Visible Pixel Size: A Showdown Between Cih And Ciw Setups

[Highjinx]

The trouble with HJ is he refuses to believe that there can be both together - he either wants to believe that cause he cant afford it or is stubborn to the point of stupidity no idea which - didnt mark say he suspected he saw him at the expo bagging scope with the 350 setup - maybe it just looked to good to be true.....

All this crap on about science its like hes trying to make out he invented this stuff....

By the way I have a 121 custom 3d evo scope screen and a AMIII lens - just havent updated my sig block to reflect it.

See above.....you will see the boys with the big screens in the US use projectors like the SIM2 5000, the Titan 3 and the like, with plenty of brightness, if you notice these guys have a need for many seating positions.

But none of those big projectors have a high on/off contrast.

If one does not have a need to seat many people and can get by with 4 to 6 seats in 2 rows, a smaller screen, sitting at the optimal ratio will give a far superior image than a larger screen as one does not have to sacrifice contrast to gain brightness.

30ftl with 50,000:1 CR is a experience to behold.

I think every HT with a large screen would gain by having a smaller drop down screen so one can get the best out of the projector(optimal brightness and best CR the projector can provide) when 1 or 2 persons only are viewing sitting at the same ratio but a closer distance.

As to using a scope lens with a projector such as a Lcos model is not the best move as Lcos is ANSI challenged and putting any extra glass infront of such projector is unwise.

See merits of using an A-Lens with nonanamorphic material?.............use a DLP, they have ANSI to spare.......Lcos don't........yet!

..................I have had several PM's encouraging me to continue the balanced argument.....which I shall continue to do!

The point is as anamorphically encoded source material is not readily available, It's like buying a car that requires high octane fuel....but no such fuel is available!

[yamapro]

I think every HT with a large screen would gain by having a smaller drop down screen so one can get the best out of the projector(optimal brightness and best CR the projector can provide) when 1 or 2 persons only are viewing sitting at the same ratio but a closer distance.

Yeah that's really gonna happen - every ht will utilise multiple screens and multipe seating positions... Perhaps we could all build one of these in our very own aircraft hangers

As to using a scope lens with a projector such as a Lcos model is not the best move as Lcos is ANSI challenged and putting any extra glass infront of such projector is unwise.

See merits of using an A-Lens with nonanamorphic material?.............use a DLP, they have ANSI to spare.......Lcos don't........yet!

Unwise? So you clearly know more about LCOS projectors than JVC now?

Funny how they are prepared to pair an AM3 lens with their own projectors at major shows etc... I wonder how many people found this unwise solution to appear ANSI challenged?

The point is as anamorphically encoded source material is not readily available, It's like buying a car that requires high octane fuel....but no such fuel is available!

No it isn't - IDIOT!

A car that requires high octane fuel will not run right on anything else - it just won't work.

Scaling and then optically stretching an image to restore 'scope geometry works golriously on BR - just ask anyone that currently runs such a setup, there's plenty around...

On the other hand head over to the LS1 forums (or any other high performance auto forum/club/group) and search for the 'run my high performance beast on low grade pump crap fuel - fan club' and i doubt you will find many if any advocates.

Edited August 14, 2009 by yamapro

[Highjinx]

'Highjinx' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:50 PM' post='1392237'

"I think every HT with a large screen would gain by having a smaller drop down screen so one can get the best out of the projector(optimal brightness and best CR the projector can provide) when 1 or 2 persons only are viewing sitting at the same ratio but a closer distance."

yamapro:

Yeah that's really gonna happen - every ht will utilise multiple screens and multipe seating positions... Perhaps we could all build one of these in our very own aircraft hangers

HJ: Talking about enthusaists here!.....I said would gain, not must have......I sure I can think of a few people who have 2 screen sizes. Might not suit you but I sure there may be others who may consider this.....the objective being to produce the best image the projector is capable of delivering.

'Highjinx' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:50 PM' post='1392237'

As to using a scope lens with a projector such as a Lcos model is not the best move as Lcos is ANSI challenged and putting any extra glass infront of such projector is unwise.

See merits of using an A-Lens with nonanamorphic material?.............use a DLP, they have ANSI to spare.......Lcos don't........yet!"

yamapro:

Unwise? So you clearly know more about LCOS projectors than JVC now?

Funny how they are prepared to pair an AM3 lens with their own projectors at major shows etc... I wonder how many people found this unwise solution to appear ANSI challenged?

HJ: It's marketing, JVC was showing their projectors with an AM3 as it is a popular lens or was it AM3 were showing their lens with a JVC as it is a popular projector?!, either way, try the AM3 lens with a good DLP and it will look a whole lot better in mid to high APL scenes with an A-Lens than will the JVC.......I have a JVC and know the beast quite well.

Lcos has limited ANSI compaired to DLP a good DLP has 3-4 times the ANSI of Lcos, the use of any extra glass infront of a projector lens can diminish ANSI by up to 30%..........you do the maths......want to use a A-Lens, DLP should be the primary choice.

'Highjinx' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:50 PM' post='1392237'

The point is as anamorphically encoded source material is not readily available, It's like buying a car that requires high octane fuel....but no such fuel is available!

yamapro:

No it isn't - IDIOT!

HJ: Ohhh! Touchy!

yamapro:

A car that requires high octane fuel will not run right on anything else - it just won't work.

HJ: *Clearly you do not understand engine design(among other things like................??????!!!!!!! ) , the engine will work, but not at it's optimal capability, the engines management system will retard the spark(ignition) to prevent pre-detonation(knocking/pinging) when using a lower octane fuel!!

yamapro:

Scaling and then optically stretching an image to restore 'scope geometry works golriously on BR - just ask anyone that currently runs such a setup, there's plenty around...

HJ: OMG I'm sure it works, but it works much better without!!** One is gaining nothing in detail(with non anamorphically encoded source material such as BluRay), only brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel), but from the squeezed 16:9 size one will maintain on/off but loose 33% brightness when stretching.....if one has a huge screen and needs the added brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel)fine!.....why squeeze and stretch the image when it is already in it's perfect aspect ratio to begin with on the disk???!!!. Please don't try to convince the persons new to this hobby there are any other advantages currently** other than brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel) with non anamorphically encoded material like Blu Ray. There is a ton of BS here where some have said taking the detail found on the 810 vertical pixels and placing it over 1080 pixels gives more detail....not true, just more brightness. Persons new to this hobby consider the option of putting you're $$$ towards some piece of gear or movies that will reap a true and useable benefit now!.......until**. You seem to forget to mention the negatives of A-lens implementaion like loseing subtitles, the introduction pincusion distortion(a curved screen is required to correct this or added glass? within the A-lens) and the reduction of ANSI......just look at an A-Lens in operation, see all that light bouncing around?....that's photons colliding.....the result is inevitable ANSI reduction.

If one likes the look of a 2.35:1 screen, fine, just add a bit of masking above and below the frame to mask the projected "black bars" when displaying the required 2.35:1 width....this way you will also be able to read any subtitles as well that will appear fully in the masked portion of the bottom, however you will have to zoom in for 16:9 material. Or folks with 16:9 screens have some moveable masking that comes down from the top and or bottom.

**when true anamorphically encoded material is available like DCi then jump aboard and you're $$$ will then reap the true benefit with the use of an A-Lens as the source material will have more detail to begin with.

yamapro:

On the other hand head over to the LS1 forums (or any other high performance auto forum/club/group) and search for the 'run my high performance beast on low grade pump crap fuel - fan club' and i doubt you will find many if any advocates.

HJ: See above!*

............................................................................

HJ: So why the heck do I persist?.......Just "keeping the bastards honest" haaaaa!

[oztheatre]

HJ: OMG I'm sure it works, but it works much better without!!** One is gaining nothing in detail(with non anamorphically encoded source material such as BluRay), only brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel), but from the squeezed 16:9 size one will maintain on/off but loose 33% brightness when stretching.....if one has a huge screen and needs the added brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel)fine!.....why squeeze and stretch the image when it is already in it's perfect aspect ratio to begin with on the disk???!!!. Please don't try to convince the persons new to this hobby there are any other advantages currently** other than brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel) with non anamorphically encoded material like Blu Ray. There is a ton of BS here where some have said taking the detail found on the 810 vertical pixels and placing it over 1080 pixels gives more detail....not true, just more brightness. Persons new to this hobby consider the option of putting you're $$$ towards some piece of gear or movies that will reap a true and useable benefit now!.......until**. You seem to forget to mention the negatives of A-lens implementaion like loseing subtitles, the introduction pincusion distortion(a curved screen is required to correct this or added glass? within the A-lens) and the reduction of ANSI......just look at an A-Lens in operation, see all that light bouncing around?....that's photons colliding.....the result is inevitable ANSI reduction.

I just cannot work out why you're still posting HJ, you've been belted around the ring more times than Rock Hudson but you keep getting up for more....

I think we've all been over this time and time again. And many of us have actually done REAL WORLD testing that proves (whether or not the extra half a million pixels were there to begin with) the resulting image looks clearer. ie scaling works, who would have thought? You better let those optical engineers and scientists in Japan and USA know that their work has been for nothing.

We are ALL still waiting to be shown these DEAD PIXELS and DEAD ZONES that are so obvious to the human eye, ha joke!

I'm curious though, HJ what do you call a good DLP projector? a 3 chip SIM2?

I had the BenQ 5000 side by side with the HD350 with the lens in place and everyone who saw the BenQ liked it, everyone who saw the JVC loved it.

Better blacks, better contrast etc - all with a lens in place (oh and 77% larger than the LB image too ) . I, or anyone else just cannot see this massive drop off in ANSI contast you're sprouting on about. Not sure who told you this or where the info comes from (you probably read it on google because that's obviously your testing ground) but it's very debatable and splitting hairs! ... Sure there probably is a drop off, we mortals just can't see it, Steve Austin.

Check this photo out of native 16:9 letterboxed image, then stretched vertically, then with lens in place. Just for a laugh I added your crappy little cars shot at the bottom, to scale too.

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/WATCHMEN_scope_VS.jpg

You see it's all in the eye, not what some paper or spreadsheet tells you. 'Real world' testing is the key, something you've obviously never done

Pincushion? You mean that 12mm top and bottom across my 3.15 metre wide screen.... yep I think I can live that!

Carry on with your agenda though

[oztheatre]

HJ: It's marketing, JVC was showing their projectors with an AM3 as it is a popular lens or was it AM3 were showing their lens with a JVC as it is a popular projector?!, either way, try the AM3 lens with a good DLP and it will look a whole lot better in mid to high APL scenes with an A-Lens than will the JVC.......I have a JVC and know the beast quite well.

You know this comes across like nothing more than pure jealousy. How old are you? 15?

We have sold close to 100 MK3 lenses around the world since April. NOT one single person is anything but over the moon with the results. - theres some real world testing right there!

It was JVC who asked us to use the lens at their shows to display what the JVC could do, we had no intention of setting up at CEDIA. We, Mark and myself were invited (that's right, invited) to a JVC demo at the QUT up here in Brisbane. We decided at the last minute to bring the lens along to show them as it was new at the time. Once setup they (the JVC engineers) were blown away by the image quality. These are old guys, optical engineers etc, who were floored by the performance and by the 2K price tag that went with it. There was also other JVC resellers there who loved it also.

It was at that demo that JVC asked us if they could use the lens in their CEDIA booth. That went so well that they kept for another week for the SMPTE trade show. Hope that is clear for you now, not that it's any of your damn business.

There are probably many on here who went down to CEDIA and saw the JVC and lens together. I believe there was one moron who was walking around sprouting on about dead pixels and when asked to show where the dead pixels were, he simply walked off in a huff, hilarious. This is a guy who just read too much anti lens propaganda on google and claimed it as fact. Rivetting stuff HJ.

Now get back your mission and spend all the time you can on this forum trying to convince people that 16:9 is the bees knees.

[Highjinx]

BenQ 5000 is a great projector with an A-Lens!........really don't know why you harp on the 16:9 thing, in my previous post I gave an alternative for folks who like a 2.35:1 screen, want their subtiltes and full ansi.

I understand some have a commercial interest and platforms such as these are a fabulous "subliminal" marketing tool.

I do take exception for some commercial interests attempting to create an aura that current(without the availability of anamorphically encoded material)A-Lens implimentation is high end.

It is from a $$$ spent point of view, but not from an image point of view without anamorphically encoded material.......I go to great lengths to point this out to fellow enthuasists, as one must be fair to all parties. Many who save hard to get the best result for their money.

I recall a thread(BluRay is not Anamorphic) where some commercial interests went to great lengths to say it was anamorphic, then when it was conclusively proven it was not, came out and said "do we really care?"........of course the premise of "saying" BluRay was anamorphic would have helped the A-Lens cause?

I know of two people(one on this forum) who bought A-Lens solutions with the belief that BluRay was anamorphic as advised by the sales people..........now feel different and a bit duped.......they bought 2.35:1 screens with them........one still uses his, but regrets not being told of the options available to him, prior to him parting with his money. The other has removed his and is about to add 250mm masking above and below the existing 2.35:1 frame.....he will have his his subtitles and ansi back.....and no visible black bars.

For those who have access to DCi anamorphically encoded material, you are possibly one of those, it's a terrific solution.

I would sincerly like to see you become the sole Australian distributor for anamorphically encoded DCi material, so those AM3 and future lenses you manufacture will have the source material they deserve and your customers reap the benefit of the $$$ they spend.......once such encoded material is available......there will be many touting such an implimentation as high end and correctly so.

[yamapro]

HJ: Talking about enthusaists here!.....I said would gain, not must have......I sure I can think of a few people who have 2 screen sizes. Might not suit you but I sure there may be others who may consider this.....the objective being to produce the best image the projector is capable of delivering.

Or one could utilise the budget for two completely different systems in purchasing a better projector and screen and customise a masking solution (not too dissimilar to your own approach - at least in that regard) and get even closer to ones own ideal reference point...

HJ: It's marketing, JVC was showing their projectors with an AM3 as it is a popular lens or was it AM3 were showing their lens with a JVC as it is a popular projector?!, either way, try the AM3 lens with a good DLP and it will look a whole lot better in mid to high APL scenes with an A-Lens than will the JVC.......I have a JVC and know the beast quite well.

Lcos has limited ANSI compaired to DLP a good DLP has 3-4 times the ANSI of Lcos, the use of any extra glass infront of a projector lens can diminish ANSI by up to 30%..........you do the maths......want to use a A-Lens, DLP should be the primary choice.

AM3 a popular lens? OZ has stated that less than 100 of these have sold worldwide!!! No doubt it will become a very popular lens as it is undoubtedly the bargain way to get high performance scope at home.

I can't believe you are stupid enough to assert that you know better than JVC how to get the best picture from their machines. I'm sure their feedback tells a different story to the the broken record you keep harping on about.

As for your declaration that the demo was a marketing exercise... Well D'uh!!! They decided that showcasing their excellent projectors in CIH setups thru an AM3 would make the most impact. Get bums on seats, impress the masses, provide a very pleasingresult etc...

Makes you wonder how they came to that conclusion? Perhaps because CIH is the ultimate way to enjoy most film content at home. Made possible thanks to excellent HT projection technology, BluRay (even without anamorphic encoding ) and people like Mark Techer, developing excellent quality, wallett friendly anamorphic lens solutions.

'Highjinx' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:50 PM' post='1392237'

The point is as anamorphically encoded source material is not readily available, It's like buying a car that requires high octane fuel....but no such fuel is available!

yamapro:

No it isn't - IDIOT!

HJ: Ohhh! Touchy!

yamapro:

A car that requires high octane fuel will not run right on anything else - it just won't work.

HJ: *Clearly you do not understand engine design(among other things like................??????!!!!!!! ) , the engine will work, but not at it's optimal capability, the engines management system will retard the spark(ignition) to prevent pre-detonation(knocking/pinging) when using a lower octane fuel!!

I understand fine thanks mate. 'Requires' was your term. Had you said recommended or designed to run on a particular octane fuel i would agree that the hypothetical engine would work (far below optimum) on lesser grade stuff.

If you understood the term 'require', you would know that it denotes a 'necessity for'... see below from dictionary.com...

...re·quire (rĭ-kwīr')

tr.v. re·quired, re·quir·ing, re·quires

1. To have as a requisite; need: Most plants require sunlight.

2. To call for as obligatory or appropriate; demand. See Synonyms at demand.

3. To impose an obligation on; compel: Students are required to attend classes.

As a man who apparently worships facts i thought you may be interested to see the error of your analogy.

Although it is becoming more apparent that your preference is for psuedo science, you like statistics as they can be massaged to awkwardly fit a poorly constructed argument. Fundamental creationist at heart?

HJ: OMG I'm sure it works, but it works much better without!!

And yet you are the only person any of us have ever come across who feels this way. I have not yet met a single person who, after sampling the currently available methods for bringing the cinema home feels the BR, PJ, AM lens approach is anything but the ultimate approach today.

** One is gaining nothing in detail(with non anamorphically encoded source material such as BluRay) ...blah blah blah.....why squeeze and stretch the image when it is already in it's perfect aspect ratio to begin with on the disk???!!!. Please don't try to convince the persons new to this hobby there are any other advantages currently** other than brightness(from a zoomed unsqueezed 2.35:1 image off a 16:9 panel) with non anamorphically encoded material like Blu Ray.

Sure no detail is gained, you can only work with what you have to start with... but nothing is visbly lost either. Except for unsightly not quite black bars that ruin ones perceived contrast.

Hmm there's a gain - one that should have struck a chord with you and your well publicised worship of contrast.

By not projecting an attempt at a black bar, spilling over the top and bottom of your image you will naturally perceive a much higher contrast image on the bit of the screen you are interested in looking at! It has been shown time and time again. You know it is true!

For the record i never try to convince people new to this hobby of anything other than to explore all avenues available to them so they can achieve their goals. I wish i had my eyes opened to the use of an anamorphic lens at home years ago & therefore do what i can to help people see it for what it is. I'm not interested in swaying people one way or the other - scope isn't for everyone, no argument there. It is however well worth a look and even those who decide that other solutions better meet their individual needs will readily agree with that.

You seem to forget to mention the negatives of A-lens implementaion like loseing subtitles, the introduction pincusion distortion(a curved screen is required to correct this or added glass? within the A-lens) and the reduction of ANSI......just look at an A-Lens in operation, see all that light bouncing around?....that's photons colliding.....the result is inevitable ANSI reduction.

Seem to forget? There is plenty of information around on both pro's and cons and this thread was never about addressing lack of subtitles etc..

However, yep subtitles can be a problem. As mentioned above each individuals needs are different. In my own circumstance i have very few foreign language films so it is rarely an issue. When it does present as such though one still have the choice to drop back to 16:9 or use custom scaling or even zoom to maximise impact. Everything is a compromise though eh?

Pincushion? Not much of a problem for most setups and FWIWthere is nothing sexier in HT than a curved scope screen - just like the real thing After all we're enthusiast remember

I'm less worried about the theory of photon's colliding than i am interested in the huge visible improvement and cinematic immersion i have gained by going CIH! As to inevitable ANSI reduction - can you demonstrate this in real world viewing conditions? Is it a greater ANSI loss than experienced by projecting dull grey bars with the image? If ANSI lossis really an issue why do cinema's still use extra lenses to bend their light and create the intolerable conditions that cause those poor little photon's to collide? (Perhaps the photon's need unionrepresentation as they clearly have unsafe working conditions!)

If one likes the look of a 2.35:1 screen, fine, just add a bit of masking above and below the frame to mask the projected "black bars" when displaying the required 2.35:1 width....this way you will also be able to read any subtitles as well that will appear fully in the masked portion of the bottom, however you will have to zoom in for 16:9 material. Or folks with 16:9 screens have some moveable masking that comes down from the top and or bottom.

There you go telling people how to implement their own HT. You have the right to do as you see fit in your own home, as do I. It doesn't bother me that we will continue to take different approaches but FFS stop sprouting CRAP that isn't factual and stop telling people how they should go about there own business.

CIH has some great advantages at home FACT. It looks gorgeous. No sane personwould contendwith that.

It also isn't easily implemented as an off the shelf bundle without any consumer education - best left to us enthusiast who care enough to make it work properly.

CIH is not going to be for everyone. Some people like larger than life newsreaders as a priority. Some people's viewing preferences are for native 16:9 material (i.e. a lot of sport or other TV viewing). Many people willhave rooms that are width limited more so than height limited.

All of the above are fine. Horses for courses.

Still yet to meet anyone who having seen CIH well executed bedisappointed with the result.

By the way HJ - Did you see the JVC booth at Cedia?

HJ: So why the heck do I persist?.......Just "keeping the bastards honest" haaaaa!

Keeping the bastards honest? More likely that given the chance you would have been there shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic church labelling Galileo a heretic!

[Highjinx]

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/WATCHMEN_scope_VS.jpg

Wow! I saw that image and did a 180 degree turn around from my previous stand ..................for 3 nano seconds.......cause I saw this one! Link for many $$$$ less too!.....from the same viewing ratio!

C'mon....bring on the DCi Anamorphically encoded stuff and I'll be one of the biggest flag wavers for you're cause.

Get back to you soon yamapro, hmm perhaps, you seem to have lost the objectivity of seeking the truth/facts.......not a commercial twister are you? .........!

[BladeRnR]

For the record over the last 2 weeks I've had a steady stream of both HT aficionados and people who know very little about HT and both have been blown away by the OZTS 2:35.1 screen, Lens / Projector. Quite a few people have expressed interest in replicating my setup as they said "Why pay to go to the movies - this actually looks and sounds better and nobody talks!". One of my best mates couldn't get over "How bright and clear the image was" and I had to remind him the room wasn't even light-controlled and had white walls. He said "So what - it looks amazing to me".

Case in point - see Scope yourself before making a decision.

The only thing I want to do now is go an even bigger screen - 150" is looking good

Cheers

Blade

[EasterBunny]

For the record over the last 2 weeks I've had a steady stream of both HT aficionados and people who know very little about HT and both have been blown away by the OZTS 2:35.1 screen, Lens / Projector. Quite a few people have expressed interest in replicating my setup as they said "Why pay to go to the movies - this actually looks and sounds better and nobody talks!". One of my best mates couldn't get over "How bright and clear the image was" and I had to remind him the room wasn't even light-controlled and had white walls. He said "So what - it looks amazing to me".

That's because of the great projector you're using but you might want to hold off on deciding on the bigger screen until after the bulb goes through it's initial large drop in output.

[50mxe20]

That's because of the great projector you're using but you might want to hold off on deciding on the bigger screen until after the bulb goes through it's initial large drop in output.

Is a big drop in brightness common with PJ bulbs?

[Highjinx]

Is a big drop in brightness common with PJ bulbs?

50% drop at around 1/3 into it's life or there about.

C'mon LED or Laser!

[EasterBunny]

Is a big drop in brightness common with PJ bulbs?

Thanks for the question Lyle and sadly yes, about 50% over the life of the bulb with about half of that happening in the first 500hrs of use. YMMV though as some globes are better than this and some like the Sony VW100 Xenon globes much worse, dropping nearly 50% in the first 500 hours if you believe the horror stories of some owners.

[yamapro]

Get back to you soon yamapro, hmm perhaps, you seem to have lost the objectivity of seeking the truth/facts.......not a commercial twister are you? .........!

No commercial interest here at all mate - just a believer

FWIW i work in construction - as mentioned before I'm an enthusiast.

Not too interested in searching for 'truths and facts' anymore to be honest (too many differeing opinions present as such to be a worthwhile excersise) - just looking for the most enjoyable ways to spend my hard earned.

Certainly some facts and figures are a great place to start and we all need reference points but I'm far more interested in enjoying thebest experience i can than religiously following anyone elses flawed logic.

As i have stated over and over, as an enthusiast I point people to CIH wherever possible - not as a fundamental but so they can experience it for themselves, attain their own reference point and make their mind up.

And please do get back to me, although your form has shown in past that you are more likely to change the subject when you can twist the facts no further

[50mxe20]

Thanks for the question Lyle and sadly yes, about 50% over the life of the bulb with about half of that happening in the first 500hrs of use. YMMV though as some globes are better than this and some like the Sony VW100 Xenon globes much worse, dropping nearly 50% in the first 500 hours if you believe the horror stories of some owners.

Something to be said for not going too large a screen then? Or being prepared to buy new globes a lot more frequently.

[Highjinx]

No commercial interest here at all mate - just a believer

FWIW i work in construction - as mentioned before I'm an enthusiast.

Not too interested in searching for 'truths and facts' anymore to be honest (too many differeing opinions present as such to be a worthwhile excersise) - just looking for the most enjoyable ways to spend my hard earned.

Certainly some facts and figures are a great place to start and we all need reference points but I'm far more interested in enjoying thebest experience i can than religiously following anyone elses flawed logic.

As i have stated over and over, as an enthusiast I point people to CIH wherever possible - not as a fundamental but so they can experience it for themselves, attain their own reference point and make their mind up.

And please do get back to me, although your form has shown in past that you are more likely to change the subject when you can twist the facts no further

In construction eh?!....build many HT's?

Well I tried to enlighten you why Lcos units are not the best choice for add on Lenses as the ansi on these machines are not the best. You choose to ignore facts like up to 30% ansi loss when adding even an ND filter, let alone a multi element prism lens infront of a projector lens.

JVD HD 750 ansi is around 290:1, where as a good DLP is around 1000:1 I know which projector can afford loose 30% of it's ansi.

Everyone want's to sell more product........I suppose you believe every marketing angle?

No Chubby Checker(Let's twist Again...la la la!) music playing in the background unlike you're post.

Without true anamorphic material, adding extra glass that WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT on the image without the positive offset of added detail of an anamorphic encode is, well......add your own term.....try the same image size brightness eq'd with and without an A-Lens with masking when not using an A - Lens.........it is a bloody eye opener.......just mask the projected black bars.

I see Greg "Mr. Perfect Image" Rogers keeps clear of A-Lenses without true anamorphic material.......wonder why?

Octane?.....haaaa! Cubby Checker played at 78RPM! You know you were clearly wrong....but stilll.....!

The huge visible improvement by going scope...........give it up man, the material on the disks you feed you're projector is not anamorphic....what is this improvment you speak of, a bit more brightness with less ansi?.........the ultimate approach today?!.......you have swallowed the hook line and sinker......I know where the hook has lodged.... Total snake oil without the appropriate encoded material........but where a dollar can be made! Sheesh!...a sucker is born every minute?

You are aware one can have CIH without an add on scope?!

Black bars an issue......mask them.....simple!........as I have done. Not only not using an A- Lens gives me no loss in contrast, but masking give me the percieved contrast you speak of ....ohhh!! win 1, win 2, and $$$$$$ saved win 3!

The movie theatres that recieve anamorphic prints have been originally shot matted and are converted to anamorphic for projector compatability don't use add on lenses they are the standard lens on the projectors in those theatres......someone here who worked as a projectionist mentioned some other theaters obviously with different type of projector lens setup, recieved non anamorphic matted prints and project these w/out an a-lens, if an A-Print is recieved a a-Lens is used. Not to mention only 600 or so movies in history have been shot anamorphically. Though many prints are made anamorphically for distribution due to projector compatability, the vast majority of these movies have not been shot anamorphically. It's pseudo anamorphic print distribution for projector compatability reasons.

Watched Ghost Rider yesterday and read the credits at the end as someone I know was involved in the production........that movie was produced matted....there was a line giving credit to the matting team.

The most immersive medium of all Imax....no anamorphic!!.......70mm except for one or two anamorphic attempts no anamorphic.......why???

I'm glad for you that you are on a snake oil intravenous drip and it's having a placebo effect on you and the hook you have swallowed has lodged in a very pleasureable spot.....no doubt the attached line gets tugged from time to time.......to keep you on track.......surely not a track any thinking, well informed woman or man would take if no anamorphic material was available to them.....they have better things to do with their $$$$ that give them true value.

Do ensure that drip is topped up!

Lil' humble ol' me n' others will be here from time to time to clear up the BS that some fling around here in the hope that BS baffels brains.

[Highjinx]

Something to be said for not going too large a screen then? Or being prepared to buy new globes a lot more frequently.

Very good point Lyle, not only does one have greater brightness flexibility but also better contrast. I strongly feel the projectors lumen output post calibration, with a predicted 50% aged globe brightness output and zoom level lumen output that provides the best contrast should be factored into arriving at the optimal screen size. From there make changes from the optimal size by going bigger only if one has to, in order to seat more people while keeping the min size acceptable to the back row.

As to immersion there is a myth that a bigger screen gives one more immersiveness with the same projector panel. Did some testing yesterday on two different screen sizes, one 92" and the other a 120" both with the same projector.

Interesting result, both "sweet spots" were at the same viewing ratio, thus the immersiveness from the respective sweet spots was the same on both screens. Moving closer from the sweet spot on either screen gave a temporary feeling of immersiveness, till one moved back to the sweet spot where the image was at it's sharpest and thus most engaging. It would be very nice to be able to sit at a closer ratio with current HD, but for the sharpest, most engaging and realistic image the sweet spot ratio was the place.

It is quite amazing we found that sitting at the sweet spot for 2 or so minutes engaged us more than sitting closer as the image was significantly more realistic due to it appearing more resolved to the eye and life like and the apparent smaller image size from sitting the bigger ratio soon dissappeard from consious thought. Sitting closer though, the larger image size was very desireable, but the lack of image sharpness(compaired to the sweet spot) and thus lack realism had us gravitating back to the sweet spot time and time again.

I feel we are going to need higher resolution material and hardware so we can sit at a closer ratio and still have the shapest morst engaging image.....bring on 4K.

[BladeRnR]

Something to be said for not going too large a screen then? Or being prepared to buy new globes a lot more frequently.

The Lamp will deteriorate at the same rate regardless if you have a 130" or 150" screen. If you're a Projector owner you should already be prepared for the limitations of the technology and replacing Lamps is a big part of that. So in answer to your question I'll simply buy lamps more often (Or as required). I've already got a second (new) lamp ready and waiting for when the first one goes.

But as HJ suggested bring on the LED/Laser Projectors. They're a while away though unfortunately.

Blade

[50mxe20]

The Lamp will deteriorate at the same rate regardless if you have a 130" or 150" screen. If you're a Projector owner you should already be prepared for the limitations of the technology and replacing Lamps is a big part of that. So in answer to your question I'll simply buy lamps more often (Or as required). I've already got a second (new) lamp ready and waiting for when the first one goes.

Yes but on a larger screen the drop in brightness will be more dramatic visually.

The larger the area to be illuminated the more noticeable the drop off.

But of course, one could replace the bulb everytime the deterioration is observable.

It's only money.

However, I can see there is need to optimise all the variables.

ie, A screen can be too large, just as it can be too small.

Just out of interest, what does a bulb for say an HD700 cost?

[BladeRnR]

Yes but on a larger screen the drop in brightness will be more dramatic visually.

The larger the area to be illuminated the more noticeable the drop off.

But of course, one could replace the bulb everytime the deterioration is observable.

It's only money.

However, I can see there is need to optimise all the variables.

ie, A screen can be too large, just as it can be too small.

Just out of interest, what does a bulb for say an HD700 cost?

As s I've never owned a Projector before I guess I'll soon learn just how 'dramatic' that drop-of will be. Also, I haven't tried a larger screen so again it's an unknown. I don't do speculation - when the time comes I'll observe just how bad it is but I certainly won't be rushing to get a bigger screen until it's a known quantity. It also depends on what you can live with - I doubt I'll be wringing my hands over a few lost lumens like others here.

Not sure about an HD700 but a Google search would tell you. I got the VPL-VW80 lamp for $518:00AUD.

Blade

[CAVX]

Disclaimer: The specs listed in this thread by Hijinks in regrads to anamorphic lenses and light losses are based his his own assumptions and do not reflect actual measured test results.

I see Greg "Mr. Perfect Image" Rogers keeps clear of A-Lenses without true anamorphic material.......wonder why?

Possibly due to the fact the he (like you) does not fully understand the concept and he (like you) is too pre-occupied with his own assumptions that anything outside if the '1:1 pixel mapping' will totally destroy the image and not to mention that the promotion of such a lens like the ISCO III at its current $18K RRP would actually be detrimental to his reputation as a reviewer if he suddenly started to actively promote the idea that such a lens is needed and that such a lens is well and truely outside the 'affordability' for most people.

[SDL]

Seems to be all a case of scemantics to me really. Not sure of which way to go myself and can certainly see pro's and con's with both approaches. But isn't all lifes choices about weighing up pro's and con's and then deciding which is best? Theoretically HJ I understand putting extra glass in the way will mean an image is not as good as it was necessarily without that glass, and certainly ANSI losses will exist, and sure the extra stretching does not add any pixels or information that wasn't there - but so what? All that aside, as you have said yourself, if BD was anamorphic you would be on it like a flash, so you can obviously see that CIH is desirable?

So let's take my case. I sit in front of say as an example a JVC750 and watch a BD of Cars. I love it and think got to have this. I then get them to put one of Mark's lenses in front and watch the same movie on a scope screen. I know in the back of my head that there is no more detail, I know there are some dead spaces, I know there is an ansi loss, but let's just say for arguments sake I can't see all that with my eyes and am blown away by the picture still and find the scope version more true to the cinema feel I am looking for, then why wouldn't I go that way?

What you are talking about are theories and that is great to debate about, but bottom line if you can't notice the difference with your eyes then who cares? My only one concern that I have with CIH is the issue of subtitles (oh and getting the money together - but that is another thing ). Other than that I will let my eyes decide as I'm sure most do.

[CAVX]

What you are talking about are theories and that is great to debate about, but bottom line if you can't notice the difference with your eyes then who cares?

It is no different to saying that DTS sounds better than Dolby simply because it uses a more data. Sure on paper it might. Actual listening tests???

[bbar]

Seems to be all a case of scemantics to me really. Not sure of which way to go myself and can certainly see pro's and con's with both approaches. But isn't all lifes choices about weighing up pro's and con's and then deciding which is best? Theoretically HJ I understand putting extra glass in the way will mean an image is not as good as it was necessarily without that glass, and certainly ANSI losses will exist, and sure the extra stretching does not add any pixels or information that wasn't there - but so what? All that aside, as you have said yourself, if BD was anamorphic you would be on it like a flash, so you can obviously see that CIH is desirable?

So let's take my case. I sit in front of say as an example a JVC750 and watch a BD of Cars. I love it and think got to have this. I then get them to put one of Mark's lenses in front and watch the same movie on a scope screen. I know in the back of my head that there is no more detail, I know there are some dead spaces, I know there is an ansi loss, but let's just say for arguments sake I can't see all that with my eyes and am blown away by the picture still and find the scope version more true to the cinema feel I am looking for, then why wouldn't I go that way?

What you are talking about are theories and that is great to debate about, but bottom line if you can't notice the difference with your eyes then who cares? My only one concern that I have with CIH is the issue of subtitles (oh and getting the money together - but that is another thing ). Other than that I will let my eyes decide as I'm sure most do.

Have to agree for the most SDL and that the debate is primarily around semantics or the esoteric.

To me all including HJ agree that scope is good and enjoy scope encodes. Personally I feel let down when I open a new/library title and it is in 1.85:1.

I have always taken HJ's underlying point that using a lens increases Lumens only, not resolution and can reduce contrast or introduce other artifacts. Note I said can depending on the lens and cast no dispersions on the MKIII.

It appears HJ is saying that with a 16X9 screen that contains the same width as one would get with a scope setup gives the best of both worlds.

This assumes that in using CIW one sits within the optimum viewing distance for best immersion and visual acuity which is somewhere between 2 times and 4 times height thus suggesting that 3 times is preferred. Have not done math here but have assumed that in a CIW setup one could maintain these ratios for both 1.85 and 2.37 encodes or close enough as not to matter. In other words 3.X for 2.37 and 2.X for 1.85:1.

Sorry HJ if I have misunderstood your key messages.

With respect to blinds I am assuming they are used to negate the horizontal bars generated by scope encodes and therefore add value in this setup.

I like you have a HD750 and currently zoom and shift to maintain a CIH as I have a scope screen. In this setup i shoot the black bars onto the screen edge and wall and rarely see them unless the movie is real dark then there can be a few telltale signs. Never a problem with a good movie though.

If we assume that the A-lens we purchase would produce little or no artifacts and reduction in contrast was negligible then I would probably go with the Lens; however can see that proper blinds would also be attractive. Especially if Lumens was not an issue.

So to me both are viable options and in the interim am using CIH by zooming and shifting image with the HD750 which is a breeze compared to most which have to do it manually, which is basically not do-able.

[BladeRnR]

Seems to be all a case of scemantics to me really. Not sure of which way to go myself and can certainly see pro's and con's with both approaches. But isn't all lifes choices about weighing up pro's and con's and then deciding which is best? Theoretically HJ I understand putting extra glass in the way will mean an image is not as good as it was necessarily without that glass, and certainly ANSI losses will exist, and sure the extra stretching does not add any pixels or information that wasn't there - but so what? All that aside, as you have said yourself, if BD was anamorphic you would be on it like a flash, so you can obviously see that CIH is desirable?

So let's take my case. I sit in front of say as an example a JVC750 and watch a BD of Cars. I love it and think got to have this. I then get them to put one of Mark's lenses in front and watch the same movie on a scope screen. I know in the back of my head that there is no more detail, I know there are some dead spaces, I know there is an ansi loss, but let's just say for arguments sake I can't see all that with my eyes and am blown away by the picture still and find the scope version more true to the cinema feel I am looking for, then why wouldn't I go that way?

What you are talking about are theories and that is great to debate about, but bottom line if you can't notice the difference with your eyes then who cares? My only one concern that I have with CIH is the issue of subtitles (oh and getting the money together - but that is another thing ). Other than that I will let my eyes decide as I'm sure most do.

Although these points have been done to death in other threads although you raise them very succinctly SDL. Here's some Pros / Cons for CIH:

PROS

-----

- No Black Bars.

- Replicates the movie experience as you would see in a commercial cinema. You see the movie as the Director intended you to see it.

- Increases brightness by 33%. HJ will contest this though by using the 'more glass scenario in the Projectors light path' but it's a fact. Your Projectors resources are being used to produce those black (Grey) bars. If you stretch them out of the way your panel is then used for actual picture content. I can assure you this is 'free' and far outweighs what little ANSI loss you'd experience with extra glass in front of the Lens (Disclaimer - I gauge this with my eyes - not scientific instruments). HJ will argue there is ANSI loss but I am yet to see real figures using a light meter to back up his claims. He would of course require a scope setup and a light meter to confirm the ANSI loss in a real-world measurement. It's all just piss and wind without actual data.

- About 85% of movies (If not more) are 2:35.1, 2:39.1 or 2:40.1.

- Commercial cinemas use Anamorphic Len's in exactly the same manner as you do at home.

-You don't have to use a Lens to enjoy scope. Use the Zoom method and buy a Lens later.

CONS

-----

- CIH setups cost money. If you don't have the money then stop looking at it or debating it's relevance because it's pointless. You have the Lens to buy (The AMIII is a true baragin in anyones language), a Scope screen which is marginally more expensive than a 16:9 (Go OZTS because again they are a bargain) but that's about it. At worst you'll spend perhaps $2500:00AUD more than what you would have on a non-lens, non-Scope setup.

- Depending on the Lens used artifacts can be introduced into the picture such as Chromatic Abberations. Mark Techer is best placed to explain these in detail. As Mark will agree these artifacts (Except for Vignetting or 'Pincushion') are non-existent when a cylidrical lens is used such as the ISCO III or Schneider Cine-Digitar Schneider Lens Review. Pincushion can be rectified by using a curved screen but from experience the vignetting has not reduced my enjoyment of Scope because I can't even see or notice it (It's minimal - something like 1.2 cm's from middle to extreme edge of picture).

Extract from the ProjectorCentral review:

However, last week we lit up a projector with the Schneider Optics Cine-Digitar 1.33X anamorphic lens, and the truth changed. Simply put, this is by far the best anamorphic lens we've yet seen and the first one we'd gladly install for use in our own home theater. There is no hint of vignette effects, and geometric distortion is for all practical purposes non-existent. But most importantly, this lens is optically perfect. There is not the slightest trace of oily effects. The image on screen is as natural, clear and precise as you'd ever want. The Cine-Digitar 1.33X enhances the performance of the projector without doing anything to get in its way.

Mark Techer would be the first to agree that a Cylidrical Lens has none of the negatives of a Prism Lens (Hence why the Aussiemorphic IV will be a Cylidrical Lens). With my Schnedier Lens I can assure you any ANSI loss (If any) is miniscule and completely offset by the 33% natural increase in brightness you get when using the whole Projector panel. There is no argument for this because it's fact. Whatever decrease there is because of the 'extra glass' I can assure you is imperceptible to the human eye and only measurable using a light meter. I have tried both the Lens in the Projectors light path and out and I can see no difference. None. Nada. Zilch. HJ will say otherwise but I believe in what I see - I don't do speculation or supposition.

- You have to have the physical space (Width). If you are Width restricted then CIH is not for you. Move on or build/buy a house that has no such restriction.

- The stretched (Vertically and Horizontally) picture still uses 810 lines (Not 1080). This negates 1:1 pixel mapping. However you do not see this and in fact the picture looks more detailed because of it. HJ's major argument is the loss of 1:1 Pixel mapping but you would have to be Superhuman, a Fly or have extraordinary optical powers to detect the fractional distortion / gaps (HJ calls them dead zones or something) at a Pixel level the Lens introduces. In fact you can only 'see' this with a very specific static image (As Mark Techer has shown in earlier threads). It is humanly impossible to detect this with a moving image. It is there but I can assure you no human being on this planet would be able to tell the difference at any vewing distance.

If anyone is serious about CIH and would like to see it first hand (Melbourne) feel free to drop me a PM and I'll happily demonstrate my system to you. The only way you're ever going to appreciate CIH is in person. No amount of paper specifications or mathematical hocus pocus can portray just how incredibly immersive Scope is until you see it for yourself. There are very few places outside of commercial shows like CEDIA where you'll ever see a Schneider or ISCO Lens so do avail yourself of this opportunity.

Cheers

Blade

P.S HJ I know you'll be itching to reply to this post but I'm not going to get into another tit-for-tat with you over Scope. Been there done that. I will say one thing though. In order to refute Scope and confirm your own understanding you must perform your own tests using a light meter and Scope / Non-Scope setup. To do this you'll need a Lens - in fact to do it properly you'll need both a AM MKIII (Prism) and a Schneider / ISCO III (Cylindrical). Until you're able to test these setups in your own room and report your findings everything you've said thus far is supposition and speculation. Field testing is the only way you can confirm the ANSI loss you've described repeatedly. Just saying "There's light lost with the extra glass" is not enough. Please prove it with a nice before & after.

Edited August 17, 2009 by BladeRnR