Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are a lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right) to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to 30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using (and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra image
of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.

You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full screen
in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in a
sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen would
display as part of the image (wasted resolution).

Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would give
you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by another
2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your 16:9
image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
smaller than today.

There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation unless
you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a newer
2.35:1 screen, which you do.

This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT vs.
16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are a
lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right) to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to 30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using (and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I asked you my previous
question. Specifically, why would I have to buy a 2.35:1 screen to
show the extra image of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic
lens? Wouldn't my current 16:9 screen show this "enhanced" 2.35:1
image albeit with black bars at the top and bottom? (Not black bars
created by the projector, but resulting from the projection of
nothing at the top and bottom of my 16:9 screen.) I'm just
interested in using the anamorphic lens (in conjunction with the
Optoma scaler) to view native 2.35:1 material. For 16:9 and 4:3
material I would slide the anamorphic assembly aside (I believe
that's the way it's constructed) and view the 16:9, etc. material
with the "normal" lens.

In other words, I was my understanding that if I go with my current
16:9 screen (which I intend to do for all the reasons I stated in
earlier messages - see below) then by using an anamorphic lens for
2.35:1 material this will allow me to "see" all the pixels in the
2.35:1 content on my current screen (at a current 8' width but with
bars top and bottom) whereas staying with the current lens
(non-anamorphic) would result in an 8' wide 2.35:1 image that,
because of the creation of letter boxing, loses ~30% of the pixels in
the original content. The two 2.35:1 images would be the same size
but the one using the anamorphic lens would contain more pixel
information. In your most recent response to me you stated that
"there is no need for a lens and transport setting" in my current
set-up, but wouldn't such a lens provide an even better (more pixels)
2.35:1 image at my current image size? I seem to be missing
something here and would appreciate finding out where my faulty
assumptions are. Thanks for all the information.

At 12:55 AM 1/15/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Robert,
>
>Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra image
>of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
>height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.
>
>You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full screen
>in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in a
>sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen would
>display as part of the image (wasted resolution).
>
>Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would give
>you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by another
>2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your 16:9
>image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
>smaller than today.
>
>There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation unless
>you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a newer
>2.35:1 screen, which you do.
>
>This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT vs.
>16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
>Robert A Fowkes
>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >Robert,
> >
> >Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
>take
> >me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to leave
> >your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
>about
> >the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.
>
>Rodolfo,
>
>It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
>CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar material.
>
>
> >Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
> >screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local theater
> >experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
> >movies.
>
>Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
>screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
>had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.
>
>
> >If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of the
> >time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are a
>lot
> >of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
> >experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for some
> >nature programs, I do and is spectacular.
>
>Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
>using a 2.35:1 screen.
>
>
> >A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the masking
> >accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.
>
>I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
>Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
>"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
>the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
>presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
>I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.
>
>
> >One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie has
> >about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on the
> >disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.
>
>I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
>"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
>seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
>my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
>result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
>2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
>16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
>path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
>something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
>demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
>clarify if I'm wrong.
>
>
> >If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of the
> >projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
>well
> >(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for to
> >satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
>purpose,
> >not using a large HT for just TV.
> >
> >In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
>vertically
> >(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels of
> >the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
>bars).
> >That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
> >
> >Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
> >vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right) to
> >restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
>will
> >use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
> >
> >This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
> >projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to 30+%
> >less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).
>
>I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
>my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more eloquently.
>
>
> >Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar effect
> >from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by film
> >cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every bit
> >of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
>electronically
> >on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.
>
>Understood.
>
>
> >The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using (and I
> >use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
> >diagonal), are below:
>
>Thanks for the reference.
>
>Take care.
>

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Is there any software that takes full advantage of all the storage space
for 2.35:1 movies in the high definition formats? It seems to me
everyone would be better served if they could come up with an anamorphic
approach all the way back to the software, like they did for 16x9 with
the original DVD's, rather than waste the opportunity to get more
information in the actual picture. Of course that would require
cooperation between studios, disc makers and display makers, so it may
be too late for that.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:55 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra
image
of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.

You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full
screen
in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in
a
sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen
would
display as part of the image (wasted resolution).

Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would
give
you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by
another
2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your
16:9
image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
smaller than today.

There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation
unless
you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a
newer
2.35:1 screen, which you do.

This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT
vs.
16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to
leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar
material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local
theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of
the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are
a
lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for
some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the
masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie
has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on
the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of
the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for
to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels
of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right)
to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to
30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more
eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar
effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by
film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every
bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using
(and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Daniel,

The concept of 2.35:1 movies stored on exactly that format never took off,
unfortunately, they are stored in the 16:9 format wasting the top/bottom
parts with black bars that use the resolution available in the 16:9 image.

The same with the standard DVD.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Daniel vom Saal (HA)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:41 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Is there any software that takes full advantage of all the storage space
for 2.35:1 movies in the high definition formats? It seems to me
everyone would be better served if they could come up with an anamorphic
approach all the way back to the software, like they did for 16x9 with
the original DVD's, rather than waste the opportunity to get more
information in the actual picture. Of course that would require
cooperation between studios, disc makers and display makers, so it may
be too late for that.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:55 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra
image
of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.

You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full
screen
in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in
a
sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen
would
display as part of the image (wasted resolution).

Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would
give
you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by
another
2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your
16:9
image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
smaller than today.

There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation
unless
you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a
newer
2.35:1 screen, which you do.

This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT
vs.
16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to
leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar
material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local
theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of
the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are
a
lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for
some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the
masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie
has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on
the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of
the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for
to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels
of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right)
to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to
30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more
eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar
effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by
film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every
bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using
(and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

The information you are asking was in my previous emails, but I understand
that is difficult to grasp the concept, so let me try to explain it a bit
differently.

16:9 (1.78:1) movies are stored as 16:9 on DVD, and hi-def DVD, no bars, no
waste of resolution on any of the four sides.

2.35:1 movies are wider in aspect ratio, but they are fit within the same
16:9 space of the disc (and they are broadcast that way as well), resulting
in unused space above and below the actual image, that space is recorded as
black bars on each frame of the movie, and uses the resolution of the stored
media (or broadcast media) for that.

On DVD 480i and 1080i Hi Def DVD it would waste about 30+% of each frame.

When the movie is reproduced the black bars are displayed as they are on the
disc, is not dead space, your projector takes those black lines and show
them as any other line of the image, so the projector is wasting its pixel
structure on that job of black bars. The screen receives the projected
black bars and waste that screen space as well.

Let me summarize, this is not dead space, these are actual lines recorded as
black.

For what you said, your screen could not be wider due to the physical
limitations of your room, so you are limited in how wide the image/screen
could be regardless if 16:9 or 2.35:1.

If your screen is already maxed out horizontally you have also a maxed out
in height, which is now your 16:9 image height. When projecting a 2:35:1
image you will have your projector wasting the pixels of the black bars, if
maintaining the same zoom position.

You can always zoom in and make the 2.35:1 image smaller (with four black
bars), then have the scaler and the anamorphic lens expand the image (the
scaler vertically, the lens horizontally) to the same size it should have
been as today with the black bar, but now using the full pixel count of the
chip and full resolution, and the black bars are not lines of resolution of
the chip, they are dead space now, that is the only benefit I see you could
have with such system and your current screen width limitations. You have
to zoom out when back into 16:9 material. Both using the chip pixel count
to the max.

In other words, in your case, the image will not be larger, but will be more
resolved and brighter, you can still use the same projector and screen. The
lens and lens transport would set you back about $5000, plus plate, plus
labor, without giving you a wider image due to the physical limitations of
your room.

One thing to consider is that since the 2.35:1 image would be more resolved
and brighter (and at 1080p) you can try moving those theater seats closer to
the screen to increase the angle of vision to even higher than THX specs.
You would have to experiment with the seating distance with different media
and resolution. That would certainly immerse your viewers into the movie
(but think about the audio sweet spot change when you do that).

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

















-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:31 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I asked you my previous
question. Specifically, why would I have to buy a 2.35:1 screen to
show the extra image of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic
lens? Wouldn't my current 16:9 screen show this "enhanced" 2.35:1
image albeit with black bars at the top and bottom? (Not black bars
created by the projector, but resulting from the projection of
nothing at the top and bottom of my 16:9 screen.) I'm just
interested in using the anamorphic lens (in conjunction with the
Optoma scaler) to view native 2.35:1 material. For 16:9 and 4:3
material I would slide the anamorphic assembly aside (I believe
that's the way it's constructed) and view the 16:9, etc. material
with the "normal" lens.

In other words, I was my understanding that if I go with my current
16:9 screen (which I intend to do for all the reasons I stated in
earlier messages - see below) then by using an anamorphic lens for
2.35:1 material this will allow me to "see" all the pixels in the
2.35:1 content on my current screen (at a current 8' width but with
bars top and bottom) whereas staying with the current lens
(non-anamorphic) would result in an 8' wide 2.35:1 image that,
because of the creation of letter boxing, loses ~30% of the pixels in
the original content. The two 2.35:1 images would be the same size
but the one using the anamorphic lens would contain more pixel
information. In your most recent response to me you stated that
"there is no need for a lens and transport setting" in my current
set-up, but wouldn't such a lens provide an even better (more pixels)
2.35:1 image at my current image size? I seem to be missing
something here and would appreciate finding out where my faulty
assumptions are. Thanks for all the information.

At 12:55 AM 1/15/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Robert,
>
>Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra
image
>of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
>height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.
>
>You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full
screen
>in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in a
>sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen would
>display as part of the image (wasted resolution).
>
>Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would
give
>you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by another
>2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your 16:9
>image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
>smaller than today.
>
>There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation unless
>you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a newer
>2.35:1 screen, which you do.
>
>This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT vs.
>16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
>Robert A Fowkes
>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >Robert,
> >
> >Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
>take
> >me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to leave
> >your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
>about
> >the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.
>
>Rodolfo,
>
>It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
>CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar material.
>
>
> >Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
> >screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local
theater
> >experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
> >movies.
>
>Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
>screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
>had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.
>
>
> >If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of
the
> >time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are a
>lot
> >of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
> >experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for some
> >nature programs, I do and is spectacular.
>
>Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
>using a 2.35:1 screen.
>
>
> >A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the
masking
> >accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.
>
>I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
>Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
>"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
>the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
>presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
>I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.
>
>
> >One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie has
> >about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on the
> >disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.
>
>I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
>"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
>seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
>my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
>result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
>2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
>16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
>path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
>something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
>demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
>clarify if I'm wrong.
>
>
> >If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of
the
> >projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
>well
> >(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for
to
> >satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
>purpose,
> >not using a large HT for just TV.
> >
> >In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
>vertically
> >(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels of
> >the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
>bars).
> >That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
> >
> >Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
> >vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right)
to
> >restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
>will
> >use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
> >
> >This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
> >projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to
30+%
> >less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).
>
>I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
>my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more eloquently.
>
>
> >Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar
effect
> >from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by
film
> >cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every
bit
> >of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
>electronically
> >on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.
>
>Understood.
>
>
> >The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using (and
I
> >use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
> >diagonal), are below:
>
>Thanks for the reference.
>
>Take care.
>

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Unfortunately you are confirming what I thought. Too bad all the
HD-DVD/Blu-Ray design meetings didn't come up with an approach to take
advantage of the full resolution.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:06 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Daniel,

The concept of 2.35:1 movies stored on exactly that format never took
off,
unfortunately, they are stored in the 16:9 format wasting the top/bottom
parts with black bars that use the resolution available in the 16:9
image.

The same with the standard DVD.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Daniel vom Saal (HA)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:41 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Is there any software that takes full advantage of all the storage space
for 2.35:1 movies in the high definition formats? It seems to me
everyone would be better served if they could come up with an anamorphic
approach all the way back to the software, like they did for 16x9 with
the original DVD's, rather than waste the opportunity to get more
information in the actual picture. Of course that would require
cooperation between studios, disc makers and display makers, so it may
be too late for that.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:55 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra
image
of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.

You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full
screen
in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in
a
sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen
would
display as part of the image (wasted resolution).

Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would
give
you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by
another
2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your
16:9
image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
smaller than today.

There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation
unless
you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a
newer
2.35:1 screen, which you do.

This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT
vs.
16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to
leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar
material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local
theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of
the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are
a
lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for
some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the
masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie
has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on
the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of
the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for
to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels
of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right)
to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to
30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more
eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar
effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by
film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every
bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using
(and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Daniel,

Agree.

In fact, I have been saying since the 80s "too bad we had HDTV with just
16:9 AR and not the 2.35:1 aspect ratio of most movies"

This is the same with 1080i, the industry was under the inertia forces of
keeping some of the old concepts, some say to avoid the risk of failure of a
totally different product, some say that backward compatibility is more
important than innovation.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Daniel vom Saal (HA)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:57 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Unfortunately you are confirming what I thought. Too bad all the
HD-DVD/Blu-Ray design meetings didn't come up with an approach to take
advantage of the full resolution.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:06 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Daniel,

The concept of 2.35:1 movies stored on exactly that format never took
off,
unfortunately, they are stored in the 16:9 format wasting the top/bottom
parts with black bars that use the resolution available in the 16:9
image.

The same with the standard DVD.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Daniel vom Saal (HA)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:41 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Is there any software that takes full advantage of all the storage space
for 2.35:1 movies in the high definition formats? It seems to me
everyone would be better served if they could come up with an anamorphic
approach all the way back to the software, like they did for 16x9 with
the original DVD's, rather than waste the opportunity to get more
information in the actual picture. Of course that would require
cooperation between studios, disc makers and display makers, so it may
be too late for that.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:55 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Unless you buy a 2.35:1 screen you would not be able to show the extra
image
of the horizontal stretch of the anamorphic lens, maintaining the same
height of a 16:9 image you want to display at other times.

You have a constant width setup by which the 16:9 image uses the full
screen
in both axis and the 2.35:1 image uses the full width but is shorter in
a
sandwich within two black bars, bars that your projector and screen
would
display as part of the image (wasted resolution).

Since you are limited on the width of the room your current setup would
give
you the largest 16:9 images, if you were to change that screen by
another
2.35:1 screen with the same width the screen would be shorter and your
16:9
image within it would be shorter as well, with two black side pillars,
smaller than today.

There is no need for a lens and transport setup on your installation
unless
you do not mind to have a shorter (and smaller) 16:9 image within a
newer
2.35:1 screen, which you do.

This again depends on how much you watch widescreen movies on your HT
vs.
16:9 and 4:3 TV for you to motivate a change on the AR of the screen.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:23 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 01:14 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>Although I do not have the time to cover the subject fully, which might
take
>me a similar effort of doing the articles anyway, I do not want to
leave
>your comment as the only side of the story and discourage some readers
about
>the concept of CinemaScope on a 16:9 world of HDTV.

Rodolfo,

It is not my intention to discourage the use of anamorphic lenses or
CinemaScope since it definitely will enhance 2.35:1 and similar
material.


>Your points are valid for 16:9 TV viewers with limited space for wider
>screens, but not valid for 2.35:1 movie viewers that want the local
theater
>experience at home (not watch TV), a format very common for Hollywood
>movies.

Yes, my position is influenced by the limited space for a wider
screen as I explained in a separate reply to Richard Fisher. If I
had the space (width) I would probably do exactly what he has done.


>If someone views widescreen movies occasionally and watches TV most of
the
>time then CinemaScope might not be for that person, although there are
a
lot
>of people that watch 1.78:1 sports on 2.35:1 AR screens to increase the
>experience of a good football game, and I even use the expansion for
some
>nature programs, I do and is spectacular.

Understood. But in my case I would sacrifice 16:9 and 4:3 size by
using a 2.35:1 screen.


>A masking system is always a good idea on either screen format, the
masking
>accents the quality of the image, not just frames it.

I realize this is a side effect and, when I was using my original
Sony LCD projector (the VPL-VW10HT) is would have agreed since the
"bars" were dark grey and not "black." However, ever since I've used
the Runco DLP projector (CL-710) I find that in my darkened HT the
presence of any bars with 2.35:1 images cannot really be detected and
I don't notice the screen at all where there is no image projected.


>One point that is not mentioned on your email is that a 2.35:1 movie
has
>about 30+% of unused resolution of the stored media (wasted space on
the
>disc) because is occupied by the top/bottom black bars.

I fully understand the ~30% of unused resolution when letting the
"normal" 16:9 projector recreate 2.35:1 material and that's why I'm
seriously considering the Optoma (or similar) anamorphic option with
my next (1080p) projector. The only difference is that the final
result will be projected onto a 16:9 ratio screen as a fully resolved
2.35:1 image when using the anamorphic lens option. When viewing
16:9 material the anamorphic lens is repositioned out of the light
path. Isn't that the way that these things work or am I missing
something important? When I saw the Optoma with its "sliding" lens
demonstrated at CEDIA this was the impression that I got. Please
clarify if I'm wrong.


>If one is to display that image on a 16:9 screen 30+% of the pixels of
the
>projector chip and a similar size of the screen area would be wasted as
well
>(and the image would be smaller than a movie lover might be looking for
to
>satisfy his/her movie experience). Again, this is a movie watching
purpose,
>not using a large HT for just TV.
>
>In a CinemaScope system the scaler would stretch the 2.35:1 movie
vertically
>(leaving the top/bottom black bars out) to use all the vertical pixels
of
>the projector chip (that otherwise would be used for top/bottom black
bars).
>That image if projected as is it would look tall and skinny.
>
>Then the anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens would take that
>vertically stretched image and stretch it now horizontally (left/right)
to
>restore the correct geometry of the movie imparted by the director, and
will
>use the entire width of the 2.35:1 screen area.
>
>This electronic and optical approach uses the full resolution of the
>projector (1920x1080, rather than 30+% less of the 1080, equivalent to
30+%
>less than the 2 million pixels available in the chip).

I think what you're saying is essentially what I was talking about in
my previous paragraph, right? Of course, you put it a lot more
eloquently.


>Local theaters use anamorphic lenses for decades to create a similar
effect
>from celluloid frames containing a vertically stretched image shot by
film
>cameras that have anamorphic lenses in the front, so they can use every
bit
>of the celluloid, similar concept on projector chips but done
electronically
>on the first part. This is a simplified comparison.

Understood.


>The new anamorphic lenses and motorized system that Optoma is using
(and I
>use) for CES and CEDIA for screens as wide as 170" (that is 14 feet
>diagonal), are below:

Thanks for the reference.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 04:43 PM 1/15/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>The information you are asking was in my previous emails, but I understand
>that is difficult to grasp the concept, so let me try to explain it a bit
>differently.

[NOTE: In the interest of brevity I will not reproduce our entire
continuing dialog here but refer others to our previous posts].

Rodolfo,

As usual, you have taken a topic that is sometimes hard to put into
words for visualization and have made it very clear to me. While I
was familiar with the nuts and bolts of anamorphic lenses, storage on
a DVD, wasted "space" (or pixels) when recording black bars with
2.35:1 material, et. al. your description of a method by which I
could use an anamorphic lens with my current screen along with a
combination of zooming the 2.35:1 material smaller and proper scaling
to achieve ~100% use of my projector's pixels for content is an
intriguing one. I believe that with the right lens and scaler (I
would venture a guess that my DVDO VP-50 would be up to the task of
providing the necessary vertical scaling) I would be able to achieve,
as you noted, a higher resolution, brighter 2.35:1 image at the same
size as without the anamorphic lens and scaling. Of course this
would require a bit of adjustment in both lens choice and scaling
when moving to 16:9 or 4:3 material and I would question whether the
additional brightness and resolution would be worth the additional
effort (not to mention the expense.)

Yes, in theory, I would have a better image for 2.35:1 material but I
wonder if theory would provide real world benefits that would be
perceptible at normal viewing distances. It reminds me a bit of the
on-going argument about the merits of 720p vs. 1080p viewing at
certain distances from a screen. At some point (and distance) the
human eye would not be able to perceive the benefits of 1080p. My gut
feeling is that an anamorphic lens approach might be a bit of
overkill for my needs so I'm going to put this on the back burner for
now. Some other members of this list have also pointed out that
there are other plusses and minuses of anamorphism as well so this
also factors into the equation. Besides, although there seems to be
increasing 2.35:1 content available I still think that well over 50%
of my viewing involves 16:9 source material (HD television, a lot of
movies, etc.) so my HT is not exclusively a 2.35:1 "shop" by any means.

One thing has come out of all this discussion. Prodded by Richard
(Fisher) I'm seriously considering the Optoma HD81, or some variant
of that unit if and when you are able to tell us if the
"latest/greatest" out of CES 2007 has offered additional options to
consider. (Hint, hint.) I love the performance of DLP and, as you
know, am not afflicted by rainbows so the 1 chip 1080p solution seems
the best in terms of visual quality at a comparable price to things
like the LCoS (a.k.a. SXRD) Sony "Pearl" and the upcoming similar JVC
unit (a.k.a. D-ILA). When I also consider that the Optoma has an
anamorphic option (should I decide to test out the theory discussed
above) I am keeping my options open regarding this approach. (Of
course, I would either have to win the lottery to afford the
additional cost or Sam Runco would have to become a generous
benefactor once more for this to pan out! <g>)

I want to thank you once again for taking the time (and the patience)
to put this whole concept into readily understandable terms for me
and probably for many others as well. It has been a great help to me.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

I am giving you some heads up but no depth, I am still working with all this
data.

Optoma is coming with a new 81 with increased lumens (extra 1000 over the
already bright 1400 of the 81). They demo the newer model with 171" screen
and my anamorphic lenses/transport from Panamorph; impressive the size and
image clarity and depth for that size. It recall it would be around $8K
but I have to check my material. TTM Aug/Sep 07. No lens shift as the
current 81, which is a pain for installation, but it can be done, I did it,
Optoma did that to cut the price considering that one would use such feature
only once, but the labor for installation is expensive (I told them). If
you have a ceiling under 8" the installation would be complicated because it
has an offset of above 30%, but it can be done.

The current 81 would be offered also as a package for a total of $10K which
includes pj/scaler/lens/transport/plate, the scaler is now sold separately
for $4K, the lenses/transport are about $5K+ separately, do the math and the
pj would be about $1K as part of the package. I know you already have an
scaler, I am just informing you.

The JVC is $6300, great picture, Feb 07. JVC compared side by side with the
Pearl (now with the magic Dynamic Iris on), no comparison, the Pearl was
pleasant but no depth, the bars on 2.35:1 content were gray, while the JVC
bars were deep black. The JVC has super flexible lens shift. The
comparison was accentuating the depth of black but I would like to see this
projector with other content and sources of resolution (the scaler is
inside).

The Marantz was OK on the HD DVD demo, but certainly not spectacular for 3
times the price of the above 2 options.

The Sharp was also nice, but not for 2 times the price of the 2 options
above.

The last two reviews if these two pjs did not impress me considering their
cost and track record.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 04:43 PM 1/15/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>The information you are asking was in my previous emails, but I understand
>that is difficult to grasp the concept, so let me try to explain it a bit
>differently.

[NOTE: In the interest of brevity I will not reproduce our entire
continuing dialog here but refer others to our previous posts].

Rodolfo,

As usual, you have taken a topic that is sometimes hard to put into
words for visualization and have made it very clear to me. While I
was familiar with the nuts and bolts of anamorphic lenses, storage on
a DVD, wasted "space" (or pixels) when recording black bars with
2.35:1 material, et. al. your description of a method by which I
could use an anamorphic lens with my current screen along with a
combination of zooming the 2.35:1 material smaller and proper scaling
to achieve ~100% use of my projector's pixels for content is an
intriguing one. I believe that with the right lens and scaler (I
would venture a guess that my DVDO VP-50 would be up to the task of
providing the necessary vertical scaling) I would be able to achieve,
as you noted, a higher resolution, brighter 2.35:1 image at the same
size as without the anamorphic lens and scaling. Of course this
would require a bit of adjustment in both lens choice and scaling
when moving to 16:9 or 4:3 material and I would question whether the
additional brightness and resolution would be worth the additional
effort (not to mention the expense.)

Yes, in theory, I would have a better image for 2.35:1 material but I
wonder if theory would provide real world benefits that would be
perceptible at normal viewing distances. It reminds me a bit of the
on-going argument about the merits of 720p vs. 1080p viewing at
certain distances from a screen. At some point (and distance) the
human eye would not be able to perceive the benefits of 1080p. My gut
feeling is that an anamorphic lens approach might be a bit of
overkill for my needs so I'm going to put this on the back burner for
now. Some other members of this list have also pointed out that
there are other plusses and minuses of anamorphism as well so this
also factors into the equation. Besides, although there seems to be
increasing 2.35:1 content available I still think that well over 50%
of my viewing involves 16:9 source material (HD television, a lot of
movies, etc.) so my HT is not exclusively a 2.35:1 "shop" by any means.

One thing has come out of all this discussion. Prodded by Richard
(Fisher) I'm seriously considering the Optoma HD81, or some variant
of that unit if and when you are able to tell us if the
"latest/greatest" out of CES 2007 has offered additional options to
consider. (Hint, hint.) I love the performance of DLP and, as you
know, am not afflicted by rainbows so the 1 chip 1080p solution seems
the best in terms of visual quality at a comparable price to things
like the LCoS (a.k.a. SXRD) Sony "Pearl" and the upcoming similar JVC
unit (a.k.a. D-ILA). When I also consider that the Optoma has an
anamorphic option (should I decide to test out the theory discussed
above) I am keeping my options open regarding this approach. (Of
course, I would either have to win the lottery to afford the
additional cost or Sam Runco would have to become a generous
benefactor once more for this to pan out! <g>)

I want to thank you once again for taking the time (and the patience)
to put this whole concept into readily understandable terms for me
and probably for many others as well. It has been a great help to me.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:10 AM 1/16/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>I am giving you some heads up but no depth, I am still working with all this
>data.

Rodolfo,

Thanks for the updated preliminary information regarding both the new
Optoma projector and the new JVC model as well. I have a source that
can get me JVC at dealer cost (and perhaps the Optoma as well) so
I'll weigh my options. On the Optima, are you saying that in Sept 07
the HD81 is being replaced with a new model (the one with more
lumens) or will both be offered. I also am a bit concerned with the
installation parameters. I have a 7'6" ceiling in my HT (which works
fine with both my Runco DLP and my previous Sony) but you seem to
suggest that ceiling mounted on anything lower than 8' may be
problematical (unless I read you wrong.) I have latitude as to where
to place any new Optima mount so offset shouldn't be a
problem. However, my current Runco (as the Sony was) is installed
about 13' from my 110" 16:9 screen and the Optoma site seems to
indicate a minimum distance of 14.8ft with the current HD81 for that
size screen - which is cutting it close to the furthest back that I
wish to place a projector. If the new model Optoma increases that
distance any more (as well as any under 8' ceiling issues, I might
have to look closer at the JVC. When I saw the prototype of the JVC
at CEDIA it wasn't finished and they couldn't answer my questions
regarding a few things. Perhaps you can. HDMI: I assume it has
it. Is is 1.1, 1.3 or what? (And would it matter, given the
capabilities of the JVC?) Does the JVC accept 1080p/24 as well as (I
assume 1080p/60?) Also, if I use my VP50 scaler to achieve the 1080p
does the internal scaler on the JVC unit allow "pass-thru" (i.e. not
processing an already processed incoming signal)? I would think it
would. I'll wait a bit to see what the reviews are on the JVC unit
since it appears to be the best compromise for me at this point
(assuming that your answers to my questions indicate that my input
assumptions are right.) Your opinion, actually counts more to me
than formal "reviews" since I know you have no other agenda, so I'm
now leaning strongly toward the JVC. Based on standard dealer
pricing I believe I can get the new $6300 JVC for well under $4000 so
that seems to be a steal. All I need now are your answers to my
questions and a bit more information (I assume I can get it from the
JVC site) regarding installation geometry (distances, etc.) for a
110" 16:9 screen.

Decisions, decisions.

I really appreciate your taking the time from your busy schedule to
issue me this "preview" report. And I'm glad to hear that the JVC
promises of CEDIA 2006 became a reality in 2007.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

The new 81 would be issued in addition to the current model, not as a
replacement, the intention is for it to be used in very large theaters,
although my 130" is super bright already, and the 170" they use for the demo
of the current 81 is bright as well.

The pronounced offset of the projector lens would force the installation to
be high in the ceiling; otherwise the screen would end up close to the
floor. You need a minimum of 10 centimeters between projector and ceiling,
and because the connectors are in the back you need at least 6 inches behind
the projector to avoid damaging the HDMI cable (my 35 feet cable is so thick
it would barely bend but you do not want to force it, or make a hole in the
back wall for the cable to make its 90 degree turn).

There are many areas to cover on this installation, I would try to cover
them all on my articles but for now I suggest for you to check the official
AVSforum thread of this projector, they have some diagrams some people have
done to install in low ceilings (like tilting the pj and the screen, yes you
hear right). Take the thread reading (or any thread) with salt, many of
those are not owners and very opinionated, and some owners are even negative
with their own mother.

The JVC accepts 24 and shoots 48. I have a bunch of specs but I need to
digest tons of data on much equipment now, so I am not ready to analyze this
projector or the new 81 yet, just how it looks, and it looks well for the
price, again, more viewing is needed to make a fair assessment. The new
Optoma would still not have lens shift, but I put pressure on Wing (the
Chief engineer at Optoma).

Regarding your investment for anamorphic lens/transport of over $5K for just
a better resolved 2.35:1 image (in theory) of the same size you have now, I
rather do not recommend how to spend your money. But.

If that would be my case, the size of the screen cannot go bigger, but the
resolution can, and the seating get closer, giving a better theatrical
experience with the same room dimensions, maybe that is cheaper than making
a new HT.

You can do the above by getting a 1080p pj and anamorphic lens, it would
probably be the one thing that would show an improvement to what you have.
But frankly if you will still viewing the screen beyond 3 times the height
having those 2.35:1 black bars using or not projector resolution would not
change that much your HD viewing, maybe not even DVD upscaled.

There are many variables here, need time to digest, but it seems you are
against the wall on screen size so if you need to spend some good money to
make a difference you might want to experiment with the lens/transport, you
can still keep the good 1080p projector (and sell the lens equipment to
others that can put it to better use with larger screens). Interesting your
quoted JVC projector would be cheaper than the Panamorph lens equipment, the
price of having a Cinemascope theater at home.

Just a comment, I viewed last night a DVD version of Saving Private Ryan
shot at 16:9 but I projected it with the anamorphic lens on to experiment,
it was so good I left the entire movie that way, the geometry does not
change that much and the impact of such wide rectangular image is
spectacular, not to mention with 16 speakers and the room rattling on Omaha
beach. In other words, viewing 16:9 in 2.35:1 with anamorphic lens is very
nice, do not be confused with stretching 4:3 content in full mode 16:9 where
the geometry changes drastically. This is not like that. I would not do
that with a movie full of close ups, but most movies would present
themselves very well. The trade off is that the image would loose some
crispness but it is overwhelming, you choose your poison if you buy the lens
transport.

Remember some pieces are still prototypes, like the installation plates, and
suited transport motors, I got the first plate they made, before even Optoma
received theirs, so you need to make sure that Panamorph creates a plate
that fits the new projector, the plate is to mount the transport and lens,
they are heavy, about 20+ pounds, and the projector mount is not created to
support so much weight on its front, so you would need chains coming from
the ceiling to hold the heavy weight of the lens equipment so the pj would
still keep its level. Is fun. Is like seeing the projector cubicle up in
the movie theater. I know you would love that.

One thing more, judging by the 100000 laser discs you have on one wall of
your HT, you should know that if you still want to play some old collector
movies in that format those discs were letterboxed (not anamorphic, except
for 3 discs I got from Toshiba), the black bars on the 4:3 AR of the LD
format gives a worst resolved sandwiched image than the blacks bars on the
16:9 AR format of anamorphically (if I can say that) stored DVD.

The anamorphic lens system would produce a decent image out of those LDs,
the scaler interpolates lines on the image vertically while the lens expands
the image horizontally, resulting in a better presentation than playing them
as 4:3 severely letterboxed into an 16:9 screen of equivalent width.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:26 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:10 AM 1/16/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>I am giving you some heads up but no depth, I am still working with all
this
>data.

Rodolfo,

Thanks for the updated preliminary information regarding both the new
Optoma projector and the new JVC model as well. I have a source that
can get me JVC at dealer cost (and perhaps the Optoma as well) so
I'll weigh my options. On the Optima, are you saying that in Sept 07
the HD81 is being replaced with a new model (the one with more
lumens) or will both be offered. I also am a bit concerned with the
installation parameters. I have a 7'6" ceiling in my HT (which works
fine with both my Runco DLP and my previous Sony) but you seem to
suggest that ceiling mounted on anything lower than 8' may be
problematical (unless I read you wrong.) I have latitude as to where
to place any new Optima mount so offset shouldn't be a
problem. However, my current Runco (as the Sony was) is installed
about 13' from my 110" 16:9 screen and the Optoma site seems to
indicate a minimum distance of 14.8ft with the current HD81 for that
size screen - which is cutting it close to the furthest back that I
wish to place a projector. If the new model Optoma increases that
distance any more (as well as any under 8' ceiling issues, I might
have to look closer at the JVC. When I saw the prototype of the JVC
at CEDIA it wasn't finished and they couldn't answer my questions
regarding a few things. Perhaps you can. HDMI: I assume it has
it. Is is 1.1, 1.3 or what? (And would it matter, given the
capabilities of the JVC?) Does the JVC accept 1080p/24 as well as (I
assume 1080p/60?) Also, if I use my VP50 scaler to achieve the 1080p
does the internal scaler on the JVC unit allow "pass-thru" (i.e. not
processing an already processed incoming signal)? I would think it
would. I'll wait a bit to see what the reviews are on the JVC unit
since it appears to be the best compromise for me at this point
(assuming that your answers to my questions indicate that my input
assumptions are right.) Your opinion, actually counts more to me
than formal "reviews" since I know you have no other agenda, so I'm
now leaning strongly toward the JVC. Based on standard dealer
pricing I believe I can get the new $6300 JVC for well under $4000 so
that seems to be a steal. All I need now are your answers to my
questions and a bit more information (I assume I can get it from the
JVC site) regarding installation geometry (distances, etc.) for a
110" 16:9 screen.

Decisions, decisions.

I really appreciate your taking the time from your busy schedule to
issue me this "preview" report. And I'm glad to hear that the JVC
promises of CEDIA 2006 became a reality in 2007.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

Thank you for your most informative perspective on some of the
additional aspects of the Optima projectors, installation, future
plans, anamorphic lens and such. It not only makes for some good
reading but gives me a lot to think about concerning my choices as I
upgrade my FP to 1080p from my current 720p Runco. After some
consideration and taking all the variables into account it appears
that the new JVC is the best fit for my situation at the moment. As
you stated, the price of this projector (my cost) is actually less
than the price of the Optima anamorphic lens assembly. It seems to
come done to a matter of return on investment.

I did a little web surfing and found out some interesting things
about the JVC DLA-HD1 (I'm assuming that's the model number). [The
models get a little confusing because it appears that I've seen both
a "silver" model and one with a black finish. Do you happen to know
if this is a choice for the buyer or two different units?] In any
event, one of my concerns - installation parameters - was taken care
of when I discovered that the HD-1 has a very flexible geometry. I
can fill a 16:9 110" screen by mounting the projector anywhere
between 10.8' and 22.5' on the ceiling (no problem with a 7.5'
ceiling either.) This is perfect for my HT.

The only remaining question I have (which I can't seem to determine
from the HD-1 specs that are "published") is in regard to the
"flavor" of the JVC's HDMI input. Is it 1.1, 1.3 or what? And,
considering the unit, does it really matter? I would think that
added color bandwidth and depth might be beyond the capabilities of
the light engine involved. We all know that as things progress these
FPs are no longer a permanent purchase (unlike my Stewart Studiotek
130 screen which might actually outlive me.) Therefore, lack of 1.3
input would not appear to be a deal breaker for me on the JVC if it
performs as well as you seem to indicate - especially at the
price. I see rumblings of 1440 video coming in the 2010 time frame
and 4-5 years seems like just about the right approximation for the
next "latest and greatest." <g> If going from 720p to 1080p in my
projector is the primary goal then the JVC looks like a very nice way
to go. The anamorphic option doesn't seem to be a reasonable fit in
my case (unless I win the lottery and build a new home - highly
unlikely on both counts.)

I also appreciated your comments about how the (mostly)
non-anamorphic LDs in my collection (actually 2000 titles rather than
the 100,000 you cited in your reply <g>) produce black letter boxing
bars that are inferior to those produced on DVDs. I'd never thought
of it that way but it makes a lot of sense and does give one another
reason to explore options to improve this situation. The reality is
that my LD viewing is now limited to the films that I very
occasionally watch that haven't made it over to the DVD format (or
content that is so specialized that it probably never will - or
wouldn't be worth the cost to me.) Therefore, I'm not going to
obsess about making my LDs look better. To me, the improvement in 3D
comb filters already did that (taking away the red smear) and LDs are
watchable but pale in comparison to HD content. But I thank you for
getting me thinking about it. And speaking of "media numbers" as a
point of information: Video disc "counts" are a little tricky. My
LD titles topped out at a little under 2000 titles (which probably
amounts to ~2500 actual discs because of 2 disc movies and some
Criterion Boxed Sets.). And since I didn't buy the LDs as an
investment I never concerned myself with getting rid of them. They
have been moved to a back room as the DVDs have taken over
completely. With the DVDs it's a little harder to gauge. My title
count in DVDs recently topped 3500 separate entries (movies, TV
shows, etc.) but the actual number of discs (thanks to many, many
multiple disc titles) is well over 5000. I keep a master database
that lists all this and the current "count" is over 7500 "videodiscs"
(DVD and LD.) So 100,000 discs is a bit of a stretch but once you
get over 1000 or so, what difference does it make? <g> I'm more
concerned about how the content looks rather than how they look on
the shelves (although my grandkids always have that "candy store"
look when they come to visit.)

As I said, I value your insights and opinions in all these matters.
Thanks for the early information from CES that prompted all this.




At 01:09 AM 1/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Robert,
>
>The new 81 would be issued in addition to the current model, not as a
>replacement, the intention is for it to be used in very large theaters,
>although my 130" is super bright already, and the 170" they use for the demo
>of the current 81 is bright as well.
>
>The pronounced offset of the projector lens would force the installation to
>be high in the ceiling; otherwise the screen would end up close to the
>floor. You need a minimum of 10 centimeters between projector and ceiling,
>and because the connectors are in the back you need at least 6 inches behind
>the projector to avoid damaging the HDMI cable (my 35 feet cable is so thick
>it would barely bend but you do not want to force it, or make a hole in the
>back wall for the cable to make its 90 degree turn).
>
>There are many areas to cover on this installation, I would try to cover
>them all on my articles but for now I suggest for you to check the official
>AVSforum thread of this projector, they have some diagrams some people have
>done to install in low ceilings (like tilting the pj and the screen, yes you
>hear right). Take the thread reading (or any thread) with salt, many of
>those are not owners and very opinionated, and some owners are even negative
>with their own mother.
>
>The JVC accepts 24 and shoots 48. I have a bunch of specs but I need to
>digest tons of data on much equipment now, so I am not ready to analyze this
>projector or the new 81 yet, just how it looks, and it looks well for the
>price, again, more viewing is needed to make a fair assessment. The new
>Optoma would still not have lens shift, but I put pressure on Wing (the
>Chief engineer at Optoma).
>
>Regarding your investment for anamorphic lens/transport of over $5K for just
>a better resolved 2.35:1 image (in theory) of the same size you have now, I
>rather do not recommend how to spend your money. But.
>
>If that would be my case, the size of the screen cannot go bigger, but the
>resolution can, and the seating get closer, giving a better theatrical
>experience with the same room dimensions, maybe that is cheaper than making
>a new HT.
>
>You can do the above by getting a 1080p pj and anamorphic lens, it would
>probably be the one thing that would show an improvement to what you have.
>But frankly if you will still viewing the screen beyond 3 times the height
>having those 2.35:1 black bars using or not projector resolution would not
>change that much your HD viewing, maybe not even DVD upscaled.
>
>There are many variables here, need time to digest, but it seems you are
>against the wall on screen size so if you need to spend some good money to
>make a difference you might want to experiment with the lens/transport, you
>can still keep the good 1080p projector (and sell the lens equipment to
>others that can put it to better use with larger screens). Interesting your
>quoted JVC projector would be cheaper than the Panamorph lens equipment, the
>price of having a Cinemascope theater at home.
>
>Just a comment, I viewed last night a DVD version of Saving Private Ryan
>shot at 16:9 but I projected it with the anamorphic lens on to experiment,
>it was so good I left the entire movie that way, the geometry does not
>change that much and the impact of such wide rectangular image is
>spectacular, not to mention with 16 speakers and the room rattling on Omaha
>beach. In other words, viewing 16:9 in 2.35:1 with anamorphic lens is very
>nice, do not be confused with stretching 4:3 content in full mode 16:9 where
>the geometry changes drastically. This is not like that. I would not do
>that with a movie full of close ups, but most movies would present
>themselves very well. The trade off is that the image would loose some
>crispness but it is overwhelming, you choose your poison if you buy the lens
>transport.
>
>Remember some pieces are still prototypes, like the installation plates, and
>suited transport motors, I got the first plate they made, before even Optoma
>received theirs, so you need to make sure that Panamorph creates a plate
>that fits the new projector, the plate is to mount the transport and lens,
>they are heavy, about 20+ pounds, and the projector mount is not created to
>support so much weight on its front, so you would need chains coming from
>the ceiling to hold the heavy weight of the lens equipment so the pj would
>still keep its level. Is fun. Is like seeing the projector cubicle up in
>the movie theater. I know you would love that.
>
>One thing more, judging by the 100000 laser discs you have on one wall of
>your HT, you should know that if you still want to play some old collector
>movies in that format those discs were letterboxed (not anamorphic, except
>for 3 discs I got from Toshiba), the black bars on the 4:3 AR of the LD
>format gives a worst resolved sandwiched image than the blacks bars on the
>16:9 AR format of anamorphically (if I can say that) stored DVD.
>
>The anamorphic lens system would produce a decent image out of those LDs,
>the scaler interpolates lines on the image vertically while the lens expands
>the image horizontally, resulting in a better presentation than playing them
>as 4:3 severely letterboxed into an 16:9 screen of equivalent width.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

I think you are doing the right decision about not getting the Panamorph
anamorphic lens system now, you should move on to 1080p first and see what
happens.

One thing is important, I could comment about the scaler on the Optoma, I
could not yet on the JVC, which is inside the projector, which means you
need a pass thru feature, I do not know yet if it has one.

I recorded all my demo/meeting on audio for the record, I know the answer of
1.3 is there because I asked that question (almost to everyone at CES), but
until I get to process all the recording (about 30hrs) you might get the
answer by someone else, otherwise I will get back to you.

I would loose my sleep with not having 1.3, 1.3 does not mean they have
implemented everything on the spec, it could miss deep color and still 1.3,
it could be 1.2 and have deep color (implemented as proprietary on the set),
so anything could happen. On a meeting in NY with Dolby, SI and HDMI LCC
they asked me what would I think the best specification could be on
equipment, and I told them that 1.3 by itself was not enough, the
manufacturer has to specify if x,v,color (Bravia), 7.1 True-HD, etc features
were actually implemented or it was just the connection.

So do not wait for 1.3 all around, it would take more time than what you
need to make a decision now.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

P.S.

7000 titles is a candy store for me as well Robert, it confirms once again
my old saying regarding any format "the investment is on the sw not on the
hw, who cares if the player is $500 or $1000", down the line the format
decision would affect an entire library, that is where the money is for a
serious collector, I do not have your collection but still subjected to the
same investment overwhelming relationship of sw vs. hw.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:38 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

Thank you for your most informative perspective on some of the
additional aspects of the Optima projectors, installation, future
plans, anamorphic lens and such. It not only makes for some good
reading but gives me a lot to think about concerning my choices as I
upgrade my FP to 1080p from my current 720p Runco. After some
consideration and taking all the variables into account it appears
that the new JVC is the best fit for my situation at the moment. As
you stated, the price of this projector (my cost) is actually less
than the price of the Optima anamorphic lens assembly. It seems to
come done to a matter of return on investment.

I did a little web surfing and found out some interesting things
about the JVC DLA-HD1 (I'm assuming that's the model number). [The
models get a little confusing because it appears that I've seen both
a "silver" model and one with a black finish. Do you happen to know
if this is a choice for the buyer or two different units?] In any
event, one of my concerns - installation parameters - was taken care
of when I discovered that the HD-1 has a very flexible geometry. I
can fill a 16:9 110" screen by mounting the projector anywhere
between 10.8' and 22.5' on the ceiling (no problem with a 7.5'
ceiling either.) This is perfect for my HT.

The only remaining question I have (which I can't seem to determine
from the HD-1 specs that are "published") is in regard to the
"flavor" of the JVC's HDMI input. Is it 1.1, 1.3 or what? And,
considering the unit, does it really matter? I would think that
added color bandwidth and depth might be beyond the capabilities of
the light engine involved. We all know that as things progress these
FPs are no longer a permanent purchase (unlike my Stewart Studiotek
130 screen which might actually outlive me.) Therefore, lack of 1.3
input would not appear to be a deal breaker for me on the JVC if it
performs as well as you seem to indicate - especially at the
price. I see rumblings of 1440 video coming in the 2010 time frame
and 4-5 years seems like just about the right approximation for the
next "latest and greatest." <g> If going from 720p to 1080p in my
projector is the primary goal then the JVC looks like a very nice way
to go. The anamorphic option doesn't seem to be a reasonable fit in
my case (unless I win the lottery and build a new home - highly
unlikely on both counts.)

I also appreciated your comments about how the (mostly)
non-anamorphic LDs in my collection (actually 2000 titles rather than
the 100,000 you cited in your reply <g>) produce black letter boxing
bars that are inferior to those produced on DVDs. I'd never thought
of it that way but it makes a lot of sense and does give one another
reason to explore options to improve this situation. The reality is
that my LD viewing is now limited to the films that I very
occasionally watch that haven't made it over to the DVD format (or
content that is so specialized that it probably never will - or
wouldn't be worth the cost to me.) Therefore, I'm not going to
obsess about making my LDs look better. To me, the improvement in 3D
comb filters already did that (taking away the red smear) and LDs are
watchable but pale in comparison to HD content. But I thank you for
getting me thinking about it. And speaking of "media numbers" as a
point of information: Video disc "counts" are a little tricky. My
LD titles topped out at a little under 2000 titles (which probably
amounts to ~2500 actual discs because of 2 disc movies and some
Criterion Boxed Sets.). And since I didn't buy the LDs as an
investment I never concerned myself with getting rid of them. They
have been moved to a back room as the DVDs have taken over
completely. With the DVDs it's a little harder to gauge. My title
count in DVDs recently topped 3500 separate entries (movies, TV
shows, etc.) but the actual number of discs (thanks to many, many
multiple disc titles) is well over 5000. I keep a master database
that lists all this and the current "count" is over 7500 "videodiscs"
(DVD and LD.) So 100,000 discs is a bit of a stretch but once you
get over 1000 or so, what difference does it make? <g> I'm more
concerned about how the content looks rather than how they look on
the shelves (although my grandkids always have that "candy store"
look when they come to visit.)

As I said, I value your insights and opinions in all these matters.
Thanks for the early information from CES that prompted all this.




At 01:09 AM 1/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Robert,
>
>The new 81 would be issued in addition to the current model, not as a
>replacement, the intention is for it to be used in very large theaters,
>although my 130" is super bright already, and the 170" they use for the
demo
>of the current 81 is bright as well.
>
>The pronounced offset of the projector lens would force the installation to
>be high in the ceiling; otherwise the screen would end up close to the
>floor. You need a minimum of 10 centimeters between projector and ceiling,
>and because the connectors are in the back you need at least 6 inches
behind
>the projector to avoid damaging the HDMI cable (my 35 feet cable is so
thick
>it would barely bend but you do not want to force it, or make a hole in the
>back wall for the cable to make its 90 degree turn).
>
>There are many areas to cover on this installation, I would try to cover
>them all on my articles but for now I suggest for you to check the official
>AVSforum thread of this projector, they have some diagrams some people have
>done to install in low ceilings (like tilting the pj and the screen, yes
you
>hear right). Take the thread reading (or any thread) with salt, many of
>those are not owners and very opinionated, and some owners are even
negative
>with their own mother.
>
>The JVC accepts 24 and shoots 48. I have a bunch of specs but I need to
>digest tons of data on much equipment now, so I am not ready to analyze
this
>projector or the new 81 yet, just how it looks, and it looks well for the
>price, again, more viewing is needed to make a fair assessment. The new
>Optoma would still not have lens shift, but I put pressure on Wing (the
>Chief engineer at Optoma).
>
>Regarding your investment for anamorphic lens/transport of over $5K for
just
>a better resolved 2.35:1 image (in theory) of the same size you have now, I
>rather do not recommend how to spend your money. But.
>
>If that would be my case, the size of the screen cannot go bigger, but the
>resolution can, and the seating get closer, giving a better theatrical
>experience with the same room dimensions, maybe that is cheaper than making
>a new HT.
>
>You can do the above by getting a 1080p pj and anamorphic lens, it would
>probably be the one thing that would show an improvement to what you have.
>But frankly if you will still viewing the screen beyond 3 times the height
>having those 2.35:1 black bars using or not projector resolution would not
>change that much your HD viewing, maybe not even DVD upscaled.
>
>There are many variables here, need time to digest, but it seems you are
>against the wall on screen size so if you need to spend some good money to
>make a difference you might want to experiment with the lens/transport, you
>can still keep the good 1080p projector (and sell the lens equipment to
>others that can put it to better use with larger screens). Interesting
your
>quoted JVC projector would be cheaper than the Panamorph lens equipment,
the
>price of having a Cinemascope theater at home.
>
>Just a comment, I viewed last night a DVD version of Saving Private Ryan
>shot at 16:9 but I projected it with the anamorphic lens on to experiment,
>it was so good I left the entire movie that way, the geometry does not
>change that much and the impact of such wide rectangular image is
>spectacular, not to mention with 16 speakers and the room rattling on Omaha
>beach. In other words, viewing 16:9 in 2.35:1 with anamorphic lens is very
>nice, do not be confused with stretching 4:3 content in full mode 16:9
where
>the geometry changes drastically. This is not like that. I would not do
>that with a movie full of close ups, but most movies would present
>themselves very well. The trade off is that the image would loose some
>crispness but it is overwhelming, you choose your poison if you buy the
lens
>transport.
>
>Remember some pieces are still prototypes, like the installation plates,
and
>suited transport motors, I got the first plate they made, before even
Optoma
>received theirs, so you need to make sure that Panamorph creates a plate
>that fits the new projector, the plate is to mount the transport and lens,
>they are heavy, about 20+ pounds, and the projector mount is not created to
>support so much weight on its front, so you would need chains coming from
>the ceiling to hold the heavy weight of the lens equipment so the pj would
>still keep its level. Is fun. Is like seeing the projector cubicle up in
>the movie theater. I know you would love that.
>
>One thing more, judging by the 100000 laser discs you have on one wall of
>your HT, you should know that if you still want to play some old collector
>movies in that format those discs were letterboxed (not anamorphic, except
>for 3 discs I got from Toshiba), the black bars on the 4:3 AR of the LD
>format gives a worst resolved sandwiched image than the blacks bars on the
>16:9 AR format of anamorphically (if I can say that) stored DVD.
>
>The anamorphic lens system would produce a decent image out of those LDs,
>the scaler interpolates lines on the image vertically while the lens
expands
>the image horizontally, resulting in a better presentation than playing
them
>as 4:3 severely letterboxed into an 16:9 screen of equivalent width.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 03:39 PM 1/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>One thing is important, I could comment about the scaler on the Optoma, I
>could not yet on the JVC, which is inside the projector, which means you
>need a pass thru feature, I do not know yet if it has one.


Rodolfo,

Thank you for the additional commentary on the JVC and other
matters. Regarding the "pass through" feature - I am assuming that
it probably has one since the specifications include HDMI accepting
1080p/60 and 1080p/24. Besides, if the JVC does anything to the
incoming 1080p signal I would imagine that it would be to optimize it
for their light engine and not something detrimental like the 1080p
-> 1080i ->1080p that we became aware of in some of the RPM sets, right?

I also think that HDMI 1.3 on the video end of things is not a
requirement for now, especially since you taught me that just because
a display offers HDMI 1.3 input doesn't mean that it is compatible
with deep color, etc. if the manufacturer doesn't choose to include
it. I appreciate the additional insight. I'll keep you informed as
to my progress in procuring a JVC DLA-HD1. I would hope to be one of
the "early adopters" if my position in the queue is favorable. In
the meantime I will watch both here and on the Internet for
additional information and commentary regarding this new product.

Take care.


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 03:39 PM 1/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>P.S.
>
>7000 titles is a candy store for me as well Robert, it confirms once again
>my old saying regarding any format "the investment is on the sw not on the
>hw, who cares if the player is $500 or $1000", down the line the format
>decision would affect an entire library, that is where the money is for a
>serious collector, I do not have your collection but still subjected to the
>same investment overwhelming relationship of sw vs. hw.

Rodolfo,

Exactly! It goes without saying that the investment in SW greatly
outweighs the investment in hardware with most things in our
electronic lifestyle and beyond. People sometimes forget that in the
broad scheme of things. It's less painful at ~$20 a pop (average
price) especially when one justifies that this is less than the cost
of admission to a movie for two at a "good" theater (without even
allowing for extras). Of course, that still doesn't include the fact
that my pile of unwatched media probably exceeds the square footage
of Luxembourg! <g>. As you are probably aware, this is all related
to my movie procurement philosophy which is stated here:

http://www.rfowkes.com/html/whymovies.html

If you haven't seen this article, Enjoy! It's over 15 years old but
still applies - probably even more so today!




-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

We have the same illness Robert, I have not seen yet half of the movies I
bought.

Remember when each of those LDs were $50 a piece, talking about sw
investment for just non-anamorphic NTSC letterbox.

You do not have a center back surround? Man, your theater is incomplete!!
Just kidding.

I used to have even a ceiling surround 20+ years ago, quite an experience on
airplanes/helicopter movies, is coming back to haunt us.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of Dr
Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Cinemascope in HD, brief response to Robert

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 03:39 PM 1/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>P.S.
>
>7000 titles is a candy store for me as well Robert, it confirms once again
>my old saying regarding any format "the investment is on the sw not on the
>hw, who cares if the player is $500 or $1000", down the line the format
>decision would affect an entire library, that is where the money is for a
>serious collector, I do not have your collection but still subjected to the
>same investment overwhelming relationship of sw vs. hw.

Rodolfo,

Exactly! It goes without saying that the investment in SW greatly
outweighs the investment in hardware with most things in our
electronic lifestyle and beyond. People sometimes forget that in the
broad scheme of things. It's less painful at ~$20 a pop (average
price) especially when one justifies that this is less than the cost
of admission to a movie for two at a "good" theater (without even
allowing for extras). Of course, that still doesn't include the fact
that my pile of unwatched media probably exceeds the square footage
of Luxembourg! <g>. As you are probably aware, this is all related
to my movie procurement philosophy which is stated here:

http://www.rfowkes.com/html/whymovies.html

If you haven't seen this article, Enjoy! It's over 15 years old but
still applies - probably even more so today!




-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

At 01:56 AM 1/18/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>We have the same illness Robert, I have not seen yet half of the movies I
>bought.

Understood (from a personal perspective). I'll temper our affliction
a bit by mentioning that the reason that I haven't "watched" a lot of
what I've purposed is because the content involves classic movies
that I've already seen and want to own (and sometimes I watch the
extras first), or the same with classic television (if that's not an
oxymoron <g>).

>Remember when each of those LDs were $50 a piece, talking about sw
>investment for just non-anamorphic NTSC letterbox.

You're talking to the king of the $125 Criterion Boxed Set. Of
course at $99 from a vendor like Ken Crane's we thought, at the time,
we were getting a tremendous bargain.


>You do not have a center back surround? Man, your theater is incomplete!!
>Just kidding.

I know that 10.1 sound (and beyond) is probably on the way but by
that time my brain will probably have lost the ability to process
directionality.

Take care.

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]