[dorgan]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=561280

Check the Star Wars shot!!!! Brill!

[Onyxia]

Some sweet setups there, any idea on how much a 2.35 lens would cost?

[Anim]

Is it just me that doesn't like 2.35 aspect?

[guido]

Think that Gary Lightfoot on this forum has Cinemascope screen setup and prismatic lens. Have a search for him and his signature link.

Think that if you go down this route you would be better off getting one of the screens that has the blinds built in from top and bottom to mask off a 16:9 to 2.35 aspect??? than a dedicated 2.35 screen. IMHO of course!

[stuart-f]

Maybe it's late, maybe I'm just thick but I've gotta ask. What do these lens's do? Surely a DVD aspect ratio is it's aspect ratio is it's aspect ratio.

I have a horrible feeling that I'm missing something blindingly obvious here, can someone please put me out of my misery.

[dorgan]

I was checking out the FAQ on the 2.35 thread on AVSForum today and the way I understood it was that the 2.35 image is stretched vertically by the projector and then unstretched horizontally by the lens. The upshot is that the full projector panels are used to display the 2.35 image which gives increased resolution to the picture and better light output. However, it seems that not all projectors can do this, but some DVD players can perform the required strectching (ooh-er missus!) Don't know any more technical details. The lens seem to start at around 750 euro.

EDIT: Everything smaller than 2.35 will have bars at the side. There was some mention of pass through which I didn't quite get. (???)

[stuart-f]

Thanks dorgan that makes sense.

[Gary Lightfoot]

I will mask the screen using ordinary curtain track (covered in velvet) and velvet curtains to go from cinemascope to 16:9. The area for a 16:9 screen masked down to 2.35:1 (bars at top and bottome) gives roughly the same area as a 2.35:1 screen masked sideways for 16:9, except that the 2.35:1 image goes wider just like in a cinema. My screen is a DIY job with Draper M1300 1.3 (closer to 1.25) gain material. Cost was around £100

Pass through is what the Prismasonic lenses have - they have two adjustable prisms to stretch the 16:9 image wider to make 2.35:1. You can readjust the lens so that the image passes straight through the lens untouched for 16:9 (or you can do it in software and not notice the difference with DVD/SD source material). The lenses can be bought here:

www.prismasonic.com.

They can be quite expensive, so ideally you need to see a set-up or be convinced it's the right way to go before you buy. Prismasonic do a 14 moneyback guarentee to I guess that's one way to try it. The lense works best with pjs that have 2:1 throw, and my Optoma H78 is just on the limit of being able to work with the lense. Having it's own lense recessed means the outer edges are slightly dimmer than the rest of the image, though you'd never notice it.

HTH

Gary.

[pez]

this looks interesting, but ive a bad feeling itll be redundant on the hi def formats coming soon, as they can be per pixel matched on hidef projectors, surely any scaling would affect pq?

cool pics!

makes me want to sort out this projector, screen and 7.1 setup here properly!

pez

[Gary Lightfoot]

Why would it be redundant? It works just the same with Hi Def content (I have some on my hard drive), and the image quality is obviously much better.

Gary.

[davisneil]

I work as a cinema projectionist and would be happy to answer the question about the need for the prism.

In the cinema, a frame of 35mm film is actually approx 4:3 ratio (or 1.33:1). To get a Cinemascope image the camera shoots the SCope image but squeezes the picture by 1/2 so that it occupies a full frame of film.Then, on the projector, a 2x Anamorphic lens 'unsqueezes' this 1.33 image to give a 2.66:1 image on the screen. With me so far? Good! Now when DTS came out, this occupied the side of the frame area, which meant that the final Scope aspect ratio had to be cut to 2.35:1, to mask out the DTS timecode track.

On an LCD projector, the simple solution for anamorphic dvd is to squish the picture to its aspect ratio, with black bars top and bottom, but this wastes about 40% of the LCD's resolution. So, these setups actually project the anamorphic image, but expand optically, preserving the LCD resolutuion and light output.

[Timbo21]

I think 2.35:1 screens look rubbish. I don't want one.

[LV426]

Disagree. The right film looks much better very w...i...d...e

[nwgarratt]

Have a look at the pic of Wolfgang's setup. Does that mean 1:85:1 films cannot be shown as there is clearly no room for the right height (unless it is zoomed smaller).

[Gary Lightfoot]

16:9 will be the same height as the 2.35:1 movie, but not as wide. It's done exactly the same way as in the cinema - when the feature comes on, the motorised curtains move sideways and the screen gets wider. 2.35:1 should be wider than 16:9, not smaller which is what happens with fixed width variable height set-ups (like widscreen tvs and 16:9 screens). For example, a 16:9 movie will be approx 6ft wide and 41ins tall, a 2.35:1 movie will be still be 41ins tall, but 8ft wide.

Timbo - do you really think a cinemascope movie ratio at the cinema looks rubbish and prefer the smaller less wide 16:9 ratio? Do you prefer the black bars top and bottom?

Gary.

[nwgarratt]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

16:9 will be the same height as the 2.35:1 movie, but not as wide. It's done exactly the same way as in the cinema - when the feature comes on, the motorised curtains move sideways and the screen gets wider. 2.35:1 should be wider than 16:9, not smaller which is what happens with fixed width variable height set-ups (like widscreen tvs and 16:9 screens). For example, a 16:9 movie will be approx 6ft wide and 41ins tall, a 2.35:1 movie will be still be 41ins tall, but 8ft wide.

Gary.

Thanks that makes sense. I was getting confused as with widescreen TV's 1.85:1 is higher as 2.35:1 has top and bottom borders.

[Timbo21]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

Timbo - do you really think a cinemascope movie ratio at the cinema looks rubbish and prefer the smaller less wide 16:9 ratio? Do you prefer the black bars top and bottom?

Gary.

Hi Gary

No, I don't. I think those screen shots at avsforum look absoloutely awesome. I was just pretending , so I can persuade myself I don't want one

When I first viewed 2.35:1 & 16:9 on 16:9 screens it seemed like it would be more logical to just bring the sides in on 16:9, since you are just adding more width with 2.35:1 after all, but unfortunately I can't go any wider with my throw distance (2" more if I'm lucky), so I sometimes enjoy a full 16:9 since I then get a bigger image.

Originally Posted by dorgan

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=561280

Check the Star Wars shot!!!! Brill!

oh my. so wonderful.

aqh

[Gary Lightfoot]

Hi Timbo,

OK - just had to ask.

Gary.

[pez]

but isnt current hd material that is presented in 720p (for example) made from 1280x544 of actual pixels which can be per pixel matched on a 1280x720 panel (with black borders top and bottom)? isnt the scaling of those 544 lines to fit 720 lines (as is necessary to use every pixel of the 16x9 display which the lens then spreads out to the correct ratio) degrading to the quality of the image?

looks cool.

pez

[Gary Lightfoot]

In theory yes, but it all depends on the quality of the scaling, and using an HTPC is the best way to do it, though the Optoma (pj I'm using) does a pretty good job as well. If the material is 1080 then it is going to be scaled anyway.

You will probably see some differences in test patterns, but I can't say that I've seen anything obvious in movie material and HD stuff looks much better than SD no matter how you look at it.

Gary.

[Louis Mazzini]

Hi Gary. You seem extremely knowledgable on this, can you answer a question for me as I'm thinking of getting a Prismasonic (or similar) lens.

It's always seemed a bit crazy to me that most PJ users put up with letterboxed 2.35:1 films, when a projector is the one way to do it properly at home.

Do you know of any cheapish DVD players that will "stretch" the 2.35:1 image to fill the 16:9 panel on the PJ, or do I need to buy a phenomenally expensive external scaler to do the job? (I know the Prismasonic site mentions the cheap Samsung DVD players, but I've not read about this capability in them before, so was a bit surprised - I'm pretty sure my HD935 won't do it.) Cheers.

[Gary Lightfoot]

Hi Bill,

The Momitsu V880 with latest firmware will do the vertical stretch I believe (according to avsforum), though I don't know any others since I use an HTPC (have you considered that route?) and the H78 can do the stretch as well. I'm sure there must be others, so try www.avsforum.com as they have a dedicated 2.35:1 forum so might have more info:

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

Prismasonic are doing a DIY 600 model which is 200 euros cheaper than the prebuilt model (so 550e plus tax and delivery), so that could be worth getting if cost is an issue. Panamorph are doing something similar for under $500 so that might be worth a look too (see avs for the link).

HTH

Gary.

[Louis Mazzini]

Thanks Gary. Intersting thought about the HTPC route: I need to upgrade this ancient ond Pentium II(!) before long, so might go the whole hog and do it properly with an HTPC. One small snag that I see with that route is that when high-def discs come along I'll have to start from scratch again (or is that nonsense?).

Having been thinking a lot about getting an anamorphic lens over the last few days, I discovered something about my projector (Panasonic AE500) that I didn't know until this afternoon: It will vertically stretch 2.35:1 films itself! Seriously, I had no idea about this; is it common (I didn't know the H78 did it either)?

The reason I didn't know is because it will only do it via a non-DVI source, and I've had a DVI-outputting Samsung DVD player since I've had the Panasonic, so never noticed. Is this the same with the H78; do you know if there's a reason why a digital signal couldn't be "stretched" by the PJ, or is that just a quirk of the AE500..?

Does anyone have any experience of an anamorphic lens on the AE500? I'm concerned that maybe the throw distance is a little on the short side for it to work; any thoughts?

[Gary Lightfoot]

Hi Bill,

Some projectors disable a lot of functions for digital signals (like colour, contrast brightness etc) because in theory you shouldn't have to change it - it's a pure signal from the source to the display so it doesn't need altering as that will alter the original signal - the idea is to not introduce any changes. Can be a bit of a pain IMHO.

I'm not sure if the AE500 is compatable with the Prismasonic lenses, but I have read on the Prismasonic forum that some LCDs don;t work well with them vecause of some smoothscreen technology (or similar), so have a look on the forum or post the question and see what they have to say.

Gary

[Darko]

Gary

I still would love to see your set up bud

Darko

[Gary Lightfoot]

Sometime this week OK?

Gary.

[Darko]

sounds good bud am off on monday and tuesday and sat sun.

as long as its cool

Darko

[Louis Mazzini]

Gary

Agree, it does seem unfortunate that the digital signal is a lot less open to manipulation than the analogue signal.

I've now had a good look at the Prismasonic site and see what you mean about the possible incompatibility of the "Smoothscreen" Panasonics, I'll look into that a bit more (...but I'm now thinking that this could be an excuse to move on from my AE500!)

Anyway, Thanks for the advice. My next step is to get to work on making an adjustable-dimension screen; one way or another I'm going to get myself a constant height set-up - I'm sold on the idea that it's the only way to project properly.

[Gary Lightfoot]

Darko - will send you a PM

Bill,

Sorry to have prompted an uprade.

Good luck with the screen - I made a fixed 2.35:1 screen and will mask the sides for 16:9 with black velvet curtains. I had a 7ft wide 16:9 screen and now have an 8ft wide 2.35:1 screen, so I've more or less swapped the screen area over from 16:9 being the largest to the 2.35:1 being the largest (with same area), so I've not lost anything. Ideally I would have gone from 7ft wide to 9.25 feet wide, but I don't have the room for that.

Gary.