You are not logged in. [Log In]


Forums » General Discussion » Gallery » images

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic

ten4.jpg
Other images in post
Image Details
Poster sam3274 Offline
Posted 12/30/10 02:03 PM
Description
just additional snaps
Dimensions 1200x795
Size 122.18 KB
UBBCode
Thumbnail
Medium
Full

Comments
#333633 - 01/06/11 11:25 AM Re: images [Re: grunt]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 6015
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
Is the following a correct statement?

If you are using a 2.40:1 (or similar) screen, you need to use a special lens in front of your projector, that costs an extra $2000 and up, unless your projector has zooming capability, such as the PTAE400U.

Top
#333634 - 01/06/11 11:27 AM Re: images [Re: grunt]
sam3274 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 37
I just realized I needed to edit my response to Stan. That should read"...and I enjoy movies from 11' to 12' distance."

(should be in feet not inches)
_________________________
http://osteinz.blogspot.com

M80v3 VP180v3 QS8v3 QS4v3 SVS PB-Ultra 13
Yamaha DSP-Z7 Oppo 83SE

Top
#333635 - 01/06/11 11:45 AM Re: images [Re: CatBrat]
sam3274 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 37
You don't need a specialized lens with PT-AE4000U. It has a lens memory that you can program to change to 2.4:1 or 16:9 format.
_________________________
http://osteinz.blogspot.com

M80v3 VP180v3 QS8v3 QS4v3 SVS PB-Ultra 13
Yamaha DSP-Z7 Oppo 83SE

Top
#333640 - 01/06/11 12:02 PM Re: images [Re: CatBrat]
grunt Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 3569
Loc: Nirvana
Originally Posted By: CatBrat
Is the following a correct statement?

If you are using a 2.40:1 (or similar) screen, you need to use a special lens in front of your projector, that costs an extra $2000 and up, unless your projector has zooming capability, such as the PTAE400U.


The Epson has zooming capability it just manual not automatic. So with the AE4000 you can pre set several zoom settings for different native content and get it all to display on a 2.40:1 or similar screen automatically using constant image height when the projector detects the incoming resolution. With the 8700 you have to reset it manually which can be a pain if your projector is ceiling mounted or you change between sources with different native resolutions often. Zooming in like this only fit’s the taller image to the shorter screen by “pillar boxing” (black bars on the sides of the image).

Whereas if you used a true “Anamorphic Lens” it adjusts the taller 1.78:1 image to fit perfectly on a shorter 2.40:1 screen no pillar boxing. One traditionally big advantage of using the lens is it uses all the pixels and thus maintains the brightness of the original resolution. Zooming OTOH simply reduces the number of pixels thus lowering the brightness. Also many people simply prefer the wider shorter image of 2.40:1 as being more “cinema like”

In my case I don’t’ use that feature because I have a 1.78:1 screen and simply project the largest fracking image I can for whatever the source’s native resolution. The result is that 1.78:1 or similar resolutions fill the entire screen. 2.40:1 and similar resolutions have letter boxing but it’s still the largest 2.40:1 image I can have because I’m constrained by the width of my screen. 1.33:1 images have pillar boxing but are the largest possible 1.33:1 image I can have because I’m constrained by the height of my screen.

Many people also prefer the lens method because it gets rid of letterboxing but a simple DIY mask can block off the unused portion of the screen framing the image in perfect blackness. Something which IMO is only really important if the entire area around your screen is also black or if your room is very bright and reflective otherwise it doesn’t really help as much in improving the contrast/vividness of the image.

In a nutshell unless you plan on using something other than a 1.78:1 screen or similar the zoom feature or lens use is a non issue.


Edited by grunt (01/06/11 12:19 PM)
Edit Reason: dyslexia

Top
#333643 - 01/06/11 12:05 PM Re: images [Re: sam3274]
ClubNeon Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 3466
Loc: Western Maryland, USA
If you're not using an anamorphic lens, but instead the zoom memory feature, you're not getting the full resolution out of the projector. You're basically zooming the black bars off the top and bottom of the screen, so those pixels are not being used.

With an anamorphic lens the picture is stretched to fill the full frame, and then optically compressed to fit the screen.

There is one caveat, the stretching is done with a video processor, creating the extra pixels by interpolation. So you're not losing information by zooming the black bars off, because if the full area is used, it's only taken up with generated information.

This was different back in DVD days, because the stretched anamorphic picture was actually stored on the DVD (that is the 16:9 picture was stored in a 4:3 frame).
_________________________
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011
Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8
Sony PS4, surround backs
-Chris

Top
#333646 - 01/06/11 12:19 PM Re: images [Re: ClubNeon]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 6015
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
When you say the anamorphic lens "stretches" the picture, do you mean it does so in a fashion that it changes circles into ovals?

Top
#333647 - 01/06/11 12:23 PM Re: images [Re: CatBrat]
grunt Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 3569
Loc: Nirvana
Originally Posted By: CatBrat
When you say the anamorphic lens "stretches" the picture, do you mean it does so in a fashion that it changes circles into ovals?


No it’s not like the simple stretch feature on most displays. It resized everything so that the image displays properly just that is changes the resolution to fit the 2.40:1 or similar screen. This is why the video processing feature is necessary. Some projectors have it built in while others require a separate video processor to adjust the image for use with a lens.

While I haven’t seen it I imagine that if you used the lens w/o the processing you would have a bunch of short fat people running around on your screen.

Top
#333648 - 01/06/11 12:27 PM Re: images [Re: grunt]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 6015
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
So, the best way to view a projected image on a 2.40:1 screen, would be to buy the extra anamorphic lens, and get a projector that has a built in processor to adjust the image (whatever that's called). Correct?

Edit: I found a good thread on avsforum just now that should answer all of these questions.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=554901

Here's a quote from the beginning of it:

"Because you are using the projectors full panel to display the 2.35 image, there is a 33% increase in resolution. The light output is also about 20% more than the same size picture without an anamorphic lens.

This results in a smoother more film like image that has alot more depth and punch to it.

Some other benefits of constant height also include more immersion for 2.35 films due to the extra width and no more annoying black bars. And also easier masking options."


Edited by CatBrat (01/06/11 12:46 PM)

Top
#333651 - 01/06/11 12:52 PM Re: images [Re: CatBrat]
grunt Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 3569
Loc: Nirvana
Best is relative. And depends on the source. If most of your source material is at or near 2.40:1 then nothing is necessary. If most of your material is 1.78:1 (16x9 HDTV format) or similar then why not just get a 1.78.1 screen and live with the letterboxing or mask it out. I don’t use masking but if I did the AE4000 has a dial on top that adjusts the image up or down so I wouldn’t have to mask both the top and bottom of the screen only one or the other.

If you really want the best image on a 2.40:1 or similar screen your going to need a lens. Probably a separate video processor, even if the projector has one stand alone processors are usually better. You’ve already shelled out 3-4k and still don’t even have a projector. So now if you buy a projector for say 2k are you really getting the best picture for your money? It’s sort of like spending 1k on your speakers and 5k on a receiver. Which will get you better sound better speakers or better electronics. IMO if your going to shell out 3-4k for video you’re money is better spent on getting a better projector first like some of the JVC models for around 3-5k.

Personally with the native resolution of HDTV 16x9 (1.78:1) and the increasing number of movies coming out in 1.85:1 or if you plan on watching any old 4x3 (1.33:1) TV there aren’t many good reasons to choose a 2.40:1 or similar screen over a 1.78:1 screen. Like I mentioned some people just prefer what they perceive as the more panoramic and cinematic look of the 2.40:1 picture over the 1.78:1. I personally prefer to see the image in it’s native resolution thus framing the image the way the director and cinematographer intended. I also feel the 1.78:1 image is more immersive than the 2.40:1 image. This was brought home to me when Sean and I watched the latest Batman movie which switches between resolutions throughout the movie. The sudden contrast made the 2.40:1 image look like a movie while the 1.78:1 image looked more “realistic.“ Add to that most of my content, computer display (I’m typing on my 134” display right now), HDTV format, Xbox 360 gaming, anime (either 4x3 or 16x9) all IMO lend themselves better to the use of a 1.78:1 screen.

The real expert here on lens, processors and projectors is micheal_d so hopefully he can chime in with better info than I’m giving you.
_________________________
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1

Top
#333655 - 01/06/11 01:08 PM Re: images [Re: grunt]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 6015
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
After studying a little from some of the information on the link I provided, it looks like when projecting 2.40:1 info on a 2.40:1 screen, that without any other modifications, you get a narrower picture with letter box bars on top and bottom, as if you were using a 1.78:1 screen.

The projector then stretches the picture vertically to eliminate the letter boxing. Then the anamorphic lens stretches the picture to fill the 2.40:1 screen. This allows the projector to utilize all pixels to display the image to gain a brighter and clearer picture.

I'm set on a 2.40:1 screen because of the (somewhere between) 6 1/2 to 7 foot ceiling. This will give me the biggest picture possible in the available space. If I settled on a 1.78:1, then I would be loosing picture width. Also with all 3 speakers behind the screen, you need as wide a screen as possible.

Edit: Also because of room size, I plan on putting an EP800 on it's side under the screen, so I need the screen's bottom to be above this.


Edited by CatBrat (01/06/11 01:22 PM)

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  alan, Andrew, Brent, Ian, Jc 
Forum Stats

15,334 Registered Members
16 Forums
24,193 Topics
427,744 Posts

Most users ever online:
883 @ 03/04/17 05:06 PM

Top Posters
Ken.C 18044
pmbuko 16437
SirQuack 13611
CV 11734
MarkSJohnson 11445
1 registered (CV)
274 Guests and
2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup