen that allows me to horizontally adjust the projection surface by pushing one button on the remote.

In this way I believe I have created close to optimal viewing distances (according toTHX and SMPT standards) for both 2.37:1 and 16:9 formats. And yes, I understand I am not using the projector's full resolution capability with 2.37:1.

But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens?

Will the added sharpness be more predominant than the possible adverse effects of lens imperfections and faults introduced by the pixel recalculations for the vertical stretching of the 2.37:1 picture to fit the 16:9 LCD chip?

I am not a disbeliever. I just don't know!

[Prof.]

maikeldepotter wrote:

But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens?

On a 2 Metre.. wide screen with an HD system....There will be some improvement but probably barely noticeable..
If you had a 3 Metre wide screen, then there would be some obvious improvement over the zoom method..

Will the added sharpness be more predominant than the possible adverse effects of lens imperfections and faults introduced by the pixel recalculations for the vertical stretching of the 2.37:1 picture to fit the 16:9 LCD chip?

As far as I'm aware..it would not be an issue..

[Prof.]

Just to add to that...

The whole idea of having a Scope setup is not just to remove the black bars, but to have that very wide screen image...Like you see in the Cinema...that really immerses you in the action on the screen..

It is generally accepted that the minimum width for a scope screen is 8' wide, with 9' being ideal if your room is large enough..
Anything smaller is not going to give you the same effect, and if 2 Metres is your maximum size you are able to fit or have in the room..then it probably isn't worth the additional costs involved..