Previous Gallery
Next Gallery
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
images
#332852 12/30/10 07:03 PM
3 Images
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 37
S
sam3274 Offline OP
enthusiast
images

just additional snaps
27 Comments
Re: images
grunt #333633 01/06/11 04:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
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.

Re: images
grunt #333634 01/06/11 04:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 37
S
sam3274 Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Dec 2010
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
Re: images
CatBrat #333635 01/06/11 04:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 37
S
sam3274 Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Dec 2010
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
Re: images
CatBrat #333640 01/06/11 05:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
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.

Last edited by grunt; 01/06/11 05:19 PM. Reason: dyslexia
Re: images
sam3274 #333643 01/06/11 05:05 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
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
Re: images
ClubNeon #333646 01/06/11 05:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
When you say the anamorphic lens "stretches" the picture, do you mean it does so in a fashion that it changes circles into ovals?

Re: images
CatBrat #333647 01/06/11 05:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
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.

Re: images
grunt #333648 01/06/11 05:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
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."

Last edited by CatBrat; 01/06/11 05:46 PM.
Re: images
CatBrat #333651 01/06/11 05:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
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
Re: images
grunt #333655 01/06/11 06:08 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
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.

Last edited by CatBrat; 01/06/11 06:22 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  alan, Andrew, Brent, Ian, Jc 

Link Copied to Clipboard

Need Help Graphic

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics24,376
Posts431,991
Members15,416
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
Top Posters
Ken.C 18,044
pmbuko 16,437
SirQuack 13,686
CV 11,804
MarkSJohnson 11,451
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 108 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4