Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater 235:1 screen size input

I have absolutely no experience with projectors and screens, so I’ve been sorta winging it as I go. I’m now considering going with a 2.35:1 screen size for my never ending HT room project. I’ve done some reading at AVS, but still a little confused (again). I seam to recall that someone, or maybe more than one of you axiomites has this set up. Guess I should pay closer attention.

First off, should I go with this ratio or stick with 16.9? I own about 400 DVD’s and rent a couple each week. I usually just buy the good ones that come out and I think I might want to watch again some day. When I buy them, I always try to get wide screen, but heck if I know if they are anamorphic 2.35 or not. I don’t know enough about this to know what I don’t know……From what I’ve read, 2.35 is the way to go for picture quality, but it doesn’t come without some trade offs.

My front wall is 12’ wide and we’ll be sitting about 12’ from it. I was going to try painting a sheet of 3/4 MDF with a version of the Mississippi mud that I’ve got (already have the paints). I figured what the hell, it’s cheap and supposed to work, so why not give it a try?? Plus, this way I can just screw the sheet to wall and yank it off and re-do it if needed.

I’ve already got the projector (panny 900 au) and the DVD player (panny 97s).

Other than DVD’s, the only thing we watch is a little satellite in standard definition. No hope for HD in my area for at least one year as they need to shoot up another satellite.

What would be ‘right’ size screen for this room under the conditions listed above? I’d like to keep it under 8’ wide for aesthetic and speaker positioning reasons (need a couple feet to each side). By my figuring, I could make the screen 40” X 92”. That would leave me a few inches around the sheet of MDF to paint black boarders and trim it out? Would this be big enough for that wow factor?

I’m not too excited about needing black curtains on the front wall for those times when 2.35 isn’t possible. Plus, if the screen height is 40” with 2.35, then it would be smaller with 16.9 and 4.3 wouldn’t it? I dunno, but that might be way to small.

What type / brand of lense should I get, if 2.35 is the way to go?

Hell, any input at all would be appreciated at this point.

I'll let Randy our 2.35 expert answer most of your questions . But what I can tell you is that the image height should be constant whether you are projecting 2.35, 1.78 (16:9) or 1.33 (4:3). All you would need to do is close or open the curtains in function of the format.

Oh man, I'll try to help. I would not call myself the 2.35 genius, but I do my best to make sure I understand.

It is very confusing and you want to make sure you figure everything right or it won't work. You'll want to make sure you figure your throw distance, screen size, etc.. correctly up front, or once you install everything it may not work when you add the anamorphic lens into the equation.

The nice thing about constant height 2.35 setups, like Skyhawk mentions, is that the height stays the same. 2.35 movies will fill the entire screen with no bars, 1.85 to 2.35 ratio DVD's will have black bars on the sides, HD material (1.78) will also have black bars on the sides, and standard 4:3 broadcasts will have the widest black bars on the sides.

Currently, when I watch say 1.85ratio DVD's, which is close to 16:9 I have the black bars on the sides and I am getting used to them, after a short time you really forget about them, just like bars on the top/bottom. However, at some point I may add black curtains to draw in for a better effect.

A 16:9 screen would require the least fiddling around, and if you don't mind a narrow black bar on top/bottom, that might be the best bet. You could always figure out a way to mask the top and bottom. Or some people adjust the projector so the top OR bottom black bar is off the screen, hidden by the masking border, and then just drop down a black velvet border to cover the top bar. There are so many options.

I know I'm rambling, and the wife is yelling at me to come to bed. ha ha

One thing is that you have to have something that will do the initial scaling or vertical stretch. The Panny S97S won't do it, I have one of them. The 900AU, I"m not sure, I know the new Sanyo Z4 will achieve this needed scaling. The other options, are a Home Theater PC, which I just got done building, or an expensive scaler like DVDO.

Basically how it works is when you watch a 2.35 movie on a 16:9 projector, you will have the normal black bars on top/bottom. Those black bars account for about 33% in lost screen realstate. Now your screen you build is 2.35 ratio, so at first you see the black bars on top/bottom as usual ,and the blank space on the sides, because your native 16:9 projector can't fill the 2.35 screen width, YET.

So, you first scale the image by vertically stretching it to reclaim those lost pixels on top and bottom. This also helps increase the brightness by about 20% because your using more of the panel for the image. Now everyone in the movie looks skinny, don't fear, now you introduce the anamorphic lens which stretches the image back out to fill the entire 2.35 screen and making the images normal looking. Confused yet?

Screen size, hmmm there is so much to think about here also. Ok so you say you are thinking about a 92" wide screen?

If you go with a 16:9 screen, then you would have the following: about 51.6" x 92" which is pretty big for 1.78 and 1.85 material. If you watched a 2.35 movie on this screen, it would be 39" high (92/2.35). 51.6" - 39" = 12.6" difference. Divide that by 2, and that is how thick the black bars would be on 2.35 material, about 6" each. Really it is about the same as when you watch a 1.85 movie on a standard 4:3 television.

I know I keep rambling, and not making any sense, it is hard for me to put this stuff in words.

Another thing to keep in mind is during a 1.85 DVD movie, you want to be about 1.3 0- 1.5 times the screen width back. So if we assume you build a 92" wide screen, that would be about 10 - 11.5ft back from the screen minimum. For 2.35 movies you want to be farther back as your eyes have to move from side to side further.

You will also want to make sure that your Panasonic will be able to achieve a 16: 9 image from whatever throw distance your planning. If you build the 2.35 screen, the projector will produce an approx. 16x9 image of 39" x 69" so your black side bars will be about 11.5" wide on each side.

Here is the calculator for your projector, it appears between 8' and 16' you can get that screen size for 16:9 images, you just don't want to have you zoom maxed out to achieve it...

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Panasonic_Home-PT-AE900U-projection-calculator-pro.htm

Its late, and I'm sorry for rambling, I've had a few cold ones and know I haven't answered any of your questions, and probably confused you more.

Heck, just go get a sheet of 4ft x 8ft Parkland Durotherm Lite panels from your local home improvement store, trim it to 16:9, hang and enjoy, no painting required. Heck, I have a gallon of MMud in my closet never opened I should have sent you. good night, burp....

PS: most DVD's are either 1.85 or 2.35, about 50% in my collection, if you read the back.

In reply to:

---

you want to make sure you figure everything right or it won't work

---

That's it. I'm out.

Randy, thank goodness you're around to help with this stuff.

Ok, so if my screen is 84" wide, then at 2.35:1 my height will be about 35.75". This then becomes the height for all picture formats, correct? In this case that means my 16:9 will be 63.5" wide at that height. SO, what ever projector I purchase in the future must be able to do 63.5"x35.75" (16:9) at what ever distance the projector is mounted from the screen.

Currently I have the cables run at about 14 to 14.5 feet back from the screen (this is not yet cast in stone). Seating distance is planned for about about 10.5' back.

If I plan on the Z4, provided I read the Projector Central info correctly, my projector should be mounted at 14.8' from the screen. Is that correct?

I’ll consider the light panels. I guese I’m just more comfortable working with wood/MDF and like the idea of painting black boarders and trimming it out with hardwood.

My throw distance will be right at 12’.

This was posted at AVS. It appears the 900 au will perform the vertical stretch.


“My HD950 arrived! I had a short time over the weekend with it and here are a few quick comments.

I watched the latest Harry Potter movie which is 2.35. I thought the picture was noticably sharper over HDMI and for my AE900 the 720p setting was the best. 1080i looked a bit softer to me. It also appeared brighter using HDMI over component. I didn't see any artifacts as Mark mentioned and the black levels looked good to me. Maybe the pj helped out in that regard.

Now the good part. The "Screen Fit" setting does the vertical stretch over HDMI in 720p. It does the stretch over component in 480i. Now this is weird - 480p over component didn't fill the 16x9 screen width. I don't know why but it looked like a 4x3 image of a letterboxed scope image centered in the 16x9 screen. I don't know if it was a pj sync thing or it didn't like the way I changed modes on it. It did do the stretch though with "Screen Fit" though. Strange...

So in the end it looks like the EZ-View "Screen Fit" stretches the image vertically to fill the panel in just about any mode. Now all I need is an anamorphic lens!

Mark,
The upconvert settings are under Menu=>Display Setup. When you choose HDMI as the output the next line lets you select the upconvert (720p or 1080i). See page 64-65 of the manual.”

In past posts, this link has been helpful. It is from the internet movie data base (imdb) and summarizes how many movies (DVDs) there are in each aspect ratio. As you can see, most are in full screen, followed by 1.85 to 1, followed by 2.35 to 1. I'm in the same boat you are - about to get a screen in the next month - and I'm going for 1.78 to 1 (aka 16:9) because that's what HDTV is, and it is so close to 1.85 to 1. I'll just suffer a little for the Harry Potters, LOTR, and SW that are in 2.35 to 1...

link

Yes Bruce, your correct on your measurments. Another thing I did is that I tried to plan my projector location back at a distance where the Zoom setting on the lens was near the minimum ammount. Normally, your going to get better results if your not zoomed to the max to achieve that size screen.

Yes Bruce, 14.8 is correct. Based on your screen size, you could place the projector anywhere from about 7.4ft upto 14.6ft or so Throw distance. So you would be placing the projector at the very MAXIMUM throw and you would have to leave the ZOOM at a minimum to fill the screen. Sometimes it is better to place the projector at a location so you have a little more flexibility and can adjust the zoom if needed.

Also, keep in mind, there are two types of anamorphic lenses out there, horizontal stretch or vertical squeeze. The horizontal stretch is nice if you want a bigger result from a shorter throw distance. It takes the image that you have previously stretched vertically to fill the black bars, and stretches it out horizontally to fill the 2.35 screen. The vertical designs actually squeeze the stretched image down to created the 2.35 image. Vertical lenses are normally used by people that have a very very long throw projector, say 18ft or so, and have a very large 16:9 image to start. If you have a short throw projector, I'm not sure a vertical lens would be the answer, as your end result would be a very small 2.35 screen.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the longer throw you can get the better for either design. The closer you are to the screen, the more issues like "pincushion" will result. Pincussion looks like the top/bottom of the screen will have a slight bowing effect. Usually, this can be easily masked, and only occurs during 2.35 movies.

--________--

_--------------_

I tell you though, My Z2 is a little over 13ft back from my screen. My Prismasonic H600M lens is mounted as close to my Z2's lens as possible, still allowing me to get to the adjustments. The Z4 is a better design. Anyway, my screen is 51" x 120" wide and it works great.

I think Panamorph also just came out with a Horizontal stretch lens to compete with Prismasonic. I waited until there was a Power Buy on AVS before I got my Prismasonic 600.

I guess what a person needs to do, is sit down and figure out both scenarios, just going with a 16:9 screen, or a 2.35 screen. Keep in mind the 2.35 screen won't be as tall. You might find it better to build a large 16:9 screen, and still get a nice sized 2.35 image with black bars.

MDrew,

I also felt my best result when I had a S97S, was using 720p as well, which is the native resolution of the Z2. However, the dvd player is still scaling the image to give you the result. With my new HTPC, I just set my video card resolution to exactly 1280 x 720 for a 1:1 pixel mapping ratio. The picture blows away my S97S, in my opinion.

I don’t envision myself building a HTPC, so I’m stuck with the DVD player / projector. Actually, I do not have the 97s in my possession. My dealer is waiting for his distributor to get some more in (which is any day). I can cancel that order and get a different DVD player if you think there’s a better one out there.

I looked at my room a little closer last night and penciled a box on the wall. I am definitely limited to a screen 96” in width. With my soffets and speakers, I need 2’ to either side of the screen. But, that 96” box looked pretty damn big to me 12’ away from it. I think I’m just going to paint the whole sheet with MM and hang it on the wall, play with the image until I get it where I want it, then mask and paint black boarders on the sheet to fit the image size I end up with.

I’m leaning toward the vertical stretch and horizontal lense. I think that’s the best rout. Any other lenses besides the one you bought worth looking at? Where can I buy them and how much do they run??

Thanks for the help Randy.

In reply to:

---

Yes Bruce, 14.8 is correct. Based on your screen size, you could place the projector anywhere from about 7.4ft upto 14.6ft or so Throw distance. So you would be placing the projector at the very MAXIMUM throw and you would have to leave the ZOOM at a minimum to fill the screen. Sometimes it is better to place the projector at a location so you have a little more flexibility and can adjust the zoom if needed.

---

So I should place the projector further back to use a bit of the zoom?

Just want to make sure your doing this right, ok if your wall is 12ft wide and you want to leave 2ft on each side, that leave 96" for the screen.

So your 2.35 screen will be 96" wide and 40.8" tall (96/2.35). So when you say you penciled in the screen, I assume your saying you drew a 2.35 screen?

Your native projected image will be more like 40.8" x 72.6wide (40.8 x 1.78).

The best thing to do is try to place the projector where you think it will be, and fire up an image on your wall, just to make sure things look right, at least in 16:9 mode, maybe you've already done this....

I think the S97S is a great DVD player, I assume your going to feed the projector via HDMI connection? If your projector will allow you to stretch the image over HDMI you should be good to go. On my Z2, it would only let me stretch the Component signal, not over HDMI.

I bought my S97S back in mid 2005 and it isn't even broken in yet. hmmmm maybe we should talk......since I took the HTPC route. If I had the Z4 I would keep the S97S, great picture and sound in my opinion.

The only two brands I'm aware of that make Horizontal designs are:

http://prismasonic.com/english/

and I believe www.panamorph.com just came out with a Horizontal stretch design, they used to be all vertical.

I got my Prismasonic H600M back on AVS when they had a power buy, I think I payed around $700 or so bucks...not cheap.

If you place the projector any further back than 14.6ft, you can't achieve the screen size your wanting. If you go to the calculator and adjust the bottom numbers to show your desired screen size for 16:9, then look over to the left above that, it will show you the min/max throw distance you can place the projector to achieve that screen size. 14.6ft is the furthest back with no zoom, if you increased the zoom the picture would not fit on your screen.

If your set on that screen size, you might want to move the projector a little closer if possible, just so you have a little more comfort zone, in case you do have to play with the zoom ever.

Hope this makes sense.

On my Z2 at about a 13ft throw distance my 16:9 image is 51" x 90", and that is with the zoom not really being used much.

I would say if you can keep it closer to 14ft or a little less, that would be better.

Ok, another thing you guys need to consider in order to be a good candidate for a constant height setup, is that your DISTANCE to WIDTH (16:9) image, has to be at least 1.3 or greater to give you decent performance. Once you start getting 1.3 or below, you will start to introduce the pin cusion effect and barroling. By my calculations both of you should be better than my results, and I love my results.

http://prismasonic.com/english/compatibility.shtml

First, lets look at Mr. Drew:

He said his back wall was 12ft wide, and he wants to allow 2ft on each side for speakers and whatever. So that gives him 8ft(96") for the screen width of his 2.35 screen.

41" x 96" would be his 2.35 screen size.
41" x 73" would be his 16:9 native image from the projector.

Lets see if he is a candidate for a Prismasonic Lens. (note: I think Panamorph follows the same guidelines?)

1. Calculate or measure the throw distance (D) and the screen width (W). (note:use the width of the non-stretched 16:9 image for calculation)

D=12ft (144") and W=71.2"



2. Count the ratio between the distance (D) and the image width (W) Ratio = D/W

(Again, the ratio is defined from the original, unstretched image)

so we have 144" / 71.2" = 2.02 ratio

3. Long throw optics gives best result, see the picture below.


So you can see that Mr. Drew, having a 2.02 reading is well into the Green area, which should give good results.


Lets look at Bruce now:

His screen results are as follows....

35.75" x 84" would be his 2.35 screen size.
35.75" x 63.6" would be his 16:9 native image from the projector.

Lets see if he is a candidate for a Prismasonic Lens. (note: I think Panamorph follows the same guidelines?)

1. Calculate or measure the throw distance (D) and the screen width (W). (note:use the width of the non-stretched 16:9 image for calculation)

D=14ft (168") and W=63.6"



2. Count the ratio between the distance (D) and the image width (W) Ratio = D/W

(Again, the ratio is defined from the original, unstretched image)

so we have 168" / 63.6" = 2.64 ratio

3. Long throw optics gives best result, see the picture below.


So you can see that Brucey Boy, having a 2.64 reading, will also most likely have great results.

The longer the throw distance the better. Having a bigger screen is also nice if your room will accomodate one.

Hope this all makes sense.

ps: Just to let you two know, my Z2 is a little over 13ft back from my screen which is:

51" x 120" 2.35 screen size
51" x 90.7" for a 16:9 image

So my ratio is 1.78, a little below both of you and mine works great. I love my HUGE screen.

Thanks ever so much Randy. The ceiling is the last bit I will be installing so I have time to play with the end projector mounting location. I will look into this further. The one thing that I do know so far is that I will be going with a LCD projector over the DLP. There seems to be better pricing and a little more flexibility.

I've heard some poeple say that HDMI was yielding a "better" picture than component connectors. I find that difficult to believe (have not seen any demo examples). There is also other information that seems to indicate degredation in signal quality with longer HDMI runs (typical of a front projector system). Have you come across anything to confirm of deny this?

I see I screwed up on Drews measurements a bit, his width would actually be 73", so 144" / 73" = 1.97 which is still pretty good, and a little bit higher than my 1.78 outcome...

Another key to help reduce any problems is to mount the Anamorphic lens as close as possible to the projector lens. Keeping in mind you want to leave enough room if you have to reach any adjustments on the projector.

Bruce, well I do think that HDMI does provide a sharper image overall, but Component is still very good. If you run your cabling, it might not be a bad idea to run both, like I did...I purchased both my 25ft DVI/HDMI and 25ft Component cables from Monoprice.com very cheap and they work great.

If your going to use an upconverting DVD player, most of them won't upconvert via component, only over HDMI. With the Panny S97S and my Z2, the picture was nicer via 720p or 1080i versus component. With HDMI the signal is digital from point A to B, component goes through conversion from digital to analog and analog back to digital, I believe.

My runs are 25ft long, and I have not had any issues with signal loss or picture degregation.

If I recall correctly from some AVSr's, the Z4 will do the stretch of component and HDMI signals, that is cool, all you need to do is find a good upconverting DVD player. My Z2 will not stretch HDMI signals, so I was only able to use component, until now, now that I have my HTPC.

Thanks for the very helpful responses Randy. Very much appreciated.

No, I don’t have the projector mounted yet, so I just measured and drew the screen size with a perm marker. I will play around with it some more when I get the walls painted with primer and projector mounted.

Bruce,

You should look at the Optima HD 72. It is supposed to be one of the few projectors that work very well with a 2.35 screen and actually has menu options for setting it up for this screen size (I’m fuzzy with the details). Some very positive posts about this projector on AVS. I would have bought this model, but I got my Panny for $1400 after the rebate. Hard deal to pass up.

In reply to:

---

You should look at the Optima HD 72

---

Thanks for the info. I will check it out as well.

I guess I will aim for a throw distance of 13-14 feet max. I figured that I just did not want to have the project directly over where we sit (approx 10 ft). Seems some of the new projectors have a very low noise factor so it may not be an issue.

I have always run my Z2 in Low-Lamp mode, and you don't even know it is above you. The projector is actually above the people in the first row, and in front of the people in the second row. Since my ceilings are 9ft, it is a none issue.

If you have light control of your room, I would also consider running your projectors in the low-lamp modes. Besides, they will last much longer if you do, in high lamp mode the fans have to run faster to keep the bulb cool, creating more noise.

Yaha 9ft, eh?

Unfortunately my ceiling will be about 6.7 ft

Definitely will have control of light. Do you have any ambient light in the space while watching or complete black? I've heard that it is recommended to have some light behind the screen to ease eye fatigue. I thought this would only be applicable to big screen and wall TVs.

Low lamp mode makes sense. Likely it would negate any need (if any) for any light in the room.

Sometimes we leave a light on across the other side of the room near the bar area. Not sure I would like having any other lights on in the immediate HT movie watching area, possibly behind the seating if any. Since my back wall is flat black and my side walls/ceiling are a nice dark blue color, I hardly get any stray light from the projector beam either.

You would not want the picture to suffer, but I don't think ambient light in other locations of the room would hurt, especially during a Super Bowl party or whatever.

At first I was thinking that a remote operated lighting system would be nice but then I thought that there will likely be enough light from the projector to see my way to a switch.

I have to really avoid getting to much into the technology hype before I spend more money needlessly. Whatever.

The Panny 900 will not vertically stretch anything other that 480P (component feed only). Just found this out and I’m quite disappointed. I’m wishing I would have bought the Optoma HD72.

It looks like I’m stuck with the 16.9 screen after all as I want to view 720p.

Same problem I had with my Z2/Panny S97S setup, even though it was 480P, it was still better than a 16:9 configuration with bars.

My new setup using a HTPC and TheaterTek software fits the bill nicely. I know the Z4 can achieve the stretch. Are you sure about the 900? I thought you said some other AVS'rs said it will, are you sure your not hitting the wrong buttons.

Just to throw another wrench in, consider that some material is 4:3 (oldies, TV shows, DVD "bonus features"). If your screen is fixed at 2.35:1, you'll have a great setup for some material but a tiny screen on others. I have a 16:9 screen and I wish I got an equally wide 4:3 for the occasional oldie (or occasional DVD that was fullscreen from my pre-HT days), and accept the larger bars on top/bottom. --Martin

That is only true if your 2.35 or 16:9 screen is small to begin with, I hardly ever watch 4:3 material in my HT room, but when I do, it is not that small. Here is my setup:

2.35 movies 51" x 120" or 130" diag.
1.85 movies 51" x 94" or 107" diag.
1.78 HD 16:9 51" x 91" or 104" diag.
1.33 4:3 Std 51" x 68" or 85" diag.

So in the remote chance I would watch 4:3 material, which is unlikely for the purpose of having a big screen setup, 85" is NOT SMALL.

There's a string over there now about the 900 and 2.35.

It will vertically stretch, but ONLY with a component input. It will not stretch with the DVI input (which is the only way I can veiw 720.

The Optoma will strech both. I think I'm going to just sell the 900 and get the Optoma. The 900 is still in the box.

I'm using TheaterTek DVD software on my HTPC which has custom aspect settings. In the latest version, it will automatically scale the 2.35 movie for constant height users. I love the quality of the picture to, wow. What is nice is that you can set your video card to 1280 x 720, so you get a 1:1 match to the projector. I was in the same boat with you using my Z2/Panny S97S combination, it only worked via component and 480P. With the HTPC it is not an issue.

Good luck Mr. Drew

So, if I unserstand correctly your lens allows you to display 1.85 at full height? I thought it worked only for 2.35! Well if it does then it's one more reason I want one!

Right now 1.85 does not display black bars since I guess my DVD player overscans a little bit, but I'm assuming that once I use an HTPC and 1:1 pixel mapping there will be some black bars on 1.85 material right?

Not exactly, for 1.33, 1.78(HD), and 1.85 DVDs, the lens has a "pass through" mode. In other words, it is like there is no lens present. My projector is native 16:9, so there would be no reason to alter the image.

When you watch a 2.35 movie, you have black bars on the top/bottom, so you have to first scale the image to get rid of the black bars and reclaim those lost pixels, then you put the lens in stretch mode to stretch the previously scaled image back out to fill the 2.35 screen.

I see... But what about 1.85? It usually would have small black bars when watched on a 1.78 projector. They're usually not seen since most of them overscan and therefore hide them. But with an HTPC you can get 1:1 mapping and the black bars would show up (I did see them when I tried playing some DVDs on the Z2 with my Linux box). Do you see some with TheaterTek?

Hey Randy! Is that little guy in your avatar looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack?

ahhh now I understand your question, yes your right. With the Z2 and Panny DVD player the overscan took care of it. With the Theatertek software you have total control of the Aspect ratios, and you can save custom settings. So basically for each ratio, 1.85, 2.35, 2.40, etc... you adjust the picture to fill the screen, and Theatertek remembers that for other movies of the same AR's. I really like it a lot...They have a free 14 day trial download of the full version if you want to play with it...

Funny Jack,

That picture was taken last fall of our youngest son. He was playing up at my in-laws farm in NE Iowa.

When you're that age, a farm can be a LOT of fun. At my age, they're just a lot of WORK!

We always enjoy taking the kids upto Grandma and Grandpa's farm.

Also, in follow up to my last post, here is a feature in TheaterTek.

"- Automatic Aspect Ratio detection for DVD's for constant height users.
On the General tab choose 'Smart' from the Auto Aspect Ratio detection dropdown. When you start playback on a new DVD, TT will briefly blank the screen when the main title is reached and calculate the AR. For this to work successfully, you need to define some new AR's corresponding to the calculated AR. For example, if you define an AR called "2.35:1", TT will select this AR if it detects the movie AR to be 2.35:1. Detected AR's are 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40:1 and 2.55:1. Define as many of these as appropriate for your environment."

What setting do you use for 1.85? Do you zoom in cutting a little bit of the sides so that the black bars disappear? Or maybe the vertical stretch would be tolerable and thus I could stretch the image vertically to remove the black bars? (I guess losing some of the sides seems a better idea... 1.85 to 1.78 isn't that far).

Your losing me,

My screen is a 2.35 design, so 2.35 movies take the full width when I add the lens. Other movies stay the same height, but the black space/bars on the sides varies, depending on the material. Theatertek automatically adjusts for different aspect ratios and you can even setup custom ratios. So while your watching the intros/trailers/ and finally the main feature, you just sit back and enjoy the software does the rest. It automatically detects the AR on the DVD. I never mess with my Zoom/Lens shift unless the kids have been running upstairs and knocked my Z2 out of alignment.

Don't worry I lose myself most of the time

What I'm trying to figure out is this:

*For 2.35 material you let Theatertek stretch the image vertically so that it removes the black bars, which means it will fit the whole lcd panel but the image will look stretched. Your lens stretches the image horizontally so that it now is back to the right ratio (which means that the height is the max height of the lcd panel - and screen- and the width is now the max width of your screen, right?

* For 1.33 Theatertek will display the image in a 1.78 format (the full size of the lcd panel) but with black bars on each sides (so I guess you would use the max amount of masking on the screen to hide them).

*For 1.78 it will display the image fully in the lcd panel without any need for black bars.

*For 1.85 Theatertek could zoom the image so that it fills the lcd panel but if I lock the aspect ratio so that the image doesn't distort that means I will lose a little bit of the image on each sides right? The other solution is to get Theatertek to stretch the image vertically so that the black bars disappear (kind of like what you would do with 2.35) but that would distort the image a little bit since you wouldn't have any other way to correct that with a lens.

I don't know if I make much sense here, or whether what I'm wondering about is even worth worrying about. The reason I ask is that for now I can't afford an anamorphic lens and so I will have to live with black bars for 2.35>= material and I don't want to have to put up with small black bars on 1.85 material if I don't have to.
Basically my current DVD player overscans slightly anything it displays through component (or it's the Z2 that does), thus the black bars that would appear on 1.85 material are just hidden in the overscan.

*2.35 correct

*1.33 Yes, I don't watch much 4:3 material on my projector, but if I did, your right, the height would be the same, and if I masked the sides, it would require to mask the side bars, and the excess screen.

*1.78 Yes this is true for HD material and a few dvd's that believe it or not, are in 1.78.

1.85 I'll have to test this some more when I get a chance. I know Theatertek also has Overscan custom settings, so I assume it would treat it just like a standard DVD player. It has what is called a "Smart" mode which automatically adjusts to various ratios.

hmmmm you have me curious now.

What’s the ‘other’ method Randy? Doesn’t it use a different type of lens? Vertical compression? I can’t quite grasp that technique.

If your referring to a vertical versus a horizontal type lens, they really do the same thing, but in a different manner. In both situations, you first have to scale the 2.35 image (vertically stretch) to reclaim the black bars.

The horizontal lens then takes that image, leaving the height alone, and horizontally stretches it back out to fill your 2.35 screen. In my opinion, these are best if your limited on depth of your room, and trying to achieve a big screen from a shorter throw distance.

The vertical design takes the same image and compresses(squeezes) it down from top/bottom until it fills your 2.35 screen. I think most people that use these types of lens, have a longer throw type projector, I don't think they would work that good from a short distance as your end result would be a smaller screen.

Hope this answers your question.

So if I understand correctly the horizontal lens is good for a constant height system while the vertical lens is good for a constant width system?

I could be wrong on all of what I said above, just my understanding. I'm sure Panamorphs website would help to understand.

A Vertical squeeze design would seem to work better for constant width setups (where both 16:9 and 2.35:1 are the same width), where as horizontal stretch would seem to be ideal for constant height setups where you want the 2.35:1 image wider than 16:9.

To me an anamorphic lens is only worth it if you go constant height. The whole point of an anamorphic lens is to recreate the cinema feel by making 2.35 movies wider than the rest.

If your limited on the width of how big your screen can be, then a vertical design might be an option?

I would go with the same setup as yours, makes more sense.

I agree. I think it is easier.

Randy, did you buy your lens direct from the manufacturer?

Yes, there was a "Power Buy" on AVSforum 6-8 months ago from Prismasonic so I took advantage of the better pricing. I think Panamorph just recently came out with a horizontal design as well, not sure of the pricing. Ok I'll check......
.....
Looks to be $695 right now, not bad...you would have to read the specs to compare to the Prismasonic...
http://panamorph.com/UH50Program.html

It appears my model is currently selling for around $1100 USD, it will fluctuate depending on the Euro conversion each day.

http://prismasonic.com/english/prices_lens.asp
http://prismasonic.com/images/manual_front.png

In reply to:

---

Yes, there was a "Power Buy" on AVSforum 6-8 months ago from Prismasonic so I took advantage of the better pricing.

---

Ack! "Timing" and I don't seem to go very well together. Maybe they will have another one of these days. It will be awhile before I am able to get the lens anyway.

I know recently Prismasonic was offering a DIY kit, where they send you all the stuff with instructions on how to put it all togethor. Not sure if that is still an option...

Here's a little something that's explains the aspect ratios.

http://www.electronichouse.com/columns/gear/8787.html

I've been watching this thread. Looks like the costs will be about $300 for a lense with mount. I don't care for the mount, but it is a hell of price.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7573320#post7573320

I can't seem to read this. Perhaps not enough access rights? What is the content?

I was not able to get to it today either, however, the other day I was just fine, maybe the thread was closed or something.

They locked the thread and put a sticky on it at the top of the board page due to some complaints that the guy was trying to sell a product which is apparently against forum rules. The sight admin said he was going to review and post back later. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=673026

In short, it looked like a heck of a lens this guy is manufacturing. Selling price of around $300 with a mount.

In reply to:

---

They locked the thread and put a sticky on it at the top of the board page due to some complaints that the guy was trying to sell a product which is apparently against forum rules. The sight admin said he was going to review and post back later. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=673026

In short, it looked like a heck of a lens this guy is manufacturing. Selling price of around $300 with a mount.

---

Dead link. Still under review? This was for an anamorphic lens? Perhaps you can check back and let us know?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117

ya, a HE anamorphic lense. look at this board, first post that's locked at the top of the page. DYI 4.3 to 16.1 thread.

Aha! Thanks. So now if this turns into some marketing power buy thingy, I'd have to become a paid member to participate in it, eh?

If it is decent quality (how can it be?) I'd be very interested. Considering they seem to average about $1000, a price of $300 seems to good to be true (and you know what they say about that). Regardless, I'll keep my eye on it. It would definitely be a great buy.

The guy doesn't speak or write english too well. He's apparently Chinese. But, if you want, you can send him an email and buy direct. He was offering to sell it to anyone direct.

Here's another thread. He's the original poster. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=674387

I'm gong to try using the Panny's zoom first. If I don't like it, then I'm going to pick up a lens.

Another thread started. This guy bought a prototype and is testing it. Sounds very promising. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=676352

This is looking good for those who want a nice 2.35:1 setup for not a lot of money. Since I am building a modest home theater, this is ideal for me. From the pictures, it is "good enough". Likely not good enough for your videophile but good enough for me . It seems best suited for a long-throw projector but I think they are trying to convince Liuwzen to make one suitable for a short-throw projector market.