Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

21 - 40 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
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
 

·
HTS Senior Moderator
Joined
·
8,367 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
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! :dontknow:
 

·
HTS Senior Moderator
Joined
·
8,367 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
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..
 

·
HTS Senior Moderator
Joined
·
8,367 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens?
Absolutely, becuase with a lens, your vertical pixel size remains the same for all ARs as does the useage.

The image you see is made up of by the total (X) number of pixels on the panel, so why not max them all the time - a lens will let you do that, where zooming can not becuase you throw at least 25% of the vertical rez away.

If you have a 1080 projector and CIH, when watching 16:9 you have 1080 vertical pixels being used, and when watching Scope using the lens, you will also have 1080 vertical pixels being used. The best way to describe the CIH image is "dense", but in the end, seeing is believing...

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
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..
Your are stepping on my soul Prof! :sad: Putting so much time and effort in building my dream HT and now hearing that my screen is too small to ever reach the Cinema feeling.... :crying:

But seriously, does the immersive feeling not more depend on the actual viewing angle (viewing distance : screen height ratio), than solely on the screen width? If I am sitting on the last row of a Cinema with a huge screen I have a much lesser immersive feeling than sitting 2,5 metre away from my 2 metre wide screen.

Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done.

The other possibility I can think of is that there exists someting like a minimal viewing distance in order not to put too much strain on your eyes to focus on the screen. I just never heard or read about such a phenomenon. Am curious though if anyone has more info on this, or other factors that influence the immersive sensation we are talking about here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
But seriously, does the immersive feeling not more depend on the actual viewing angle (viewing distance : screen height ratio), than solely on the screen width? If I am sitting on the last row of a Cinema with a huge screen I have a much lesser immersive feeling than sitting 2,5 metre away from my 2 metre wide screen.
This is correct and why I am happy watching scope on a 2.4m wide screen the same as watching scope on a 3.5m wide screen. If your seated between 2x and 3x the image height, screen size has no real bearing...
Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done.
an 8' screen Scope screen is still a good height. If your screen gets to narrow, then you might not ecperience the "big screen" effect, but as I said above, seating distances still apply here...
The other possibility I can think of is that there exists someting like a minimal viewing distance in order not to put too much strain on your eyes to focus on the screen. I just never heard or read about such a phenomenon. Am curious though if anyone has more info on this, or other factors that influence the immersive sensation we are talking about here.
2x the image height is the minimum and 4x the maximum. The so called "Preferred Angle of 36 degrees" is the same as 3.68x the image height...

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
This is correct and why I am happy watching scope on a 2.4m wide screen the same as watching scope on a 3.5m wide screen. If your seated between 2x and 3x the image height, screen size has no real bearing...
Thanks Mark, that is the answer I was hoping for with my "only" 2.03m wide screen. :whew:

2x the image height is the minimum and 4x the maximum. The so called "Preferred Angle of 36 degrees" is the same as 3.68x the image height...
OK, that's an easy one to remember: 36 degrees = 3.7x the image height (personally I like to sit closer to the screen, at about 2.8x to 3x).

Now, the issue I wanted to put forward is this:

If the "preferred" seating distance is 3.7 x the image height, I can theoretically have a "immersed" sensation looking at a 10 inch wide high resolution screen at a viewing distance of 15.5 inch. However, the focus effort for my eyes wil will be like reading a book :reading:. This is a different feeling than staring into a distance like in a very big cinema :yikes:.

The question I want to put to the forum is:

Does the viewing distance and resulting focus effort for your eyes has a significant impact on the movie viewing experience, especially with regard to the "immersed feeling" effect. I think it does not. Please comment :waiting:

PS Yes, I like Smilies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
What you will find is that your eyes will probably strain more watching HD on PC monitor at 3x the image height than watching the same program on a screen that is over 2m tall. In this case, it not the size of the image, but the distance to the image that must be taken into account. I think you will find however that the "immersion" is reduced becuase the smaller screen size, but your field of view (what you actually see) should be about the same.

Hope that makes sense...

Mark
 

·
HTS Senior Moderator
Joined
·
8,367 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done.
Maikel...Sorry if I quashed your ideas on the screen size..:R

It's a bit like TV sizes...You buy a 36" tv and put it in your living room and it looks big!!..
Then after some time you start to think "this tv is not all that big, I think I need to get a 42" screen"..:bigsmile:

And that's how it goes with projection screens as well..

I built my theatre for just me! (I'm a free man) and I made an 8' wide Scope screen..
When I first projected onto it with the anamorphic set up, it looked BIG!!...I sit 9'6" from the screen..
Now after just 6 months..It's not looking so big!

I'm about to make up a new screen, using a different finish than my current screen, and I'm tempted to make it even bigger, in fact another foot wider!!...
Do you see my point?

I can practically guarantee you that if you go with an anamorphic set up, you will not be happy for very long with a 2 Metre wide screen...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Maikel...Sorry if I quashed your ideas on the screen size..:R

It's a bit like TV sizes...You buy a 36" tv and put it in your living room and it looks big!!..
Then after some time you start to think "this tv is not all that big, I think I need to get a 42" screen"..:bigsmile:

And that's how it goes with projection screens as well..

I built my theatre for just me! (I'm a free man) and I made an 8' wide Scope screen..
When I first projected onto it with the anamorphic set up, it looked BIG!!...I sit 9'6" from the screen..
Now after just 6 months..It's not looking so big!

I'm about to make up a new screen, using a different finish than my current screen, and I'm tempted to make it even bigger, in fact another foot wider!!...
Do you see my point?

I can practically guarantee you that if you go with an anamorphic set up, you will not be happy for very long with a 2 Metre wide screen...
I see you point Prof. I am convinced :surrender: In the end it all comes down to the same conclusion: Size does matter, the bigger the better!

Thus, when creating your HT you should try to make the screen as big as your possibilities permit (room and financial wise). Since we are talking about Home Cinema on this forum, let's say the maximum height you can achieve is 8' (2.45m), resulting in a maximum screen width of 19' (5.80m) . Your minimum viewing distance lies around 16' (4.9m).

So if you have a room of measuring 20'x20' (6mx6m) or more, why stick to a procliamed ideal 9', and not go for 19' wide? :T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
Since we are talking about Home Cinema on this forum, let's say the maximum height you can achieve is 8' (2.45m), resulting in a maximum screen width of 19' (5.80m) . Your minimum viewing distance lies around 16' (4.9m).
Yes, 2x the image height is the closest you want to be regardless of screen size with 3x being preferred...

So if you have a room of measuring 20'x20' (6mx6m) or more, why stick to a procliamed ideal 9', and not go for 19' wide?
Because 12 feet wide is about the largest you can have in a 20 foot deep room.

Formula is -
20 / 3.68 x 2.37 = 12.88

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Because 12 feet wide is about the largest you can have in a 20 foot deep room.

Formula is -
20 / 3.68 x 2.37 = 12.88

Mark
Thanks for pointing this out Mark. So, the ideal HT room measures 20' (6m) wide and 30' (9m) deep, permitting a 19' wide screen. Am I right?

PS I am just trying to get things really clear here, not only for the theoretical sake. I have friend who is buiding a new house and I like to give him the best advice on how to prepare his own HT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
Thanks for pointing this out Mark. So, the ideal HT room measures 20' (6m) wide and 30' (9m) deep, permitting a 19' wide screen. Am I right?
Actually the ideal room also requires careful consideration for room acoustics as well.

For example, a room's length should never be greater than 3x times the height, which is why you see room ratios like 1.0:1.6:2.3.

Then you still have to take the screen height saeating distance into account...

Mark
 
21 - 40 of 96 Posts
Top