1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Constant area" projection?

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by Chris Bellamy, Jun 26, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris Bellamy

    Chris Bellamy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    96
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Scottish Borders
    Ratings:
    +11
    What do you think of Bjoern Roy's "constant area" approach to projecting film?

    I quote from his website http://home.t-online.de/home/bjoern.roy/Main/Page_01.htm
    (which contains some very nicely illustrated comparative evaluations of several superbit, R1, R2 DVDs):

    "· One of the special things about my home theater is, that i am neither using a constant height scenario (like you would with a 2.35:1 screen), nor a consant width scenario (like you would for widescreen movies on a 1.78:1 screen), but rather a 'constant area' methodology. That means 2.35:1 movies are displayed at full 9' width with 46" height. 1.85:1 movies are shown at 8' width, but at 52" height. 1.33:1 material is a little less than 7' wide and 61" high. This is made possible with a CRT projector and my 4-way maskable screen. 'Constant area' projection is IMHO by far the best methology, because the brains 'size sensation' is perceived through area, not width or height.
    · For each ratio from 1.33:1 to 2.76:1, i use a display resolution that has excatly those proportions, for example 1440x780 for 1.85:1, or 1920x820 for 2.35:1. I call this concept 'active area scanning'. This means that the beam never 'scans' any black bars, only the actual image content. This optimizes phosphor decay and thus increases brightness or tube life."

    I have to say that while I appreciate the psychological argument (which I accept), I dont see that in practical terms this approach can be getting anything like good use from the projector, which is either seriously underperforming at some aspect ratios, while straining at others. I''m also dubious about the final comment re tube life.

    Any comments? Anyone tried this approach (sounds like a lot of malarky fiddling with screen masks)



    Chris
     
  2. garmtz

    garmtz
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    305
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think it is brilliant... You will need a maskable screen however... This could however be relatively easily done with an electric 4:3 screen with curtains on either side and a pull-down black "rolgordijn" (darn, what's the English word...:)).

    You will also need lots of memories in the projector, which you all have to converge regularly... Lots of work.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...