native 2.35.1 projectors

[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.