Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Blind Listening Tests

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Wall'O'Fame
Experimental Atmos
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
Who's Online
2 registered (brwsaw, St_PatGuy), 54 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13330 Members
11 Forums
22922 Topics
405252 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17791
pmbuko 16289
SirQuack 13341
CV 11237
MarkSJohnson 10942
Meanwhile On Facebook

Four days to get in on the action!

☺ Wow - our 13,000 likes! Awesome! #thankful

Did you get your "Golden Email"? The great gift certificate email giveaway star...

Here's a helpful article for everyone looking at putting a new stereo or home th...

Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#367072 - 02/17/12 12:13 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4517
Loc: Marion, IA
Doh. You are right (of course). Sorry Grunt. I think that my mind was remembering only some of the following:
Quote:
...get a couple different colours of painters tape and using the calculators Murph linked to tape off the screen sizes for the aspect ratios on the wall...


The source just faded away. Getting too old. I am, after all, no longer going to be a "30-something" in 6 months...
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#367121 - 02/17/12 04:17 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: michael_d]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 496
Originally Posted By: michael_d
Originally Posted By: Nick B
Originally Posted By: michael_d
I love the 2.35 experience, but you pay for it. The zoom / lens memory option seam like a PITA to me. I have yet to hear of a projector that gets it right. ... My vote is for CIH, but only if you swing the VP and lens, which is pretty spendy.


The problem is, it is really difficult to know how much to spend on an anamorphic lens. There are entry level options for $1000, or so, midrange for $2000 to $3000, and then they go up into ridiculous prices. If one was to have a $2000 to $4000 projector, what would be a reasonable price to spend on a lens to go with it? There doesn't seem to be professional reviews for anamorphic lenses. Yet some print magazines like "Home Theater" will review a set of $60,000 speakers once or twice a year.


Prismasonic is the best bang for the buck. They have a new lens out that is supposedly every bit as good as the Isco III. It is 3000, whereas the Isco runs about 8000. If you want the ability to expand the image with a lens instead of moving it into and away from the projector, you'll need one like I have that has knobs that rotates the elements to expand the image. It is an older Prismasonic 1400FE model. If you get serious about going with a HE lens, let me know. I've been eye-balling the new Prismasonic lens and if I do buy one, my lens will obviously go up for sale.


I take it back. There is at least one professional review that I found.

http://hometheaterreview.com/panamorph-fvx200j-anamorphic-lens-system-reviewed/

Panamorph has a lens kit designed to work with JVC projectors and Epson, also for $3000. This is a fixed lens kit and I think I saw a sliding kit added about $7000 to the price, which is waaaayyy too much. I bet that even if you left it in place the slight reduction in resolution in a 16:9 image wouldn't be that noticeable since the area that it takes up in comparison to the 2.35:1 image is quite a bit smaller.

Top
#367127 - 02/17/12 05:04 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4517
Loc: Marion, IA
$3000 for a lens on top of a $3000 street price projector is a bit crazy for me. I wish that I could have something like that, but I'd rather get a $5000 projector and pocket the extra $1000. (again, even that would be a stretch for me - pun intended)...

I know, the lens method yields great results, just saying that it is too spendy for me.

Originally Posted By: Home Theater Review
Before the Panamorph and the FVX200J's arrival, a true anamorphic home theater would've cost you close to $20,000 for a kickoff, but can now be had for less than $10,000. I demo'ed a system at this year's CEDIA using JVC's newest sub $3,000 D-ILA ($2,999) and a FVX200J being projected onto a 97-inch 2:35 SI Black Diamond screen. Total cost? Around $7,500. That's a tremendous value, not to mention one of the finer video demos I saw at CEDIA this year.


"Great value" sure is subjective. I would love to be in a financial situation to say that $7500 for the projector system is a "great value"... I've got enough tied up in the system already. With the 7.2 Axiom/SVS combination, the Onkyo receiver, Panny Blu-Ray, soundproofing, acoustical treatments, seating, screen, etc... I hate to actually add of the costs...
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#367168 - 02/17/12 11:17 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4517
Loc: Marion, IA
OK. I didn't tape anything up yet, but just some numbers for people.

These would be the extreme maximum sizes that would still allow for a small frame around the screen...

Using the maximum width I would realistically use (potential for another 2 feet wider in 2.35:1, but I fear that it will be too low for the 2nd row)

1.78:1 - 123" wide, 141" diagonal, and 69" tall
2.35:1 - 123" wide, 133" diagonal, and 52.5" tall

If somehow I could go that extra two feet wider for 2.35:1, I would get:
147" wide, 160" diagonal, and 62.5" tall

I also don't think that it will work well with the projector getting too dim and such.

Keep in mind that my previous theater had a 1.78:1 format screen that would turn out to be the exact same 1.78:1 image on the 133" diagonal 2.35:1 screen mentioned above (same height).

OF course, I start getting into fL (foot-lambert)issues at either of those big sizes (due to zooming and not using an anamorphic lens. Maybe something around a 128" diag 1.78:1 to get enough brightness...

So many variables.
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#367221 - 02/18/12 10:25 AM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 496
Originally Posted By: nickbuol
$3000 for a lens on top of a $3000 street price projector is a bit crazy for me. I wish that I could have something like that, but I'd rather get a $5000 projector and pocket the extra $1000. (again, even that would be a stretch for me - pun intended)...

I know, the lens method yields great results, just saying that it is too spendy for me.

Originally Posted By: Home Theater Review
Before the Panamorph and the FVX200J's arrival, a true anamorphic home theater would've cost you close to $20,000 for a kickoff, but can now be had for less than $10,000. I demo'ed a system at this year's CEDIA using JVC's newest sub $3,000 D-ILA ($2,999) and a FVX200J being projected onto a 97-inch 2:35 SI Black Diamond screen. Total cost? Around $7,500. That's a tremendous value, not to mention one of the finer video demos I saw at CEDIA this year.


"Great value" sure is subjective. I would love to be in a financial situation to say that $7500 for the projector system is a "great value"... I've got enough tied up in the system already. With the 7.2 Axiom/SVS combination, the Onkyo receiver, Panny Blu-Ray, soundproofing, acoustical treatments, seating, screen, etc... I hate to actually add of the costs...


But, like you have already said, you don't want to spend $1500 on a screen. You can look for something less expensive or even go the DIY route.

I really understand why he is saying that this is such a bargain. When the JVC LCOS projector first came out it got such great reviews everywhere because of its contrast and black levels, without having an dynamic iris and it was around $8000. The performance has gotten even better since then and the prices have continued to fall, where you can now get that same performance or maybe even slightly better at $3000. Also five years ago there was an anamorphic lens option that was designed to work with the JVC (I don't remember which lens) that was $7000 to $9000, just for the lens. Now you can have the JVC projector with an anamorphic lens for $6000 total. That is a bargain to me. I don't know if I'll be able to get that kind of money together, either, but it is a dream of mine. To me having a superwide screen anamorphic lens setup is what home theater is all about. I'm perfectly happy with my M22's, VP150 and QS8's and my Onkyo 805 for the audio portion and wouldn't mind putting everything else into an the video (well I would like to upgrade the the VP150 to a VP160, but could wait to do this if or when I get a projector setup first). I just need to make sure when I finally (hopefully) get a dedicated room that the dimensions stay small enough that I don't have to go with larger front speakers and a larger subwoofer. This also helps keep the screen size smaller, which helps with the budget as well.

Top
#367224 - 02/18/12 11:57 AM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4517
Loc: Marion, IA
I've seen some people make DIY anamorphic lenses. Pretty darn impressive. I am just not sure that I could tackle something like that, despite everything else I've fixed, made, built, etc in my life. My other fear with a lens system is that it is yet one more complexity variable for my family. They are going to struggle with hitting a button on the remote to do a memory preset for zoom, shift, focus, and that is just hitting a button, not manually sliding a lens into place or back out.

There are definite economies of scale (but instead of being cheaper for more, it gets more expensive pretty quickly) to smaller vs. larger rooms.
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#367228 - 02/18/12 12:09 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
michael_d Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 3917
Loc: Up yonder
The lens method is expensive. You can always buy used.

As far as screen size considerations, I tend to go about that differently than the industry standard. I find that I get eye strain if the image is too tall. Width does not effect me much at all. So I suggest you shoot an image on your wall and watch it for a few days. Zoom in, zoom out and screw around with the image size for a while. When you find your 1.78 image size that is comfortable to you, stick with that height. If you wish to go 2.35, again, stick with that height and make it wider. If the 2.35 screen size will not fit, then you should probably stick with 1.78.
_________________________


Top
#367249 - 02/18/12 04:02 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 496
Originally Posted By: nickbuol
My other fear with a lens system is that it is yet one more complexity variable for my family. They are going to struggle with hitting a button on the remote to do a memory preset for zoom, shift, focus, and that is just hitting a button, not manually sliding a lens into place or back out.


This is what I like about the fixed Panamorph lens, when I first read it. All that you have to do is push the zoom buttons on the projector to get the right size. Just like cycling through the zoom, stretch, etc. modes on an HDTV. So there is no need have to worry about having the family move the anamorphic lens in and out of place. But truthfully, by wife never even realizes to cycle through the aspect ratio buttons and just watches it as is. I walk in and immediately notice that it doesn't look right right, find the correct aspect ratio for her and tell her "doesn't that look better". She rolls her eyes at me and sarcastically says "yes". So truthfully, my wife wouldn't mess with any of that stuff, even if things are strangely stretched and/or 1/3 of the image was not on the screen. But, I would prefer having that ease of use. If I go this route I would probably just do some cheap and simple curtains to slide and cover the black bars on the side of the 16:9 image.

So if there is a 2.35:1 movie you push the stretch button and walk over and slide the curtains out of the way.

Top
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.