Curiosity

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

Thomas,

The company DPI was included in the past (at least) on the 2006 report
please find it on the DLP section, and maybe on previous reports as well but
I do not have the time to look now, the reports are free, all of them.

The projector and the screen were announced at CEDIA (Sep 06) and are going
to be mentioned in the 2007 report as new products.

I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were very
nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.

If you are considering spending that much look into Sony's 4K, with much
higher resolution, less money, and local theater quality, included on the
2006 report HDTV Highlights and LCoS sections, plan for reinforced ceilings
to hold this mammoth.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Thomas B Kemp
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Curiosity

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

I would appreciate some feedback on the quality and opinions as to
how this equipment compares to other obviously high-end gear:

Projector - a Digital Projection Inc. model. The HIGHlite 10000
HD-R. It's simply known as the
<http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/283/2/>HIGHlite
reference 1080P.
Scaler - The scaler is also DPI. It's
<http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/284/2/>VIP 2000. VIP
2000 is the scaler.
Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
<http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series
Frame with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two
pieces of glass thick with the white screen material between the two.
So it has the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.

In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
I have never seen a reference to the company DPI or this type of
screen by Stewart. The fact that I have never heard of it in itself
isn't particularly startling but I am surprised. This is, to me at
least, very high-end gear. The projector alone is $105K. I didn't
see a price on the scaler but I would guess $20-$30K maybe. I
couldn't even guess what a 15 foot screen of that configuration costs.

No doubt some of you folks have heard about and maybe even seen this
equipment and configuration in action and I'm curious if you think
that its quality is uncompromising and off the scale
so-to-speak. It's certainly way out of my price range but as they
say inquiring minds want to know. <G>

Thanks,
Tom



Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away.





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 Infocomm, the best of the large venue projectors was the Sony. Others
were brighter, but the Sony had the best color and resolution.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:40 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

Thomas,

The company DPI was included in the past (at least) on the 2006 report
please find it on the DLP section, and maybe on previous reports as well but
I do not have the time to look now, the reports are free, all of them.

The projector and the screen were announced at CEDIA (Sep 06) and are going
to be mentioned in the 2007 report as new products.

I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were very
nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.

If you are considering spending that much look into Sony's 4K, with much
higher resolution, less money, and local theater quality, included on the
2006 report HDTV Highlights and LCoS sections, plan for reinforced ceilings
to hold this mammoth.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Thomas B Kemp
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Curiosity

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

I would appreciate some feedback on the quality and opinions as to
how this equipment compares to other obviously high-end gear:

Projector - a Digital Projection Inc. model. The HIGHlite 10000
HD-R. It's simply known as the
<http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/283/2/>HIGHlite
reference 1080P.
Scaler - The scaler is also DPI. It's
<http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/284/2/>VIP 2000. VIP
2000 is the scaler.
Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
<http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series
Frame with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two
pieces of glass thick with the white screen material between the two.
So it has the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.

In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
I have never seen a reference to the company DPI or this type of
screen by Stewart. The fact that I have never heard of it in itself
isn't particularly startling but I am surprised. This is, to me at
least, very high-end gear. The projector alone is $105K. I didn't
see a price on the scaler but I would guess $20-$30K maybe. I
couldn't even guess what a 15 foot screen of that configuration costs.

No doubt some of you folks have heard about and maybe even seen this
equipment and configuration in action and I'm curious if you think
that its quality is uncompromising and off the scale
so-to-speak. It's certainly way out of my price range but as they
say inquiring minds want to know. <G>

Thanks,
Tom



Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away.





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]

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007



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 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>-
> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...

While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
those circles where either money is no object or professional video
installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At
CEDIA 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate
display booth where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP
projection products - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen
sizes from about 8ft to (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a
doubt the images (simultaneous and identical for comparison purposes)
were uniformly excellent and I was a little surprised how good their
"entry level stuff" (~$20,000 range) looked when compared with their
big guns (well into $ix figures). This experience also showed me
that you reach a point where your return on investment gets way out
of most of ours ranges in terms of what you get for your
money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well suited to use in a
movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or more) but that is
way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to justify, at
least to me, why one in an HT application would ever consider going
above the four figure mark for our personal projectors. In my
opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher
pointed out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that
provides the picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy
even the most critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm
now considering the HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the
included video scaler and how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50
and I mull over some minor possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)

The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and
which can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five
figures, or even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see
$100,000 and up projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME
theater aficionados I just smile politely and move on.


-- 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 that the 2004 Atlanta Infocomm?

In my opinion the most impressive was 5 DPI's stitched together for a
huge picture... something like a 300-400" 16:9 screen rear projection
application and there was not a pixel to be seen... no darkened room
either - right out in the open. Looked like one huge photograph.

I was impressed yet from experience it is easy to impress based solely
on subjective looks until I get out a pattern generator and meter which
either reveals the warts or confirms that impression!

That said I have yet to meet a DLP that could not do the science well,
some damn near perfect. At this price I would accept nothing less than
perfection. You might want to consider hiring your own reviewer to
confirm response prior to purchase. Plane ticket and labor is easily
less than 5% of the purchase price and far less than your total system
and installation price!

It does not sound like you are working with a professional yet...

> I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were
very
> nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
> weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.

I agree with that but where are you going to find an in depth review?

Thomas, at this price range you are in a category that most are going to
know very little of. The hype is the same regardless of price range so
buyer beware.


Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At Infocomm, the best of the large venue projectors was the Sony. Others
> were brighter, but the Sony had the best color and resolution.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:40 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thomas,
>
> The company DPI was included in the past (at least) on the 2006 report
> please find it on the DLP section, and maybe on previous reports as well but
> I do not have the time to look now, the reports are free, all of them.
>
> The projector and the screen were announced at CEDIA (Sep 06) and are going
> to be mentioned in the 2007 report as new products.
>
> I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were very
> nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
> weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.
>
> If you are considering spending that much look into Sony's 4K, with much
> higher resolution, less money, and local theater quality, included on the
> 2006 report HDTV Highlights and LCoS sections, plan for reinforced ceilings
> to hold this mammoth.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Thomas B Kemp
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I would appreciate some feedback on the quality and opinions as to
> how this equipment compares to other obviously high-end gear:
>
> Projector - a Digital Projection Inc. model. The HIGHlite 10000
> HD-R. It's simply known as the
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/283/2/>HIGHlite
> reference 1080P.
> Scaler - The scaler is also DPI. It's
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/284/2/>VIP 2000. VIP
> 2000 is the scaler.
> Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
> <http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series
> Frame with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two
> pieces of glass thick with the white screen material between the two.
> So it has the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.
>
> In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
> I have never seen a reference to the company DPI or this type of
> screen by Stewart. The fact that I have never heard of it in itself
> isn't particularly startling but I am surprised. This is, to me at
> least, very high-end gear. The projector alone is $105K. I didn't
> see a price on the scaler but I would guess $20-$30K maybe. I
> couldn't even guess what a 15 foot screen of that configuration costs.
>
> No doubt some of you folks have heard about and maybe even seen this
> equipment and configuration in action and I'm curious if you think
> that its quality is uncompromising and off the scale
> so-to-speak. It's certainly way out of my price range but as they
> say inquiring minds want to know. <G>
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
> moments that take our breath away.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 -----

One thing that concerns me is how the extra 128 pixels are being used.
You want 1X1 pixel mapping and the inclusion of those pixels on a 1920
pattern is going to upset that apple cart. That also infers an aspect
ratio of 1.89 if using square pixels. That actually makes sense since
film is 1.85, not 1.78 yet this would be a digital cinema pixel depth
for digital cinema sources. This raises many questions for an
application using consumer derived HD sources.

You don't need scaling for correct 1080 sources, you need pixel mapping.
The only exception is 2.35 anamorphic which BTW, this projector
supports.

When equipped with the TheaterScope Premier, the Reference 1080p
projector displays 1.77:1, 1.85:1 and cinematic 2.35:1 content at a
constant screen height, maximizing on-screen resolution and brightness,
and eliminating the horizontal black bars normally associated with

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

Those 5 were quite impressive; it is the same as what Cirque du Soleil is
doing at shows with the huge screens. The light in the room helped to wash
out the land between pixels.

The most recent Infocomm.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fisher
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:04 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

Is that the 2004 Atlanta Infocomm?

In my opinion the most impressive was 5 DPI's stitched together for a
huge picture... something like a 300-400" 16:9 screen rear projection
application and there was not a pixel to be seen... no darkened room
either - right out in the open. Looked like one huge photograph.

I was impressed yet from experience it is easy to impress based solely
on subjective looks until I get out a pattern generator and meter which
either reveals the warts or confirms that impression!

That said I have yet to meet a DLP that could not do the science well,
some damn near perfect. At this price I would accept nothing less than
perfection. You might want to consider hiring your own reviewer to
confirm response prior to purchase. Plane ticket and labor is easily
less than 5% of the purchase price and far less than your total system
and installation price!

It does not sound like you are working with a professional yet...

> I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were
very
> nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
> weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.

I agree with that but where are you going to find an in depth review?

Thomas, at this price range you are in a category that most are going to
know very little of. The hype is the same regardless of price range so
buyer beware.


Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At Infocomm, the best of the large venue projectors was the Sony. Others
> were brighter, but the Sony had the best color and resolution.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:40 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thomas,
>
> The company DPI was included in the past (at least) on the 2006 report
> please find it on the DLP section, and maybe on previous reports as well
but
> I do not have the time to look now, the reports are free, all of them.
>
> The projector and the screen were announced at CEDIA (Sep 06) and are
going
> to be mentioned in the 2007 report as new products.
>
> I have viewed other DPI projectors but not the $105K model, they were very
> nice, but a full review is necessary to conclude actual strengths and
> weaknesses, not just casual viewing, especially at that price.
>
> If you are considering spending that much look into Sony's 4K, with much
> higher resolution, less money, and local theater quality, included on the
> 2006 report HDTV Highlights and LCoS sections, plan for reinforced
ceilings
> to hold this mammoth.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Thomas B Kemp
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I would appreciate some feedback on the quality and opinions as to
> how this equipment compares to other obviously high-end gear:
>
> Projector - a Digital Projection Inc. model. The HIGHlite 10000
> HD-R. It's simply known as the
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/283/2/>HIGHlite
> reference 1080P.
> Scaler - The scaler is also DPI. It's
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/284/2/>VIP 2000. VIP
> 2000 is the scaler.
> Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
> <http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series
> Frame with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two
> pieces of glass thick with the white screen material between the two.
> So it has the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.
>
> In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
> I have never seen a reference to the company DPI or this type of
> screen by Stewart. The fact that I have never heard of it in itself
> isn't particularly startling but I am surprised. This is, to me at
> least, very high-end gear. The projector alone is $105K. I didn't
> see a price on the scaler but I would guess $20-$30K maybe. I
> couldn't even guess what a 15 foot screen of that configuration costs.
>
> No doubt some of you folks have heard about and maybe even seen this
> equipment and configuration in action and I'm curious if you think
> that its quality is uncompromising and off the scale
> so-to-speak. It's certainly way out of my price range but as they
> say inquiring minds want to know. <G>
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
> moments that take our breath away.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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]

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007



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 -----

> Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
> <http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series Frame
> with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two pieces of
> glass thick with the white screen material between the two. So it has
> the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.

That screen has nothing to do with imaging science. Why would you want
all the problems that come with a glass surface? It's only purpose is to
provide that glass look.

That puppy must be EXPENSIVE! Sounds like via freight only.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I would appreciate some feedback on the quality and opinions as to how
> this equipment compares to other obviously high-end gear:
>
> Projector - a Digital Projection Inc. model. The HIGHlite 10000 HD-R.
> It's simply known as the
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/283/2/>HIGHlite reference
> 1080P.
> Scaler - The scaler is also DPI. It's
> <http://www.digitalprojection.com/content/view/284/2/>VIP 2000. VIP 2000
> is the scaler.
> Screen - made by Stewart Screen, Incorporated, the model
> <http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/PSeriesFrames.htm>P-1500 Series Frame
> with custom star glass material. The screen is glass, two pieces of
> glass thick with the white screen material between the two. So it has
> the effect of being a 15-foot like plasma.
>
> In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums I
> have never seen a reference to the company DPI or this type of screen by
> Stewart. The fact that I have never heard of it in itself isn't
> particularly startling but I am surprised. This is, to me at least,
> very high-end gear. The projector alone is $105K. I didn't see a price
> on the scaler but I would guess $20-$30K maybe. I couldn't even guess
> what a 15 foot screen of that configuration costs.
>
> No doubt some of you folks have heard about and maybe even seen this
> equipment and configuration in action and I'm curious if you think that
> its quality is uncompromising and off the scale so-to-speak. It's
> certainly way out of my price range but as they say inquiring minds want
> to know. <G>
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
> moments that take our breath away.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 -----

DPI has it's place but I agree with Robert that for most of us it will
not make much sense.

I did not get any further with the one that was posted but suspect it
also has more light output for larger screens like 130-150", possibly
even larger. The price gets up there when the screen gets that big.

As for DLP and rainbows on the typical HT screen size that can be fixed
with a three chip between $10-20k.

Runco does provide one very important attribute, their name and
reputation. They have been the most vocal for market place sanity and
one of two? companies that provide real world specs. While Runco is
certainly not the end all of performance they do provide turn key
systems for all parties for good feelings all around and they do perform
well.

With the right company, staff and product you can do better. The problem
is finding those folks and figuring out if they are for real... hence
the Runco dealerships!

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> -
>> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>
>
> While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
> those circles where either money is no object or professional video
> installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
> applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
> 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
> where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
> - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
> (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
> and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
> was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
> range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
> figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
> your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
> of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
> suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
> more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
> justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
> consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
> In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
> expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
> price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
> out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
> picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
> critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
> HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
> how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
> possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>
> The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
> look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
> images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
> projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
> just smile politely and move on.
>
>
> -- 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 -----

> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.

I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...

There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.

Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
projector.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> -
>> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>
>
> While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
> those circles where either money is no object or professional video
> installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
> applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
> 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
> where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
> - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
> (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
> and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
> was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
> range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
> figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
> your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
> of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
> suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
> more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
> justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
> consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
> In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
> expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
> price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
> out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
> picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
> critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
> HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
> how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
> possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>
> The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
> look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
> images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
> projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
> just smile politely and move on.
>
>
> -- 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 -----

Though there is benefit in the higher priced projectors, the cost/benefit to
us regular folks is not worth it. DPI makes primarily for the large venue
market such as auditoriums, churches, etc. They have benefits of rigging,
control, physical durability, etc. that we do not need in our media rooms. I
have to agree that buying a projector in the 5 figure area is more than most
should, with an exception for a very few in the low 5 figures. All of us
know that what is 5 figures today will be mid 4's in two years, and better.
We know that new technology will make the current obsolete, or far less
desirable and unable to reproduce the technology of the day, as is being
witnessed now with new 1080 projs and sources. And there will be higher
resolutions within the next 5 years for home, higher than the 1080 standard.
It may not be talked about now, but why would companies make 4k projs for
large cinema? That movie resolution will eventually make its way to home via
some storage media and via the new higher speed internet. Ultimately, though
much farther out, broadcast will have to follow, reluctantly of course. But
this will be a reverse case of higher def improvement, as the current case
is media following broadcast.

So buy a good proj such as the new JVC, use it for a few years, and be
prepared to buy another one in 3-4. It will cost you the same as a 5 figure
unit now, but in 3-4 years you will have a better unit, and one to sell that
will at least bring you 10% of what you spent for it!



-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 9:51 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>-
> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...

While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
those circles where either money is no object or professional video
installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At
CEDIA 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate
display booth where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP
projection products - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen
sizes from about 8ft to (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a
doubt the images (simultaneous and identical for comparison purposes)
were uniformly excellent and I was a little surprised how good their
"entry level stuff" (~$20,000 range) looked when compared with their
big guns (well into $ix figures). This experience also showed me
that you reach a point where your return on investment gets way out
of most of ours ranges in terms of what you get for your
money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well suited to use in a
movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or more) but that is
way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to justify, at
least to me, why one in an HT application would ever consider going
above the four figure mark for our personal projectors. In my
opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher
pointed out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that
provides the picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy
even the most critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm
now considering the HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the
included video scaler and how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50
and I mull over some minor possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)

The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and
which can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five
figures, or even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see
$100,000 and up projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME
theater aficionados I just smile politely and move on.


-- 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]

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007



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 -----

I stand corrected...

Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
projector.

That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
victim of sales marketing.

I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.

I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...

There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.

Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
projector.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> -
>> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>
>
> While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
> those circles where either money is no object or professional video
> installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
> applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
> 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
> where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
> - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
> (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
> and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
> was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
> range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
> figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
> your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
> of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
> suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
> more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
> justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
> consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
> In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
> expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
> price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
> out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
> picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
> critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
> HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
> how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
> possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>
> The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
> look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
> images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
> projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
> just smile politely and move on.
>
>
> -- 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 -----

I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic lens
system I saw had a FLAT screen.



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Fisher
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

I stand corrected...

Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
projector.

That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
victim of sales marketing.

I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.

I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...

There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.

Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
projector.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> -
>> > In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>> > I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>
>
> While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
> those circles where either money is no object or professional video
> installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
> applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
> 2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
> where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
> - everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
> (I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
> and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
> was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
> range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
> figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
> your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
> of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
> suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
> more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
> justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
> consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
> In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
> expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
> price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
> out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
> picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
> critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
> HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
> how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
> possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>
> The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
> look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
> images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
> the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
> can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
> even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
> projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
> just smile politely and move on.
>
>
> -- 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]

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 1/13/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 1/13/2007



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 -----

For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
to his article.

NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)

Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic lens
> system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fisher
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I stand corrected...
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
> victim of sales marketing.
>
> I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>
>
> I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>
> There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
> and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
> hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>
>>
>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>
>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>just smile politely and move on.
>>
>>
>>-- 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 -----

Richard,

You were correct in part regarding the published features of curved screens
for Cinemascope HT using anamorphic lenses, Runco and Stewart are doing a
mate effort to promote the idea of requiring those for their solutions,
other screen manufacturers as well, but a close look at their prices ($14K+
for the Stewart Cinecurve 2.35:1 masked motorized screen, the same size of a
$2500 flat version), and Runco's anamorphic lens solutions that require
thinking on the 401k just for the down-payment, would certainly discourage
the regular consumer, while other alternatives are feasible for a
non-rich-and-famous setup.

I am working with several manufacturers in making a Cinemascope HT at my own
cost, a Guinea Pig for the Magazine and the readers. I decided to make an
article to bring the concept of 16:9 is not-wide-enough-for-movies in HD to
the surface, for the public to consider it as an affordable project without
spending $100K, but rather under $20K for a 1080p solution including lenses,
lens transport, projector, screen, wiring, plates, etc. etc. depending of
the products.

The audio part is the owners choice, which one would have even with a RPTV
setup.

The bottom line is that thanks to the 1080p <10K projectors industry efforts
from a variety of reputable manufacturers people can now reach to the dream
of a Cinemascope theater at home, and I am planning to describe a viable
project including electric screens and masking, together with the
collaboration of the various manufacturers that supplied the equipment, HT
pieces, labor, etc. some yet as prototypes, but probably available by the
time I have the chance to write the articles.

At this time I am up to the neck returning from CES, consolidating hundreds
of pages, and writing my annual report and other article commitments, but I
promise a series of articles to help people jump into this more affordable
HT movies concept with HD 1080p quality, wider than HDTV 16:9, not just TV.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
to his article.

NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)

Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic
lens
> system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fisher
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I stand corrected...
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
> victim of sales marketing.
>
> I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>
>
> I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>
> There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
> and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
> hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>
>>
>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>
>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>just smile politely and move on.
>>
>>
>>-- 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 -----

At 05:41 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic lens
>system I saw had a FLAT screen.

Same here. And I also saw an Optima (I believe it was the HD81) at
CEDIA 2006 which had a similar sliding lens attachment projected onto
a flat screen. My major problem with 2.35:1 screens is that it
forces you to view 16:9 material with side bars instead of the other
way around (2.35:1 content on a 16:9 screen with top/bottom
bars)unless you use masks, which is another form of black bars. In a
room with somewhat limited side to side space you have to sacrifice
some vertical height for the 16:9 images if your screen is
2.35:1. My 110" (16:9) Stewart Studiotek 130 screen works fine in
my space. If I went to a 2.35:1 screen I would have to end up with a
substantially smaller image when viewing 16:9 source material (all
HDTV, many movies, etc.). And, of course, 4:3 content would be even smaller.

The concept of watching 2.35:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen is based on
using an anamorphic lens to reproduce anamorphically shot material in
order to extract all the information from the source rather than
electronically adjusting the source material. While I can appreciate
that, the marketing of such devices and screens seems to focus on,
"Why watch movies with black bars on the top and bottom of your
screen? Use a screen geometry that equals the picture
geometry." Black bars never bothered me (especially with my DLP FP
which, to my eyes, makes them disappear into the background on 2.35:1
material. If I end up with the Optima HD81 I might look into the
moveable anamorphic lens option (since I understand the theory behind
it) but I'm not about to change my screen geometry for size reasons
pointed out in the first paragraph of this response.


-- 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 06:46 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
>little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
>much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

The problem with a "populist" forum (including my own home forum) is
that a lot of "information" that gets posted is either misguided or
just plain wrong. While there are, without a doubt, a lot of
reliable sources on places like the AVS and similar the fact that
anyone can post a statement (sometimes appearing to be quite
knowledgeable) makes it imperative to be able to separate the wheat
from the chaff. The nice thing about a smaller, less accessible list
like this one is that we have people like Rodolfo and others who
clearly know what they are talking about and we don't have to wonder
whether statements from such sources carry any real authority. In
other words, quantity doesn't ensure quality (in fact it sometimes
hinders it.) Although I understand that Dale and Shane would love to
have "AVS numbers" I'm actually glad that this list is smaller in
that regard. (Nothing personal, D&S - you know that I'm rooting for
your success).


-- 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 09:44 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>I
>promise a series of articles to help people jump into this more affordable
>HT movies concept with HD 1080p quality, wider than HDTV 16:9, not just TV.

Rodolfo,

I look forward to your efforts in this regard. They should help to
clear the air a bit (as always.)


-- 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 -----

> The problem with a "populist" forum (including my own home forum) is
> that a lot of "information" that gets posted is either misguided or just
> plain wrong.

Oh ya... In this case it was David Bok I believe and other well known
personalities. I don't think it was an issue of misinformation as much a
limit in what they knew at that time.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 06:46 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
>> little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
>> much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.
>
>
> The problem with a "populist" forum (including my own home forum) is
> that a lot of "information" that gets posted is either misguided or just
> plain wrong. While there are, without a doubt, a lot of reliable
> sources on places like the AVS and similar the fact that anyone can post
> a statement (sometimes appearing to be quite knowledgeable) makes it
> imperative to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The nice
> thing about a smaller, less accessible list like this one is that we
> have people like Rodolfo and others who clearly know what they are
> talking about and we don't have to wonder whether statements from such
> sources carry any real authority. In other words, quantity doesn't
> ensure quality (in fact it sometimes hinders it.) Although I understand
> that Dale and Shane would love to have "AVS numbers" I'm actually glad
> that this list is smaller in that regard. (Nothing personal, D&S - you
> know that I'm rooting for your success).
>
>
> -- 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 -----

In the early 90s I started with a CRT RP 4:3 display and everything
became smaller so I would move it closer for 1.85 and even closer for
2.35. For the black bars I made masks to cover them.

Then came my CRT RP 16:9 where I could finally leave it one place for
4:3 and 1.78/1.85 but with 2.35 I moved it closer and masked it up.

Why? Because the effect is supposed to be the image getting larger as
aspect ratio increases. Well, according to my local movie theater anway...

But all of that does not change the fact that physically the image was
getting smaller regardless of how close I viewed it to compensate.

That is what 2.35 provides, constant height and larger images as you go
from 1.33 to 2.35 plus with zoom 2.35 I can do any ratio from 1.78 to
2.35 as constant height. This is what I wanted for the last 15 years and
am tickled pink to finally be there... way too cool, thank GOD for HD.
Now I have an HT that feels and acts like a real movie theater.

This is not for everyone but if you had the desire your ship has either
arrived or is beginning to arrive depending on the method used!

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 05:41 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape
>> anamorphic lens
>> system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>
>
> Same here. And I also saw an Optima (I believe it was the HD81) at
> CEDIA 2006 which had a similar sliding lens attachment projected onto a
> flat screen. My major problem with 2.35:1 screens is that it forces you
> to view 16:9 material with side bars instead of the other way around
> (2.35:1 content on a 16:9 screen with top/bottom bars)unless you use
> masks, which is another form of black bars. In a room with somewhat
> limited side to side space you have to sacrifice some vertical height
> for the 16:9 images if your screen is 2.35:1. My 110" (16:9) Stewart
> Studiotek 130 screen works fine in my space. If I went to a 2.35:1
> screen I would have to end up with a substantially smaller image when
> viewing 16:9 source material (all HDTV, many movies, etc.). And, of
> course, 4:3 content would be even smaller.
>
> The concept of watching 2.35:1 movies on a 2.35:1 screen is based on
> using an anamorphic lens to reproduce anamorphically shot material in
> order to extract all the information from the source rather than
> electronically adjusting the source material. While I can appreciate
> that, the marketing of such devices and screens seems to focus on, "Why
> watch movies with black bars on the top and bottom of your screen? Use
> a screen geometry that equals the picture geometry." Black bars never
> bothered me (especially with my DLP FP which, to my eyes, makes them
> disappear into the background on 2.35:1 material. If I end up with the
> Optima HD81 I might look into the moveable anamorphic lens option (since
> I understand the theory behind it) but I'm not about to change my screen
> geometry for size reasons pointed out in the first paragraph of this
> response.
>
>
> -- 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 -----

As to numbers-no. HDTV Magazine, and more particularly the Tips List, have
not tilted towards financial objectives when the cost for doing so is
quality of information and debate. Financial objectives will occur as our
general readership increases. The purpose of the Tips List from its
inception was to provide a civil forum populated by thoughtful
representatives who can, in time, educate not only themselves but also, when
called upon, a larger body. When one wears the Tips List "badge" they
deserve to be heard and accepted as an authoritative guide. It is only the
public that will keep the decision makers within these large competitive
companies from acting on their own behalf rather than upon the behalf of the
public they serve. We are in many ways an oversight committee that insures
that progress is forward and not crooked. I had hoped to attract a large
membership from the professional ranks of the industry too who I thought
would keep us all informed from the inside. But that has not been as
successful as hoped. Rodolfo has certainly taken a large part of that
responsibility on in ways hard to have imagined in the beginning. Rodolfo
brings a priceless vision that he has gained from an observation post
looking across the board. Even those experts within their own companies have
seldom such breadth and scope. Like many here, I am learning along with you
from all of our excellent sources. Richard has become a powerful voice for
the right things and, well, far too many others too to be cite here. I want
to take this opportunity offered by Robert to say thank you for being the
group that you are. Keep up the good work. It is not in vain.

Dale

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

At 06:46 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
>little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
>much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

The problem with a "populist" forum (including my own home forum) is
that a lot of "information" that gets posted is either misguided or
just plain wrong. While there are, without a doubt, a lot of
reliable sources on places like the AVS and similar the fact that
anyone can post a statement (sometimes appearing to be quite
knowledgeable) makes it imperative to be able to separate the wheat
from the chaff. The nice thing about a smaller, less accessible list
like this one is that we have people like Rodolfo and others who
clearly know what they are talking about and we don't have to wonder
whether statements from such sources carry any real authority. In
other words, quantity doesn't ensure quality (in fact it sometimes
hinders it.) Although I understand that Dale and Shane would love to
have "AVS numbers" I'm actually glad that this list is smaller in
that regard. (Nothing personal, D&S - you know that I'm rooting for
your success).


-- 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 -----

This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early eighties when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in super eight sound. They required projectors that had either been modified or had the ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I recall, the results were quite good considering the technology available at the time. This type of setup is the ultimate goal for any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat modest means it has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a true theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To think that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable cost is mind boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room with enough space to accommodate it. I don't think it would work in the type of "Multimedia" rooms offered in many mid level homes today.
Looking forward to hearing more about this Rodolfo.

On a separate note, I couldn't agree more with those on the board who believe in keeping projector costs under five figures, considering how quickly the technology is changing for one reason or another.

Anthony R.
Orlando, FL


----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46:24 PM
Subject: Re: Curiosity


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

For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
to his article.

NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)

Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic lens
> system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fisher
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I stand corrected...
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
> victim of sales marketing.
>
> I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>
>
> I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>
> There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
> and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
> hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>
>>
>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>
>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>just smile politely and move on.
>>
>>
>>-- 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 -----

At 01:00 PM 1/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>That is what 2.35 provides, constant height and larger images as you go
>from 1.33 to 2.35 plus with zoom 2.35 I can do any ratio from 1.78 to
>2.35 as constant height. This is what I wanted for the last 15 years and
>am tickled pink to finally be there... way too cool, thank GOD for HD.
>Now I have an HT that feels and acts like a real movie theater.

I fully understand your preference and your reasoning, as I believe
you understand mine. In my particular case, the current size of my
16:9 image on my 110" Studiotek screen is just what I want for my
HT. And if I were to go to a 2.35:1 screen, because of the geometry
of my room (which is constrained by the width of the room) I would
not be able to end up with anything larger in 2.35:1 than I now get
with my current screen. But, I would also have to accept a smaller
16:9 image on any 2.35:1 dimensioned screen that I used to replace my
16:9 screen. I still might go for the (sliding) anamorphic lens
option on my next (1080p) projector but the size of 2.35:1 images
doesn't factor into this in my situation.


-- 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 -----

If you have lens tilt or vertical centering and a Zoom of 1.3x or
greater you can do this now. Screens can be less than $1000.

I happen to have a 128"
http://www.carada.com/LCD-Home-Cinema-S ... -2-35.aspx

This has two paragraphs touching on the basics of both systems
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5907

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Anthony Rizzuto wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early eighties when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in super eight sound. They required projectors that had either been modified or had the ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I recall, the results were quite good considering the technology available at the time. This type of setup is the ultimate goal for any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat modest means it has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a true theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To think that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable cost is mind boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room with enough space to accommodate it. I don't think it would work in the type of "Multimedia" rooms offered in many mid level homes today.
> Looking forward to hearing more about this Rodolfo.
>
> On a separate note, I couldn't agree more with those on the board who believe in keeping projector costs under five figures, considering how quickly the technology is changing for one reason or another.
>
> Anthony R.
> Orlando, FL
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
> To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
> little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
> much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.
>
> It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
> screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
> to his article.
>
> NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
> those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
> fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
> don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)
>
> Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Joseph Azar wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic lens
>>system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Curiosity
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I stand corrected...
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
>>victim of sales marketing.
>>
>>I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>>
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>
>>
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>>
>>
>>I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>>
>>There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
>>and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
>>hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>>
>>>
>>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>>
>>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>>just smile politely and move on.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 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 -----

You have to ask, what is a true theater? Most theaters are terrible places,
and the sound is an awful compromise. Maybe superwide is a more expensive
option at home, but we are able to do better sound in a home, by far. Even
the picture is often better as many films have been played and scratched,
and those scratches are all too frequently annoyingly visible. As and added
minus, the best seat in the house for sound is only available in the public
theater if you get there far enough ahead of time.

Considering where we are in home technology, we can produce home
environments that are far more satisfying in the low 5 $ figures than a
public theater. The only reason to go to a theater these days is either for
an opening or for social reasons.

Media rooms can be OK, depending on the layout and appointment. Many home
theaters are media rooms, which I regard as rooms used for movies, games,
computer use, and sometimes business. By wise placement of all of those, a
satisfying room can be made for all. But to most, a media room is a small
room with some computers, desks, a plasma or LCD screen, and a few chairs.
That is not a good theater but suffices for many with limited space, which
is most living in houses of 1500-2000 feet, or houses of 35 or more years
old. Rooms are smaller, shorter, and never intended for anything of large
use, exception being the living room and dining room.



-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Rizzuto
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:38 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity

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

This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early eighties
when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in super eight
sound. They required projectors that had either been modified or had the
ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I recall, the results were quite
good considering the technology available at the time. This type of setup is
the ultimate goal for any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat
modest means it has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a
true theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To think
that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable cost is mind
boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room with enough space to
accommodate it. I don't think it would work in the type of "Multimedia"
rooms offered in many mid level homes today.
Looking forward to hearing more about this Rodolfo.

On a separate note, I couldn't agree more with those on the board who
believe in keeping projector costs under five figures, considering how
quickly the technology is changing for one reason or another.

Anthony R.
Orlando, FL


----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46:24 PM
Subject: Re: Curiosity


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

For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.

It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
to his article.

NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)

Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic
lens
> system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fisher
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I stand corrected...
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
> victim of sales marketing.
>
> I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>
>
> I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>
> There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
> and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
> hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>
> Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
> leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
> projector.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>
>>
>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>
>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>just smile politely and move on.
>>
>>
>>-- 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]

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 1/13/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/625 - Release Date: 1/13/2007



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 11:07 AM 1/14/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Like many here, I am learning along with you
>from all of our excellent sources. Richard has become a powerful voice for
>the right things and, well, far too many others too to be cite here. I want
>to take this opportunity offered by Robert to say thank you for being the
>group that you are. Keep up the good work. It is not in vain.

Exactly. It wasn't my purpose to denigrate the more populist HT
forums but just to point out that quoting things as gospel just
because you see them at AVS, HTF or similar sites should be done with
a bit of caution. I find the signal to noise ratio here on the list
to be much higher (that's a good thing! <g>) than at larger
sites. In other words - kudos to you, Dale and Shane for all your
continuing efforts.


-- 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 01:37 PM 1/14/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early
>eighties when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in
>super eight sound. They required projectors that had either been
>modified or had the ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I
>recall, the results were quite good considering the technology
>available at the time. This type of setup is the ultimate goal for
>any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat modest means
>it has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a true
>theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To
>think that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable
>cost is mind boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room
>with enough space to accommodate it....

A bit off-topic, Anthony, but I'm just curious. Recently (I'm not
quite sure of the exact time frame) any time that you reply to the
list your response takes up the entire width of my computer screen
(and it's a 24" widescreen monitor). In other words, it appears as
though everybody else's responses have an auto line feed somewhere
within the 70-80 character limit. If all responses to the list
exhibited 160+ characters per line then I would think the problem was
at my end, but since I only see this in your responses I'm wondering
of you have some parameter set to disable auto line feed when you
submit text to the list.

Like I said, not a huge deal and I can live with it if there's no
ready solution that won't impact your use of the list. I was just
curious if anyone else is seeing this super-wide text from
Anthony? Maybe you have an "anamorphic" lens attached? (Just kidding!)

We now return you to your regular programming.


-- 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 -----

> Considering where we are in home technology, we can produce home
> environments that are far more satisfying in the low 5 $ figures than a
> public theater.

I went to see the last Matrix at my local and after 5 ignored requests
for a focus check I decided I would never return.

IMax is cool, very cool, but for me and the rest of family the screen is
too large for standard cinema applications unless they would be willing
to reduce the image size. I have considered sitting all the way in the
back against the wall for one more try but then I am taking a hit in sound.

Bottom line, what I have at home is way better than the local and more
pleasing than IMax, With a 10' wide screen at 2.8 screen heights, the
best seat in the house at all times and HD disc I have no real reason to
ever return.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Joseph Azar wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> You have to ask, what is a true theater? Most theaters are terrible places,
> and the sound is an awful compromise. Maybe superwide is a more expensive
> option at home, but we are able to do better sound in a home, by far. Even
> the picture is often better as many films have been played and scratched,
> and those scratches are all too frequently annoyingly visible. As and added
> minus, the best seat in the house for sound is only available in the public
> theater if you get there far enough ahead of time.
>
> Considering where we are in home technology, we can produce home
> environments that are far more satisfying in the low 5 $ figures than a
> public theater. The only reason to go to a theater these days is either for
> an opening or for social reasons.
>
> Media rooms can be OK, depending on the layout and appointment. Many home
> theaters are media rooms, which I regard as rooms used for movies, games,
> computer use, and sometimes business. By wise placement of all of those, a
> satisfying room can be made for all. But to most, a media room is a small
> room with some computers, desks, a plasma or LCD screen, and a few chairs.
> That is not a good theater but suffices for many with limited space, which
> is most living in houses of 1500-2000 feet, or houses of 35 or more years
> old. Rooms are smaller, shorter, and never intended for anything of large
> use, exception being the living room and dining room.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Rizzuto
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:38 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early eighties
> when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in super eight
> sound. They required projectors that had either been modified or had the
> ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I recall, the results were quite
> good considering the technology available at the time. This type of setup is
> the ultimate goal for any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat
> modest means it has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a
> true theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To think
> that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable cost is mind
> boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room with enough space to
> accommodate it. I don't think it would work in the type of "Multimedia"
> rooms offered in many mid level homes today.
> Looking forward to hearing more about this Rodolfo.
>
> On a separate note, I couldn't agree more with those on the board who
> believe in keeping projector costs under five figures, considering how
> quickly the technology is changing for one reason or another.
>
> Anthony R.
> Orlando, FL
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
> To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
> little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
> much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.
>
> It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
> screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
> to his article.
>
> NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
> those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
> fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
> don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)
>
> Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Joseph Azar wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic
>
> lens
>
>>system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Curiosity
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I stand corrected...
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
>>victim of sales marketing.
>>
>>I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>>
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>
>>
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>>
>>
>>I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>>
>>There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
>>and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
>>hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>>
>>>
>>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>>
>>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>>just smile politely and move on.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 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 -----

Here's an affordable contender for zooming with a Cinemascope screen:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/mitsubishi_hc5000.htm . If it's mounted far
enough back from the screen, the zoom and vertical lens shift can be
accomplished without leaving your chair. At an MSRP of $4,500.00 and 1080p
it should be quite satisfying at a reasonable seating distance. If set up
for proper 1.78:1 screen brightness in low lamp mode, the high lamp mode can
be used when zoomed to 2.35:1 mode.

Some folks have been using 720p projectors with video processors and
anamorphic lenses to do 2.35:1 screens for some time. I find that 720p
pixel structure becomes visible to me when the image is stretched to fill a
'scope screen. Even when retaining all the vertical resolution, the
horizontal resolution is still only 1280 pixels. A zoomed 1080p image
without anamorphic lense is still 1920 x 810. That's over 150% of the
resolution from an anamorphic 720p 'scope image.

If drapes are used to mask a 'scope screen from the ends, you can do a
'constant image height' presentation with a zoomed 1080p projector much more
affordably than the ballyhoo'ed Runco/Stewart combo. With automated drapes,
and a projector with motorized zoom and lens shift, all aspect ratios can be
accommodated without leaving your chair. Way cool....and way cheaper!

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:16 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Curiosity


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

If you have lens tilt or vertical centering and a Zoom of 1.3x or
greater you can do this now. Screens can be less than $1000.

I happen to have a 128"
http://www.carada.com/LCD-Home-Cinema-S ... creen-2-35
.aspx

This has two paragraphs touching on the basics of both systems
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5907

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Anthony Rizzuto wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early
eighties when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in super
eight sound. They required projectors that had either been modified or had
the ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I recall, the results were
quite good considering the technology available at the time. This type of
setup is the ultimate goal for any film enthusiast but for those of us with
somewhat modest means it has always been considered out of reach. I always
believed a true theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super
rich. To think that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable
cost is mind boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room with
enough space to accommodate it. I don't think it would work in the type of
"Multimedia" rooms offered in many mid level homes today.
> Looking forward to hearing more about this Rodolfo.
>
> On a separate note, I couldn't agree more with those on the board who
believe in keeping projector costs under five figures, considering how
quickly the technology is changing for one reason or another.
>
> Anthony R.
> Orlando, FL
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
> To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:46:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Curiosity
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> For me that came from reading a bunch of stuff at AVS on the subject a
> little less than a year ago. This stuff was still in it's intamacy and
> much was being tossed around to overcome some problems.
>
> It is not uncommon for a spherical anamorphic lens to require a curved
> screen... Rodolfo knows far more on this topic than I and I look forward
> to his article.
>
> NOT requiring a curved screen now has me tempted yet there are still
> those pros and cons of scaling to do anamorphic 2.35. Maybe I need to
> fly up to Virginia and visit Rodolfo with my equipment! LOL (I really
> don't NEED to fly anywhere as I am currently on overwhelm)
>
> Currently I am using ZOOM 2.35 which has also it's pros and cons.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Joseph Azar wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I was wondering where that came from. The Runco/Kaliedescape anamorphic
lens
>>system I saw had a FLAT screen.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:29 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Curiosity
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I stand corrected...
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>That statement is incorrect! But from what I was just told I am also a
>>victim of sales marketing.
>>
>>I leave it to Rodolfo and his article to flesh all that out.
>>
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>
>>
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana.
>>
>>
>>I think this native 2.35 concept is way too cool but...
>>
>>There are two ways to do it and both have their pros and cons. Rodolfo
>>and I have discussed publishing two articles presenting those two ways,
>>hopefully sooner than later as it ties into two reviews I am doing.
>>
>>Key point for the moment: anamorphic 2.35 requires a curved screen
>>leaving you stuck in anamorphic lens land if you want to replace your
>>projector.
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>At 10:03 AM 1/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In all my years of reading the Tips here and being on numerous forums
>>>>>I have never seen a reference to the company DPI...
>>>
>>>
>>>While DPI is not, by any means, a household name, it is well known in
>>>those circles where either money is no object or professional video
>>>installations are the norm (lots of studios, other of other industry
>>>applications, rich & famous folks with money to burn, et. al.) At CEDIA
>>>2006 I had the opportunity to visit their rather elaborate display booth
>>>where they were showing a wide variety of their DLP projection products
>>>- everything from 720p through 1080p in screen sizes from about 8ft to
>>>(I believe) 20-30 feet or so. Without a doubt the images (simultaneous
>>>and identical for comparison purposes) were uniformly excellent and I
>>>was a little surprised how good their "entry level stuff" (~$20,000
>>>range) looked when compared with their big guns (well into $ix
>>>figures). This experience also showed me that you reach a point where
>>>your return on investment gets way out of most of ours ranges in terms
>>>of what you get for your money. Granted, some of the DPI stuff is well
>>>suited to use in a movie theater with an audience in the hundreds (or
>>>more) but that is way beyond most of our needs. And it is very hard to
>>>justify, at least to me, why one in an HT application would ever
>>>consider going above the four figure mark for our personal projectors.
>>>In my opinion, you just don't get a picture that warrants the extra
>>>expenditure. For under $5,000 you have a 1080p SONY and, in the same
>>>price range or maybe $1,000 more you can get, as Richard Fisher pointed
>>>out, a single chip 1080p DLP (like the Optoma HD81) that provides the
>>>picture and latitude of adjustment that would satisfy even the most
>>>critical among us. (Sidebar: Thanks to Richard I'm now considering the
>>>HD81 as soon as I learn a bit more about the included video scaler and
>>>how it would impact my use of my DVDO VP50 and I mull over some minor
>>>possible HDMI 1.3 concerns. It never ends. <g>)
>>>
>>>The bottom line - high end stuff from DPI and Runco, etc. is nice to
>>>look at but you don't need to spend that kind of money to get similar
>>>images in your home. I stand by my position that even if you require
>>>the automatic anamorphic lens option that Runco is featuring (and which
>>>can also be added to the HD81) you need not go into five figures, or
>>>even close to it, to achieve HT nirvana. When I see $100,000 and up
>>>projectors in today's world being hawked to HOME theater aficionados I
>>>just smile politely and move on.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 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]


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 -----

I also have a 24" widescreen monitor, and Anthony's posts/responses wrap
in my 1/3 of the screen just like everyone else's. I'm using Thunderbird
for Mac.

Jason

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 01:37 PM 1/14/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>> This reminds me of a similar effort in the late seventies and early
>> eighties when certain film distributors offered anamorphic films in
>> super eight sound. They required projectors that had either been
>> modified or had the ability to accept an anamorphic lens. As I
>> recall, the results were quite good considering the technology
>> available at the time. This type of setup is the ultimate goal for
>> any film enthusiast but for those of us with somewhat modest means it
>> has always been considered out of reach. I always believed a true
>> theater system to be strictly in the realm of the super rich. To
>> think that it may be possible to bring it in at a fairly reasonable
>> cost is mind boggling. Of course this would require a dedicated room
>> with enough space to accommodate it....
>
> A bit off-topic, Anthony, but I'm just curious. Recently (I'm not
> quite sure of the exact time frame) any time that you reply to the
> list your response takes up the entire width of my computer screen
> (and it's a 24" widescreen monitor). In other words, it appears as
> though everybody else's responses have an auto line feed somewhere
> within the 70-80 character limit. If all responses to the list
> exhibited 160+ characters per line then I would think the problem was
> at my end, but since I only see this in your responses I'm wondering
> of you have some parameter set to disable auto line feed when you
> submit text to the list.
>
> Like I said, not a huge deal and I can live with it if there's no
> ready solution that won't impact your use of the list. I was just
> curious if anyone else is seeing this super-wide text from Anthony?
> Maybe you have an "anamorphic" lens attached? (Just kidding!)
>
> We now return you to your regular programming.
>
>
> -- 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]