Home Theater Shack Forums
Epik Subwoofers manufactures world-leading high performance subwoofers for die-hard home theater and music enthusiasts who won't settle for anything less than the best.
PacParts, Inc.: Since 1969, PacParts has been supplying quality replacement parts & accessories from the most recognized manufacturers in the Consumer Electronics Industry.
GIK Acoustics: Home audio acoustics at its best... especially when you have help from the owners right here at the Shack!  Check out their very affordable acoustic panels!
Discount Merchant:  If you need a replacement bulb for your video device... look no further... save big!
ReliableHardware.com: A Reliable Source for Case, Cabinet and Acoustical Hardware!
Fi Audio: Infinitely amazing balanced high end musicality designed drivers!
SVSound: The Sound Authority in speaker and subwoofers as well as the astounding AS EQ1 Subwoofer Equalizer!
Elite Screens offers the finest in affordable projection screens.
Creative Sound Solutions: Loudspeaker kits and components for subwoofers, midwoofers, woofers and full range speakers!
Emotiva is your Home Theater Component Source for Audiophile Quality Home Theater Equipment at Factory Direct Prices
RAM Electronics: Audio, Video, Home Theater and Computer Cables.
Ultimate Home Entertainment: Providing home theater seating and accessories such as popcorn machines and signage... at very affordable prices!
Go Back   Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack > Home Theater | Audio and Video > Anamorphic Projection
Room EQ WizardBFD Guide
Forgot Password?
Favorites Home Theater Links Donations Image Gallery

Anamorphic Projection

16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen

Discuss 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen in the Home Theater | Audio and Video forum; 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen The cheapest one that I know of would be the Lumagen Video processor.. You should be able to pick one ...


 Reply     Post New Thread
Views: 5119 - Replies: 84  
Thread Tools
Old 03-02-08, 08:26 PM   #51
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Alt Advertisement
Old 03-03-08, 12:38 AM   #52
Senior Shackster
Alias: Mark Techer
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
User: #15620
Since: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
  Mark Techer is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
blaser wrote: View Post
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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-08, 09:20 AM   #53
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Ahmed
Blaser's Avatar
Loc: Cairo-Egypt
User: #2269
Since: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,899
  Blaser is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
Mark Techer wrote: View Post
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


ASME AI
Yamaha RX-V2500, Wharfedale Diamond 9.6 Fronts, Wharfedale Diamond CM Center, Diamond DFS Surround and rear, Behringer FBQ 2496, Dual RL-P18s 625L LLTs, Dual TA-2400 Pro (2 * 2000 W Amp), Samsung HD870 DVD player, Carada BW 16:9 106" screen, Epson TW-2000, 60 Gb PS3
Important HT proverbs:
- "You can never have too much headroom" (talking about bass)
- "you can never have too big a screen" (talking about still pictures)

Projector selection basics
Epson TW 2000 review

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-08, 09:24 AM   #54
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Ahmed
Blaser's Avatar
Loc: Cairo-Egypt
User: #2269
Since: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,899
  Blaser is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
Prof. wrote: View Post
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?


ASME AI
Yamaha RX-V2500, Wharfedale Diamond 9.6 Fronts, Wharfedale Diamond CM Center, Diamond DFS Surround and rear, Behringer FBQ 2496, Dual RL-P18s 625L LLTs, Dual TA-2400 Pro (2 * 2000 W Amp), Samsung HD870 DVD player, Carada BW 16:9 106" screen, Epson TW-2000, 60 Gb PS3
Important HT proverbs:
- "You can never have too much headroom" (talking about bass)
- "you can never have too big a screen" (talking about still pictures)

Projector selection basics
Epson TW 2000 review

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-08, 10:15 AM   #55
Senior Shackster
Alias: Mark Techer
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
User: #15620
Since: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
  Mark Techer is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
blaser wrote: View Post
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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-08, 05:39 PM   #56
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
blaser wrote: View Post
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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-08, 08:54 PM   #57
Senior Shackster
Alias: Mark Techer
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
User: #15620
Since: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
  Mark Techer is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Interesting add for the Marantz
Quote:
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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-08, 02:46 AM   #58
Senior Shackster
Alias: Binger
Loc: Omaha
User: #18424
Since: Mar 2008
Posts: 206
  SQCherokee is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-08, 07:10 PM   #59
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-08, 02:53 PM   #60
Senior Shackster
Bronze Supporter
Alias: jack
basementjack's Avatar
Loc: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA
User: #2649
Since: Sep 2006
Posts: 393
  basementjack is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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!


- Jack

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-08, 08:03 PM   #61
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-08, 08:35 PM   #62
Senior Shackster
Bronze Supporter
Alias: jack
basementjack's Avatar
Loc: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA
User: #2649
Since: Sep 2006
Posts: 393
  basementjack is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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?


- Jack

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-08, 09:05 PM   #63
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
basementjack wrote: View Post
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..

Quote:
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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-08, 05:16 AM   #64
Shackster
Alias: Adam
AngelEyes's Avatar
Loc: Cambridgeshire UK
User: #3816
Since: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
  AngelEyes is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-08, 08:36 PM   #65
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
AngelEyes wrote: View Post
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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-08, 08:45 PM   #66
Shackster
Alias: Victor B
Loc: plano tx
User: #26962
Since: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
  takumi is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-08, 06:41 PM   #67
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-08, 07:32 PM   #68
Senior Shackster
Alias: Chris
Loc: Lincoln, NE, USA
User: #8712
Since: May 2007
Posts: 388
  tenzip is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


And does that budget include the anamorphic lens?


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-08, 09:31 PM   #69
Shackster
Alias: Victor B
Loc: plano tx
User: #26962
Since: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
  takumi is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-08, 09:34 PM   #70
Shackster
Alias: Victor B
Loc: plano tx
User: #26962
Since: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
  takumi is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-08, 07:25 PM   #71
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
takumi wrote: View Post
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..


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-08, 11:54 PM   #72
Shackster
Alias: Victor B
Loc: plano tx
User: #26962
Since: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
  takumi is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-08, 11:14 PM   #73
Senior Shackster
Alias: Mark Techer
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
User: #15620
Since: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
  Mark Techer is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-08, 08:40 PM   #74
Shack Moderator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Prof.'s Avatar
Loc: South of Adelaide
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,076
  Prof. is offline    
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
Mark Techer wrote: View Post
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.!!


Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-08, 12:24 AM   #75
Senior Shackster
Alias: Mark Techer
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
User: #15620
Since: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
  Mark Techer is offline  
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
Prof. wrote: View Post
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


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
 Reply     Post New Thread

« Home Theater Shack > Home Theater | Audio and Video > Anamorphic Projection »

« Previous Thread   Next Thread »

Bookmarks
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads... You may not post replies... You may not post attachments... You may not edit your posts

BB code is On... Smilies are On... [IMG] code is On... HTML is not allowed!




Parts Express: The #1 Internet source for all your DIY and electronics needs!

Ultimate Home Entertainment

This site is best viewed with a screen resolution of 1280 x 1024 or higher!

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 PM.



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

Copyright ©2006 - 2009, Home Theater Shack, LLC.
John Mulcahy and Sonnie Parker - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!



Projector Screens   AV Carts   Lectern   WhiteBoards   Audio Video   HDMI Cables   Multimedia   AV Blog
Massage Chairs   Wall Fountains   Bath Vanities   Electric Fireplaces   Bunk Beds
Dish Network     Dish Network deals




Sponsor/Vendor Ad Rates

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331