[hewy]

just like we moved from 4.3 native projectors to 16.9 does anybody think we will move on to 2.35.1 native aspect ratio projectors eventually.

[spooney]

Originally Posted by hewy

just like we moved from 4.3 native projectors to 16.9 does anybody think we will move on to 2.35.1 native aspect ratio projectors eventually.

I guess you know movies are between 2.20:1 - 2:40:1 and sometimes other exotic formats. A 2:35:1 native aspect ratio would also require a different authoring of the DVDs/BlueRays adn for sure exclude the big majority of the market.

Personally I expect a move to some kind of super-HD where a few pixels less for a specific format do not harm the overall image quality.

[hewy]

thanks spoony not that clued up on all aspect ratios it just seems like a complete waste of a projectors panel when its showing a film in 2.35.1
maybe i was just being simplistic

[spooney]

Originally Posted by hewy

maybe i was just being simplistic

Not at all. Many people like to share ideas, thoughts and opinions in here.
I found our post interesting and so I gave my 2cents.

[silva741]

I'm new to projectors but image and media is a big interest of mine, including format evolution, so I'll give my 2 cents...
It would of course be great to have natively those wider formats, but don't think content producers will want to move away from 16:9. Unless most persons stop using PJs to watch TV and focus mainly in movies the industry will prefer to maintain the current status.

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by hewy

just like we moved from 4.3 native projectors to 16.9 does anybody think we will move on to 2.35.1 native aspect ratio projectors eventually.

Never happen at the chip level. The market is way too small for the chip development.

Having said that, 4k machines will allow a 1080p 2.35 on a 1:1 pixel mapping mode. If the non illuminated area could be dark enough, due to very high future CR, it could amount to effectively the same thing with 1080 sources.

The other way is too have a native 235 primary lens (not an external unit) and use internal processing to come down to 16:9. know for a fact that at least one company is working on this type of arrangement.Some people already do this who don't have a motorized add on lens. They leave it in place and use their VP to scale for 16:9

The main market driver is the US market, and this has seen a huge increase in 2.35 projection. This means more choice will be made available.

A very high proportion of content watched on mid and high end HT is 2.35:1

Hope this helps.

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by hewy

thanks spoony not that clued up on all aspect ratios it just seems like a complete waste of a projectors panel when its showing a film in 2.35.1
maybe i was just being simplistic

Anamorphic projection solves that issue. Vertical stretch via internal or external processing allows the full vertical resolution to be used, this also includes an attendant increase in light output. An anamorphic lens is then brought into the light path to restore horizontal geometry.

This is becoming increasingly common. Many people feel, as also stated on the AVF podcast, that an HT cannot be considered high end without this. I agree very strongly with that thought.

Hope this helps.

[hewy]

coldmachine thanks, yes i understand that anamophic projection is becoming more popular but cost wise it perhaps is out of reach for most,i dont know even a half of whats truely involved,but i gather a very good projector lens is needed. then like wise the higher quality anamorphic lens the better, so not idealy suited to the budget end of the projector market .but i hold out hope that in the not too distant future somethig like an anamorphic lens set up will be contained in one pj with one lens and no zooming showing a2.35.1 film in all its glory although it may be high end

[weyland-yutani]

hi, hope one of you guys can help me. i'm just at the point of planning a step up from plasma to projector, very early stages. and i have a small query - i've seen mention of these 2.35/40:1 projectors before , does that mean normal projectors can't show films of this ratio? do you have to swap lenses over or some such?

i apologise for my naivety but i've never owned a projector and i know very, very little about them. i'm hoping that will change in ther coming months as i get closer to purchasing my projector and screen.

many thanks

[JagoPlasma]

i think the new panasonic is gonna be very popular and may buck the trend. it is "kind of capable" at producing 16:9 and 2.35:1 easily.

im surprised when bluray came out that they didnt anamorphically squeeze 2.35 onto the 16:9 fram like they did with 16:9 onto 4:3 frames ala DVD

oh well 1 step back as usual i guess

[spooney]

Originally Posted by weyland-yutani

hi, hope one of you guys can help me. i'm just at the point of planning a step up from plasma to projector, very early stages. and i have a small query - i've seen mention of these 2.35/40:1 projectors before , does that mean normal projectors can't show films of this ratio? do you have to swap lenses over or some such?

i apologise for my naivety but i've never owned a projector and i know very, very little about them. i'm hoping that will change in ther coming months as i get closer to purchasing my projector and screen.

many thanks

Any projector is able to project any ratio. It is like on your TV: Everything that fits not into the ratio will be black bars. No difference at all (except the image will be 'slightly' larger )

Like on a TV there are options to fill the complete area but this will stretch the image you you might end with a lot of egg-shaped heads on the actors.
Anamorphic lenses are the (expensive) way to get around from 16:9 (1,85:1) to 'Cinemascope' and such formats (2.35:1 and others) . You can get a decent projector for the price of a quality anamorphic lens...
Truely for high-end only.

[kaztomian]

I can see a huge improvement in the viewing experience when projecting onto a 2.40:1 fixed screen on a matt black wall, the perception of contrast is greatly improved, just wondering how i can accomodate a 4:3 ratio screen now.

[spooney]

Originally Posted by kaztomian

I can see a huge improvement in the viewing experience when projecting onto a 2.40:1 fixed screen on a matt black wall, the perception of contrast is greatly improved, just wondering how i can accomodate a 4:3 ratio screen now.

This is usually done by masking.

[LV426]

Thing is......regardless of what shape the original film was made (or intended to be shown), video signals themselves - whether High- or Standard definition - only come in two exact shapes - 4x3 and 16x9.

Where there is a mismatch between the source material and the video signal shape* then there is a plain black area which is added to make the material fit, and this is part of the signal recorded on the disc (or broadcast or whatever). This "padding" if I may call it that is not added by the display or the player; it's right there in the encoded video signal.

It's no co-incidence that screens are all also one of two shapes - 16x9 or 4x3. Unless or until wider movies are encoded onto discs or into video files at their true aspect ratio without any added padding, any move towards wider screens or monitors will only mean that some scaling or other process is needed.

This is what happens when anamorphic lenses are used on a LCD/DLP/DiLA projector. A 16x9 video signal containing a 22x9 film plus some padding is stretched (scaled) vertically by a scaler either in the player or display. This DOES NOT add any resolution; indeed, it may compromise detail. And then a lens is used to perform a horizontal stretch to restore proper shape. This, too, does not add any resolution although (unless it's a very poor lens) it won't degrade either.

I'm lost as to the advantage - except the added brightness, perhaps, which arises from using the whole panel rather than part of it. I think, for a "constant height" the best approach is probably to simply zoom the spherical lens of the projector up to fill the screen width, and mask the top and bottom of the screen so the overspill isn't noticeable.

------------

* e.g. 4x3 material in a 16x9 signal - black bars either side; 22x9 material in a 16x9 signal - black bars top and bottom; and so on.

[spooney]

Originally Posted by LV426

I think, for a "constant height" the best approach is probably to simply zoom the spherical lens of the projector up to fill the screen width, and mask the top and bottom of the screen so the overspill isn't noticeable.

I fully agree. Masking makes an unbelievable difference. Although it is just a trick to the eye the blacks are getting blacker and the contrast in total approves.

[kaztomian]

Spooney, yes i agree it is only masking the grey black bits but i'm using an electric 16:9 screen for normal viewing i.e most Sky HD and 1.78:1/1.85:1 material but for 2.35:1/2.40:1 the electric goes away and i zoom out the lens to fill the 2.40:1 screen on the matt black wall, this screen is almost 9' wide and looks awesome, i'd even swear it actually improves the picture. I'll have to add that this is in a dedicated cinema room that has matt black walls and ceiling and a plush black carpet so light control is easily acheived
I used to think the film Transformers was pretty average, picture quality wise, but when viewed in this wide screen way it's looks incredible

[imjay]

I'm surprised at number of people that seem sincerely bothered by the null areas created when the projector scales content that is a wider aspect ratio that the native characteristics of their projector.

We chose a gray screen of a size larger that most of what we project regardless of its' screen ratio - we did this to allow us a lot of flexibility with zooming in and out and occasionally wanting to bump 4:3 to a full screen stretch or whatever.

Gray does two things for us (at least to our eyeballs).
1. It makes the scaling null areas (always referred to as black bars) almost invisible - I personally don't notice them any more.
2. Gives us perfectly clear and sharp screen image without the problem of reflected light so commonly experienced with white screen material.

Maybe we're just simple folk who enjoy our huge Home Theater experience and not smart enough as some of the real specification reading/worrying techno-philes but scaling bars don't bother us at all and our larger than image needs screen, to us, more like a commercial cinema as most all commercial cinemas I go to (haven't been to one in years now) always have larger and more square screens to allow them to screen most any aspect ratio content.

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by LV426

I'm lost as to the advantage - except the added brightness, perhaps, which arises from using the whole panel rather than part of it.

Anyone who uses the zoom method, and is happy, need not worry about anamorphic projection. An individuals satisfaction is all that really matters at the end of the day.

Whilst you say you are lost to the advantage, that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Firstly the brightness gain is very noticeable. Also zooming has a pronounced effect on your minimum viewing distance due to the increase in pixel size. I personally find that to be one of the biggest of many disadvantages to zooming. If you have a high end install with good seating at proper distances, zooming will completely ruin that.

Most projectors that are zoomed are at the lower end of the price scale, and thus have cheap optics, this makes them inherently less able to handle the zooming in the first place due to the low MTF performance of the optics. It also, by definition, pushes further into the zoom range which is never good on such machines as they never have split ranges to mitigate this.


Having said that, I have used zooming and seen it done well many times, but that needs a Barco or Christie unit to achieve, as that's how they inherently work. They have vastly superior optics to a budget $6k consumer unit. Consumer units also don't have the required zoom memories and automated refocus to achieve this either, that also makes them unacceptable to some users.

There is also the convenience factor. One button press to activate a macro that unmasks a screen and moves the motorized sled in place is what is demanded by certain customers.

The truly cinematic WOW factor of well implemented anamorphic installation simply cannot be anywhere near approached, let alone matched, by the zoom method. I have yet to see, or even hear of, anyone who has ever stated a preference for zooming after having experienced such a system Its a different experience for a different customer.


Hope this helps.

[Rob Virtai]

Originally Posted by kaztomian

I can see a huge improvement in the viewing experience when projecting onto a 2.40:1 fixed screen on a matt black wall...

Agree, I have similar setup, with black wall and also a black star sky ceiling (fiber optics) extending 1.5m (c. 5') into the room from the screen. I originally planned on getting an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 setup, but so far I've been fairly satisfied with the results of zooming out to fill the 2.35:1 screen. The black letter-box bars gets absorbed nicely by the black velvet border on the screen and the black cotton fabric on the wall. The image is also bright enough for me, the room is in the basement and no windows, so it is fully light controlled, although it is not a bat cave.

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

i think the new panasonic is gonna be very popular and may buck the trend. it is "kind of capable" at producing 16:9 and 2.35:1 easily. im surprised when bluray came out that they didnt anamorphically squeeze 2.35 onto the 16:9 fram like they did with 16:9 onto 4:3 frames ala DVD oh well 1 step back as usual i guess

You might be right. I at least think the 2.35:1 mode, based on stored memory preset of zoom out and digital vertical shift feature, of the new Panasonic PT-AE3000 sounds very interesting. I had hoped that more manufacturers would introduce something similar, especially since a lot of the new upcoming models also have motorized lens-shift (e.g. Mitsubishi HC7000, JVC DLA-HD750) in addition to already fairly standard motorized zoom&focus. It would be a very nice additional feature if they also could accurately store a few different settings for zoom/focus/lens-shift. This would make life so much easier for us that use zoom to switch between 2.35:1 and 16:9 mode on a CIH screen.

So far, of the recently announced new models for this year, the Panasonic PT-AE3000 is the only projector that can do this (AFAIK). Sure it still has manual lens-shift, the required vertical adjustment for zoomed out position is done by moving the image up or down in the unused black bars area of the LCD panel. Should work for most cases I suppose, maybe in some installations that use (needs) a lot of v-lens shift it might not be enough, remains to be seen.

Still if it solves the hassle of manually adjusting zoom/focus/lens-shift when switching between 2.35:1 and 16:9 viewing modes for us CIH "zoomers", that would be very nice and it is for sure a trend that I hope more manufacturers follow. Currently my biggest issue with using zoom over a lens, is that the zoom setup is still kind of impossible to automate. It takes me about 30s to fiddle with zoom/lens-shift and even focus between mode changes. Refocus is need in my setup because the vertical lens shift on my current projector throws the focus off as well. My installation only allows me to have the projector horizontally centered on the screen, vertically I need lens shift, and when the projector is not centered both horizontally and vertically (considering possible projector built in offset) and you zoom out for 2.35:1 content, well then you need to adjust your lens shift too. This gets the image a bit out of focus, so that has to be adjusted as well.

Projectors are getting brighter and brighter, while also improving black levels. For BR HD content we will not get more that 1920 pixels wide and c. 810 pixels high for 2.35:1 - 2.40:1 movies in the image part from the source for some time to come. As mentioned there is no anamorphic stored 2.35:1 content on the 16:9 BR HD standard (like there is for DVD 16:9 anamorphic on 4:3 format). I think this adds up to some arguments for keeping the pixel to pixel mapping of the source to panel, for the image part at least, and not using digital v-stretch and a h-stretch anamorphic lens for BR HD media. With “brighter and blacker” projectors and hopefully more and more built in support for "automated zoom for 2.35:1 mode", the need/argument for a lens in most average HT setups will probably be reduced a bit, while hopefully getting more people into trying a 2.35:1 setup for movies. More demanding and high-end custom installations is of course another ball-game, but for average home setups zooming is a very reasonable cost-effective alternative and it will probably become more popular.
I also faintly recall reading about a projector with built in manual masking panels for the black bars for 2.35:1 mode, just can’t recall which one it was, maybe a Sanyo or Mitsu (anybody?). For installations where the screen wall is not black (or other dark color) this is also a nice idea, even better if the masking panel adjustments would be motorized and included as a part of the 2.35:1 mode zoom out preset.

-Rob

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by LV426

Thing is......regardless of what shape the original film was made (or intended to be shown), video signals themselves - whether High- or Standard definition - only come in two exact shapes - 4x3 and 16x9.

Where there is a mismatch between the source material and the video signal shape* then there is a plain black area which is added to make the material fit, and this is part of the signal recorded on the disc (or broadcast or whatever). This "padding" if I may call it that is not added by the display or the player; it's right there in the encoded video signal.

It's no co-incidence that screens are all also one of two shapes - 16x9 or 4x3. Unless or until wider movies are encoded onto discs or into video files at their true aspect ratio without any added padding, any move towards wider screens or monitors will only mean that some scaling or other process is needed.

This is what happens when anamorphic lenses are used on a LCD/DLP/DiLA projector. A 16x9 video signal containing a 22x9 film plus some padding is stretched (scaled) vertically by a scaler either in the player or display. This DOES NOT add any resolution; indeed, it may compromise detail. And then a lens is used to perform a horizontal stretch to restore proper shape. This, too, does not add any resolution although (unless it's a very poor lens) it won't degrade either.

I'm lost as to the advantage - except the added brightness, perhaps, which arises from using the whole panel rather than part of it. I think, for a "constant height" the best approach is probably to simply zoom the spherical lens of the projector up to fill the screen width, and mask the top and bottom of the screen so the overspill isn't noticeable.

------------

* e.g. 4x3 material in a 16x9 signal - black bars either side; 22x9 material in a 16x9 signal - black bars top and bottom; and so on.

Well said that man!

I started a thread saying exactly that a while ago, and got an absolute kicking from some quarters.

It's strange, if you want to use Vertical Keystone on your projector some AV-heads will crucify you - and yet this only leads to a very minimal amount of downscaling. And yet the dream system of the same people involves an anamorphic set up involving substantial upscaling - not to mention the problems inherent in anamorphic lenses (unless you want to spend many thousands of pounds).

There are three main 'shapes'. 1.37:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1. Add to that 1.33:1, 1.66:1 and 2.4:1.

Whatever you do you'll need a compromise, unless you introduce a number of complex masking solutions to cover at least 6 different aspect ratios (I've never heard of anyone who's done this). 16:9 is as close to the compromise as possible.

It should be noted that, if you remove the majority of pre-30's films lost forever, there are far more films that you'll see in most people's DVD/BD collections that are c.1.85:1 than either 4:3 or 'scope.

I'm not knocking those with excellent anamorphic set ups, just pointing out that the tone over the last 18 months - that an anamorphic set up is the most desirable - is not necessarily healthy. There are pros and cons all round.

Steve W

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by Pecker

There are three main 'shapes'. 1.37:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1. Add to that 1.33:1, 1.66:1 and 2.4:1.

Your list is missing the single most important current aspect ratio of them all. Chosen by Powers in 84 to allow "common 5" cropping

1.78:1, otherwise known as 16:9.

Hope this helps

[spooney]

Originally Posted by Pecker

There are three main 'shapes'. 1.37:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1. Add to that 1.33:1, 1.66:1 and 2.4:1.

Whatever you do you'll need a compromise, unless you introduce a number of complex masking solutions to cover at least 6 different aspect ratios (I've never heard of anyone who's done this).

Actually my home-made masking system allows this. I am using some kind of sliders for left and right and magnets to fix the vertical masks. Very basic but it works fine for me.
All I have to do is to stop the movie for 1 minute to adjust the mask.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by spooney

Actually my home-made masking system allows this. I am using some kind of sliders for left and right and magnets to fix the vertical masks. Very basic but it works fine for me.
All I have to do is to stop the movie for 1 minute to adjust the mask.

Excellent stuff.

Any pics as to how it works?

Cheers.

Steve W

[Gary Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Whatever you do you'll need a compromise, unless you introduce a number of complex masking solutions to cover at least 6 different aspect ratios (I've never heard of anyone who's done this). 16:9 is as close to the compromise as possible.

With an anamorphic (CIH) set up you can use curtains - just like in a real theater.

Gary

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Whatever you do you'll need a compromise, unless you introduce a number of complex masking solutions to cover at least 6 different aspect ratios (I've never heard of anyone who's done this).

Steve, I don't wish to appear pedantic, but you don't need a number of complex solutions to achieve this at all.A good variable masking screen does this effortlessly. I can achieve any of the above mentioned ratios with a press of a single button.

Whilst you may never have heard of anyone who has done this, there are actually a high number who have done exactly that.These systems are in fairly common use. There are many people in the UK who do this.

Hope this helps.

[LV426]

Originally Posted by imjay

I'm surprised at number of people that seem sincerely bothered by the null areas created when the projector scales content that is a wider aspect ratio that the native characteristics of their projector.

My point is that all video sources are either 4x3 or (more commonly nowadays) 16x9. Regardless of the original material. The "null areas" to which you refer are rarely created by the display's scaling; in the most common example - a 22x9 film on either DVD or BluRay - the "null areas" are on the disc, part of the encoded video.

Originally Posted by coldmachine

..brightness gain is very noticeable. Also zooming has a pronounced effect on your minimum viewing distance due to the increase in pixel size.....The truly cinematic WOW factor of well implemented anamorphic installation simply cannot be anywhere near approached, let alone matched, by the zoom method.....

I've seen both demonstrated. I'd concede the theoretical brightness increase (some of which will be offset by the properties of the additional lens), but will only concede increased pixel size of zoom vs. anamorphic stretch as being
a) in one direction only
b) unlikely to be visible on a high definition display from a sensible viewing distance for the screen size
and in any case the advantage may well be offset by the need for additional scaling in the vertical direction - especially with High Definition sources where such scaling would not otherwise be needed.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

With an anamorphic (CIH) set up you can use curtains - just like in a real theater.

Gary

Originally Posted by coldmachine

Steve, I don't wish to appear pedantic, but you don't need a number of complex solutions to achieve this at all.A good variable masking screen does this effortlessly. I can achieve any of the above mentioned ratios with a press of a single button.

Whilst you may never have heard of anyone who has done this, there are actually a high number who have done exactly that.These systems are in fairly common use. There are many people in the UK who do this.

Hope this helps.

Cheers lads. I've never seen pics of one of these in operation at the Members' Home Cinemas forum - any links?

Steve W

[spooney]

Originally Posted by kaztomian

Spooney, yes i agree it is only masking the grey black bits but i'm using an electric 16:9 screen for normal viewing i.e most Sky HD and 1.78:1/1.85:1 material but for 2.35:1/2.40:1 the electric goes away and i zoom out the lens to fill the 2.40:1 screen on the matt black wall, this screen is almost 9' wide and looks awesome, i'd even swear it actually improves the picture. I'll have to add that this is in a dedicated cinema room that has matt black walls and ceiling and a plush black carpet so light control is easily acheived
I used to think the film Transformers was pretty average, picture quality wise, but when viewed in this wide screen way it's looks incredible

Oh, oh, I am getting jealous (in the best sense).

The only thing I sometimes regret a tiny little bit was thinking I need 4:3, 16:9 and beyond. I spent hours for the planning and technical research on how to built a SIMPLE working masking system on top of my 16:9 screen

After changing my equipment and learning a lot more from all sources including all the guys in here I know better now.
I should have built a 'cine' screen and only masks for making it narrower to 16:9.
Well, in my next house the cinema room will become bigger and I will do better then.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Any pics as to how it works?

Steve W

Not sure if this can be done technically. Everything is black velvet and matte black color. I will try later today so you at least get an impression and will be able to make more specific questions, if you need more info.

[tryingtimes]

I'll throw in my usual comment about scaling.
We've all got used to scaling done badly - so badly that 1:1 pixel mapping became (and is still) the main goal for many when setting up a digital display. Many digital displays of 2 or 3 years ago were the pits.
However, I am pretty confident that none of you would object to scaling done well. It is very definitely possible for upscaling to actually reveal more detail in the original image - especially when seen against an unscaled image of the same size at closer viewing distances (the kind you might experience in a constant height 2.35:1 HT, or even on a constant area system.
However, I admit that this small amount of scaling in the vertical direction isn't really going to bring about much of an improvement. But I do maintain that it isn't a loss.

I've done lots of research into this and keep trying to post examples, but it's tricky to do properly. I'll have another go one day

I've personally heard of a couple of people who have returned to zooming after trying the lens approach (they were both using <£400 lenses). But I've followed about 30 people who have gone for a lens after trying zooming and have preferred it.

But that doesn't mean zooming isn't a great solution - I think it's a cool way to do it cheaply and with minimum fuss. The new Panny ae3000 takes away one of the problems, which is having to adjust zoom/lens shift and focus each time you change ARs.

If the panny compares well in other areas against the Epson/Mits/Sony then it could be the best budget 2.35:1 solution yet, especially as it should be equally happy doing constant area (or similar) too.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by LV426

My point is that all video sources are either 4x3 or (more commonly nowadays) 16x9. Regardless of the original material. The "null areas" to which you refer are rarely created by the display's scaling; in the most common example - a 22x9 film on either DVD or BluRay - the "null areas" are on the disc, part of the encoded video.


I've seen both demonstrated. I'd concede the theoretical brightness increase (some of which will be offset by the properties of the additional lens), but will only concede increased pixel size of zoom vs. anamorphic stretch as being
a) in one direction only
b) unlikely to be visible on a high definition display from a sensible viewing distance for the screen size
and in any case the advantage may well be offset by the need for additional scaling in the vertical direction - especially with High Definition sources where such scaling would not otherwise be needed.

I think we'd all agree that, if you can see pixels/line structure, you're sat too close to thescreen anyway.

If you're sat far enough away not to notice this, then it's not really an issue as we're then talking about resolution, and the resolution of the source for both anamorphic and non-anamorphic set ups is identical.

The only 'extra' information in an anamorphic set up comes about entirely from upscaling - and we all know the problems with upscaling. I can't see how this problem magically disappears just because someone has an anamorphic system.

As I've said, if you read these forums and the comments made about the relatively small amounts of downscaling used by using Vertical Keystone, you'd think that the use of this should be avoided like the plague. Read comments about the relatively large amount of upscaling involved in an anamorphic set up and all of a sudden it's not an issue.

That must surely have far more to do with 'flavour of the month' than anything else. That's not to knock anamorphic set ups. Just to note that there are pros and cons.

Steve W