Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen... - Page 4 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 01:21 AM
Pending
Mark Techer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 613
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

Quote:
Sonnie wrote:
Yes... if I insert a 16:9 AR DVD, it shows 16:9... if I insert a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 DVD, it has black bars on top and bottom. If I insert a 4:3 DVD, it has black bars on both sides. No buttons are required to push... no focus adjustment... no lens shifting... just insert and press play.
Then your player was also doing a horizontal squeeze to allow you to see 4 x 3 material with side pillars and not have you change to the 4 x 3 mode on the projector. My BD player does that which is a good thing...

Quote:
So... does the anamorphic lens give me CIH?
The only true way to have Constant Image Height is to use an anamorphic lens...

Quote:
So... if I want my 16:9 AR image to be 102" wide, the projector should preferably be mounted at 204" (or 17'). So my 17.6' is looking good.
With CIH the longer the throw the better...

Quote:
What is CA? I thought the image with this lens setup is supposed to be much better than without it. It sounds like it might be hindered in some way or another.
Lens pending, the image can be better. CA is Chromatic Abberations. There is a thread on it in this forum. My new lens is corrected for CA, so does not show it. This is also a reason why most anamorohpic lenses are expensive. CA and focual correction come at a cost. The $600 lens you looking at only has two prisms and they are nothing more than trophies at that, so you will get what you pay for. There is allot to good optics and whilst prisms are a means to an end, there is much work needed to make them work well...

Mark
Mark Techer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 01:31 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

Sounds like I might be better off waiting until I can afford a good lens. I do not want to do anything to degrade a good image. I lived with the black bars on top and bottom of the 2.35.1 images forever... not that big of a deal. No sense in paying $600 to make the image fill the screen and it be worse quality.

Here is the info on the HC6500. It doesn't make sense to me. The last two columns are for anamorphic lens. I looks like you would select anamorphic1 for 2.35:1 AR images and anamorphic2 for 4:3 or 16:9, but in the examples that are highlighted in each column (bottom right corner squares), both look like they are squeezed up.
Sonnie is offline  
post #33 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 01:34 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

There also looks like there is an "Auto" setting, but not sure if it could be used or not. It is not really clear for anamorphic lens.
Sonnie is offline  
 
post #34 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 02:09 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

I think I understand now... the projector does the squeezing... then the anamorphic lens stretches it back out.

Rodny called Mitsubishi today and they could even answer questions about the features of the unit. :loco:

It is still a question as to whether or not the lens shift, zoom or focus have to be used with the HC6500... or simply select A1 for 2.35:1 and A2 for 4:3 or 16:9.
Sonnie is offline  
post #35 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 04:26 AM
Pending
Mark Techer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 613
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

So I would use the cash that you had set aside for a new projector and be looking to buy a good lens. The right decision here means that you never need to upgrade that part again.

Yes you have the idea, scaling plus optics.

One of the ideas towards leaving the lens in place all the time is that you don't have to re-focus and your calibration settings remain the same as well.

Then AR changes are as simple as pushing a button on the remote...

Mark
Mark Techer is offline  
post #36 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 08:42 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

That's sounding good...

At this point, I have went extra on speakers, which was not initially planned, so I don't have any extra above about $2500 to put into a projector setup. $600 for the lens is pretty much it for now.

If I plan on doing a 2.37:1 or 2.40:1 screen right now, then I am going to need to do a lens, otherwise I have to readjust each time I have different aspect ratio's or either have wasted screen space on every aspect ratio. Neither of those sound good.

I also do not believe I will ever be ready to spend $1500 to $2000 on a lens... not in this lifetime anyway. If they ever come down to less than $1000, then we might consider it.
Sonnie is offline  
post #37 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 08:48 AM
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
 
Rodny Alvarez's Avatar
Rodny
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Millbrook AL
Posts: 828
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

This is from audioholics.......

Viewing widescreen 2.35:1 aspect ratio films is simple and easy with both new projectors; each provides Anamorphic Lens Modes 1 and 2 support. In the past, users needed an expensive lens railing or tracking apparatus to install or remove an anamorphic lens, depending on the desired 2.35:1 or 16:9 film aspect ratios. With the HC7000 and HC6500 users can now simply position an anamorphic lens permanently in front of the projector lens and select the appropriate Anamorphic Mode 1 or Mode 2, either 2.35:1 or 16:9 aspect ratios, for the corresponding movie format. Itís a simple and economical design that saves time and effort while providing the ultimate home theater viewing experience.

this one from pjcentral....

Dual Mode Anamorphic Stretch. First introduced on the HC5500, Mitsubishi's Dual Mode Anamorphic Stretch allows the viewer to install an anamorphic lens permanently in front of the projector, rather than on a moving track. When showing 16:9 films and video, the projector compresses the signal horizontally such that it passes through the lens and is stretched back to the proper 16:9. Since motorized tracks for anamorphic lenses typically cost quite a bit, this is a helpful feature that can save you money.


here from mitsubishi.....

http://global.mitsubishielectric.com..._features.html


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Rodny Alvarez is offline  
post #38 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 08:57 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

I think the question now is really whether or not we can find a lens for less than $1000, (ideally around that $600 mark) that will not degrade the image to a point that would be worse than what we could get by purchasing the Panasonic 3000 and simply zooming the image.

Here's my point. If I can zoom the Panasonic image (which the zoom would only be 1.4:1 at the planned throw distance on 2.35:1), and that zoomed image looks as good as the $600 lens with CA on the HC6500, it seems more reasonable to just buy the Panasonic 3000 and be done with it. That way there is no fooling around with the lens.
Sonnie is offline  
post #39 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 10:08 AM
Senior Shackster
 
hddummy's Avatar
Matt
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ATL
Posts: 538
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

Be aware that if you use the Mitsubishi method, when you watch 16:9, the projector has to scale the image down to a ~1440x1080 image so the lens can stretch it back to the correct size. You are literally eliminating 25% of the image information just for convenience.

For any anamorphic lens option, the projector has to digitally stretch 2.35 material 33% vertically. The quality of the result will depend on the scaling ability of the projector. People keep saying you get 1:1, but that is not correct. What they mean is that you are utilizing the full image panel in the projector, but is that really a good thing? The portion of a 16:9 image used by a 2.35 format is 815 pixels high, so stretching it out to 1080 is not 1:1, it's 1.33:1. In my opinion any time you do digital processing on an image when it is not necessary only adds risk of making it worse. That on top of the fact that you introduce pincushion distortion and chormatic abberations makes the lens option a two thumbs down in my opinion.

The biggest detriment to the zooming method is that you are using 75% of the image panel, and therefore 75% available light, on a screen that has 33% more area than a 16:9. With a lens, you use 100% of the available light on a 33% larger screen. The PT-AE3000, however, is a rather bright projector and can still provide enough light output at that screen size. This is especially true in a light controlled room. In fact, you might even want to turn down the lamp brightness in 16:9 mode to provide the same on screen light density as you get in 2.35 mode. You would even extend the lamp life a little if you did.

Lastly, since you are zooming, each pixel does infact occupy more screen area in 2.35 zoomed than 16:9 regular. However, if you do the math for a 50" high screen, a 2.35 zoomed pixel is only .06 inches wide and a 16:9 pixel .046 inches wide. When you are sitting 10 feet from a screen, i challenge anyone to tell me the difference between the two. Do a little research into human eye acuity and you'll find that you need to actually sit 6 feet from the screen before a person with 20:20 vision could discern two adjacent pixels at that size.

Conclusion....buy the Panasonic, set it up for zooming and enjoy. If you honestly think you can gain by adding a lens...you can still do that later down the road.

Last edited by hddummy; 01-29-09 at 10:18 AM.
hddummy is offline  
post #40 of 88 Old 01-29-09, 10:32 AM Thread Starter
Elite Shackster
 
Sonnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,577
My System
Re: Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...

Hmmm.... our first row seating will cause our eyes to be about 12' from the screen.

As I mentioned earlier... with our last projector (Panasonic 2000) we were zooming the 16:9 image at 1.6:1... never thought anything about it... image looked stellar to us sitting at 10-11' back.

With the 3000, if we go with the maximum throw distance of 19'7", the 16:9 image would zoom to 1.06:1, which should leaps better than the 1.6:1 image we had with the 2000. The 2.35:1 image will be zoomed 1.42:1.
Sonnie is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2.35:1 , comtemplating , screen...

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome