----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Jason,
First of all congratulations on the boy to come.
Because I do not know your budget I assume you want to just start safe with
the minimum pieces, and be in a position to enhance later, not to replace.
I was talking to Richard about how to respond to your inquiry, it has many
angles on the analysis of what would be best for you, but you should read
the articles of 2.35:1 CinemaScope if you have not done so already. Richard
was drafting another piece on that subject but for rather doing 2.35:1
viewing using the zoom features of the projector, not with anamorphic
lens/transport, provided your projector has remote control zoom and remote
focus capabilities.
There are pros and cons on both styles of operation (with anamorphic lenses,
or without lenses using just the zoom), and this email is not going to
address those, but I would say that provided all the products are of
excellent quality, implementing one approach or the other has some
differences such as light output, utilizing part or all of the resolution
pixels on the projector chip, automatism, perfect pixel mapping all the way
to the farthest corner on the screen, the feeling (or actual) optical
compromise when adding more lenses to the light path, to mention a few.
So "better" is on the eyes (and the pocket) of the beholder, to answer your
question.
This subject is quite complicated and it should never be presented if not in
a complete form, because the options and alternatives could be
misinterpreted on their features, relative quality, ROI, etc. Reason by
which my series contained several parts, and other parts hopefully will come
to cover in detail the lens transports, lens, viewing experience, etc.
I should be able to write them one day, but the published parts should be
enough to familiarize yourself with the anamorphic system supported by only
a couple of projectors in 2006 when I started with this, and is now widely
supported by most projector manufacturers that have done partnerships with
the few lens providers out there, Panamorph is being the preferred lens
system by most projector partnerships.
I recommend for you to think in what Aspect Ratio (AR) you watch most, 16:9
or 2.35:1, and design your screen accordingly, considering that if you
mostly watch 2.35:1 and you choose a 2.35:1 screen shape, the moment you
project a 16:9 image it would be smaller in overall size, because the system
maintains the same height for both types of images. The result would be
that 2.35 images will impact you, but a HDTV 16:9 image using part of that
screen with black pillars might disappoint you after viewing a 2.35:1 movie,
unless you sit closer to the screen on those.
The opposite might be true as well, which is, that you might decide for a
16:9 screen where the 16:9 images would be great in overall size, but when
you project a 2.35:1 image the objects become proportionally smaller for
that AR, surrounded by top/bottom black (or dark gray in many cases)
letterboxing bars, no visual impact, not the one you expect from a wider
CinemaScope image.
The beauty of a CinemaScope system is that the screen itself is 2.35:1 for
images of that aspect ratio (or 2.40:1), the black bars disappear either by
zooming them out with the projector itself, or by letting the anamorphic
lens system and scaler stretch the image to fill the screen in the four
directions. The final result using either approach on a 2.35:1 screen and
image is that objects would have the correct relative geometric proportion
to the AR, it is not that heads and feet would be larger and will be cut,
but in some cases foreign movies that use the subtitling over the black bar
of the bottom disappear as well, on those there is nothing you can do.
Either approach (zoom or anamorphic lens) would give you about the same
feeling of dimension of those objects within the director's camera take, on
a very immersive and impacting wide image that fills your lateral viewing
angle to the max the screen can give, even wider than THX requirements based
on 16:9. In other words, the feeling of Cinerama 40-50 years ago when the
automatic system opens the lens and the curtains mechanically move wider and
wider.
So assuming you will buy a 2.35:1 screen and a 1080p projector with
sufficient lumens, to anticipate a drop of maybe about 30% of light output
after ISF from the out-of-the-box spec, you can safely buy both pieces now,
to start with the more manually oriented zoom approach and a rock bottom
investment, and if you like it and if you want to further invest on a full
automatic system that uses all the pixels and light output of the projector
chip, you might want to spend the extra $6K+ for the anamorphic lens and
transport, and possibly some labor if you rather have a professional
installation, and find one installer that knows this stuff.
I suggest that you make your design assuming you will go that way so the
projector and screen you choose, considering installation distances for
anamorphic lens/projector lens/ screen to lens ratio, would eventually meet
the requirements of the additional lens, plates, transport, etc. when you
install them, and the projector and scaler must be capable to do the
vertical stretch electronically (while the lens to do the horizontal stretch
optically), etc. So it will only be a matter of paying and installing
remaining pieces that you already know will work with your system.
Regarding your room light conditions, it is always good to have blinds that
cut the light that comes into the room, you can always get a screen designed
for light reflections, you should buy a projector that has sufficient lumens
to still project a decent image in a shaded room (with the matched screen
for that purpose), or run the projector lamp in bright mode (although that
increases cooling fan speed and noise), or set the iris to a manual position
that would show a brighter image during the day, or can even use ISF
day/night to store those settings after calibration.
It also depends if you are looking to imitate as close as possible the low
lumens of a local theater for film, or you want a striking image of the same
movie of the theater, but bright as HD Net, on a very large screen playing
Blu-ray sourced from film, even when is not the way the director intended
that film/lumens relationship. I am always looking for high light output to
open the possibilities, which will also run out as the lamp ages by the way,
but one can always compensate with wider settings on the iris, or running in
bright mode if the projector is installed away from your hearing level.
I would get a bright model with flexible lens shift in the four directions,
and motorized everything if possible. There are models that only have
manual zooms and focus, those would force you to buy the anamorphic system
from day one, because they would be very inconvenient for the manual
adjustments every time you decide to view another AR, imagine bringing the
ladder from the garage and playing with the zoom ring while your guests tell
you when to stop. There are also lens systems that you leave always in
place, but although anamorphic lenses are now doing an great job at
implementing the 2.35 feature optically, I would never want an additional
lens I do not need all the time (for a 16:9 image for example) in front of
the good quality lens of the projector.
I hope this is good enough for starters, it sounds like that new boy could
not arrive on a better place considering those large cartoons on Saturday
morning, for which you should start saving for replacement lamps (like the
College fund).
Best Regard,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
Behalf Of Jason Burroughs
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:34 AM
To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
For the 2:35:1 amateurs like me - I'm considering replacing my TV with a
front projector some time this year. If I get a 16x9 screen, I'm
assuming I still watch 2.35:1 content, but with bars on the top. How
much "better" does it look when using the panamorph lens than without?
Also, some basic front projector questions:
The room that I would put it in has a lot of daytime light that is not
easily controlled.
I work from home and we are having a boy in September. I expect to watch
TV, movies, etc throughout the day as much as at night. Are modern
projectors still as sensitive to light as they traditionally have been?
Jason
Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> This is good news than you have chosen that combination, and not the Sony
> 60.
>
> I have seen the 60 with anamorphic lenses and about that large size of
> 2.35:1 screen, and the image did not pop out of the screen as bright and
> contrasted as the RS2 did, but there were prototypes.
>
> I have seen then again separately but it is almost impossible to find any
> A/V place in the area that have such 2.35:1 anamorphic installation,
because
> most people do not want to pay that much on top of the price of the
> projector, especially for something many do not understand.
>
> I hope this works for you, these were the same two choices I would have
made
> now (the RS2 was not available in Nov 06 when I selected the Optoma 81,
and
> the RS1 did not have vertical stretch for the anamorphic horizontal
> expansion to work).
>
> Your comment "This theater, at bottom, is designed for viewing a film the
> way the
> cinematographer, sound editor and director intended that it be seen, and
is
> not for show....thus, "decoration" will be minimal."
>
> Let me comment on that many film lovers like the Sony 50 or 60 light
output
> because the image gives you that feeling, but I rather be able to increase
> the lumens when necessary.
>
> Sounds like a good lab, my type of HT; most people go the other way around
> and think on the popcorn machine at the same time they are choosing the
> projector.
>
> I did not see what Robert recommended but knowing him, he must have chosen
> the RS2 as well.
>
> Please do not forget to send me or Shane the photos and description of
> equipment (and wiring) when finished, so I can mention your implementation
> on a future article of CinemaScope.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Rodolfo,
>
> Again, many thanks for your helpful comments below.....I'll keep you
closely
> informed of our progress.
>
> Based in no small part on your and Robert Fowkes' responses, as well as my
> own research over the past few years, I'm going to go with my original
> choices, the JVC DLA-RS2 FP, the Panamorph 380 lens and transport system
and
> a Stewart Studio-Tec 130 135" diagonal 2.40:1 fixed screen.
>
> As you note, the Sony, while a high-performing FP, simply does not have
> enough light output for this size installation.
>
> The suppliers are involved in properly setting up the system through my
> dealer and installers.
>
> The theatre has controlled lighting and seating for five, optimized
visually
> and aurally, of course, for the warmest one.
>
> My architect and I also designed the theatre from scratch using the golden
> ratio, so standing waves are no problem from the get-go, and since the
> theatre is dedicated, it also has double walls, non-touching, insulation
> between, stand-off bushings, sound panels, etc. for sound design.
>
> This theater, at bottom, is designed for viewing a film the way the
> cinematographer, sound editor and director intended that it be seen, and
is
> not for show....thus, "decoration" will be minimal and the seating,
viewing
> and listening will be as optimal as we can design, fabricate and install.
>
> The home will be ready this summer...I'll keep you posted.
>
> Once again, warm thanks to you and to Robert for both of your thoughtful
and
> very helpful comments.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Malkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Date: 3/10/2008 9:58:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> Responding you questions.
>
> Today, those products would be my choice for that money. Or I would choose
> the Sony higher end model for $15K, or a 3-chip DLP.
>
> But the return on image quality for the $ investment is not proportionally
> the double (or triple). Probably the same reason by which you might have
> decided on the under $5K Sony.
>
> Tomorrow who knows. Reason why I am changing projectors often, while
> keeping the Firehawk and the Panamorph lens system; until something better
> comes down the road for those as well, but not as soon as the
> projectors/scalers I suspect.
>
> Regarding Stewart, they have very reliable and well finish products not
just
>
> the name, and I am happy with mine. Your choice should be driven by the
> matching with the projector and your room light conditions.
>
> When I chose mine I was exploring the Cinecurve 2.35:1 from Stewart with 4
> way motorized masking, but for the size I needed paying $16,000 (at that
> time) was overkill, and the projector and lenses did not require a curve
> screen for Cinemascope purposes. I have another system for motorized
> lateral masks and curtains that match the width of the projected image.
>
> When I worked with Optoma and Panamorph in determining what was the best
> matching of the projector/lens/screen (I got my system when they were as
> young as prototypes other than the screen, so I was a Guinea Pig by
choice),
>
> they were trying several screens and anamorphic lenses at their labs
before
> deciding that was the best combination. Optoma chose Panamorph due to the
> perfection on the lens quality, and the screen choice of both was flat,
not
> curve. I could not afford to have that testing facility unless I order and
> trash a dozen screens and lenses, and the labor, etc. etc.
>
> In your case you should ask Sony, Stewart and Panamorph to guide you on
the
> best choices for that projector, and the gain.
>
> Regarding the size of your room, it seems OK to me, just make sure you do
> not use the 21 feet length to the limit and not do like many HT owners
> making it a fancy room but installing the rows of seats so far away from
the
>
> 2.35:1 screen that it looses its panoramic impact reducing the angle of
> view.
>
> Look at the THX tables for the height of your screen and 16x9 images at
> 1080p, trust the quality of 1080p resolution, you will not see the pixels
> unless you get your nose to the screen, and keep your distance as short as
> needed for your best seat, the one that will be warm all the time.
>
> I do not know how much 16x9 vs 2.35:1 viewing you will have, but consider
> that when you project 16x9 images on a 2.35:1 screen they will be
relatively
>
> smaller (and less wide of course) due to the constant height setup of the
> screen in Cinemascope anamorphic. The angle of view L/R would also be
> relatively smaller compared to 2.35:1 width from the same viewing
position,
> so make your calculations (and compromises) right before those seats are
> bolted and the carpets are cut (not to mention before ordering the
screen),
> and most certainly, when the 7.1 audio sweet spot is determined, which
> hopefully would be coincident with the viewing sweet spot, no standing
> waves, no bass loss, etc.
>
> Good luck; sounds like a good project; send us some pictures when done.
>
> I would probably do one more article in the Cinemascope series and include
> your setup as an actual implementation, they are growing in number, but
> still not too many around when the anamorphic lenses and transports exceed
> the price of many projectors, reason by which many decide to use just the
> zoom approach with no lens to get rid of the bars, but every alternative
has
>
> their trade offs.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:54 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I did indeed mean Panamorph, Rodolfo (I apparently had a brain freeze) and
> many thanks, once again, for your extremely helpful comments.
>
> I do agree with every point you make below and am still working through
the
> very issues you raise.
>
> I have looked at both of the JVC fps and was very impressed....except,
> frankly, with the price.
>
> I gather that if one can afford one of the JVCs, retail or pro model, that
> would be your choice, along with the Panamorph 380 lens and transport, for
a
>
> 135" Firehawk screen in a 16' by 21' dedicated HT?
>
> One last question...do you believe the Stewart fixed masking screens are
> worth their breathtaking prices?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Date: 3/10/2008 5:39:22 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> You might have meant Panamorph http://www.panamorph.com/index.html
>
> Probably the model 380 with the lens transport
> http://www.panamorph.com/ModelUH380.html.
>
> I own both pieces since 2006 and I recommend them. The transport is very
> professionally done, and flawless on its operation.
>
> The lens is very good quality and effective, and I see no image
aberrations
> to the point of concern considering the large image I project, you will be
> happy.
>
> http://www.panamorph.com/TrueWidescreenBasics.html
>
> Since I tested the system, most projector manufacturers made partnerships
> with Panamorph.
>
> Make sure you take all measurements for throw, screen size, etc before you
> commit to a fix installation or ordering a screen size
> http://www.panamorph.com/SetupBasics.html
>
> I must make you aware that by expanding the image it will loose a bit the
> punch, and if the projector is not bright/contrast enough you might
consider
>
>
> a smaller screen, or another projector, considering that the Sony 60 after
> ISF could be a bit low in light output, even though is better than the 50.
>
> You should take a look at the JVC 100 or RS2`LCoS before you make the
> decision. Is more expensive but it will give you 2.35 vertical stretch and
> a stunning bright image if you are looking for BIG.
>
> I currently run the anamorphic lens with the DLP Optoma 81LV (Large Venue
> lumens) and a 130+ 2.35:1 screen, and the image is stunning, but the Sony
> does not have that high light output, especially after ISF.
>
> I initially had the Optoma 81 1080p DLP projector (on this picture
>
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... rt_i_-_the
>
>
> _concept.php), but I upgraded to the 81LV for about 1000 more lumens after
6
>
>
> months, and knowing me I would probably change the projector again soon,
but
>
>
> the lens and transport stay all the time.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:10 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thom (and the List),
>
> Did you receive any responses to your questions below about the Sony
> VPL-VW60?
>
> I'm designing a from-scratch HT and am strongly considering that
projector,
> along with a Panagraph anamorphic lens.
>
> Any user feedback from the TIPS list?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Malkin
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Thomas B Kemp
> Date: 11/29/2007 5:50:43 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Anyone have any personal experiences with the new Sony VPL-VW60
> projector? I finally saw it being displayed in a good setting at the
> Myer-Emco store next to Montgomery mall yesterday. While I was only
> able to do a very quick review I was very favorably, actually
> surprisingly, impressed with the projector. I intend to go back in
> the very near future and spend a lot more time viewing different
> sources on it. The most impressive demo was a Blu-Ray disc being
> played of a rock concert. I know that the projector will process
> 1080/24p but I'm sure that must be via the HDMI connection. They
> were using a Stewart Firehawk screen. Anyone have any suggestions
> about another choice of screen? I got the impression that Myer-Emco
> will deal on the price as they have on the two other HDTVs that I
> have purchased from them over the years. I think that they will sell
> it in the $4,440 - $4,500 range. I am thinking about a screen in the
> 110" range. While I will have to make some significant
> rearrangements in my room to accommodate the projector, my one
> serious concern is that I only have a 7 1/2 foot ceiling in the
> room. I would almost rather put the projector on a table than hang
> it from the ceiling. Is that a bad idea? The only thing that I
> haven't been impressed with so far about the projector is that the
> lamp only has a 90 day warranty while the projector has a two year
> warranty. It appears that the lamp replacement cost is in the $500 range.
>
> Also, Myer-Emco is now also a Denon dealer and I am also looking to
> upgrade my receiver from the Denon 3803 to either the 3808CI or the
> 4308CI both of which have HDMI 1.3 switching, lossless Dolby and DTS
> audio and deep color. While I think that those capabilities are
> essential in a new receiver, I'm not aware that there is hardly any
> source material available at that level, certainly not broadcast
> material. Any comments about personal experiences with this receiver
> would be appreciated as well.
>
> Now, IF I go ahead with this I will most certainly need a Blu-Ray
> player and probably an HD-DVD player as well. As ridiculous as it
> sounds, I will probably buy a Sony PS3 to get Blu-Ray capability
> (does it output 1080/24p?) and an external HD-DVD player to hook up
> to the XBOX 360. Does the HD-DVD player for the XBOX 360 output
> 1080/24p over component video connections? I would seriously doubt
> it and unfortunately the XBOX 360 that I have doesn't have HDMI
> output. Supposedly the PS3 is HDMI 1.3 while the XBOX 360 doesn't
> have HDMI output so that may be a bad idea. Can anyone confirm any
> of this? Do most HD-DVD standalone players do HDMI 1.3 and 1080/24p as
well?
>
>
>
>
> Sorry for all the questions. As always thanks, for any comments and
> suggestions.
>
> Maybe I need to hit the lottery first.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> My goal in life... is to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.
>
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
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]
Jason,
First of all congratulations on the boy to come.
Because I do not know your budget I assume you want to just start safe with
the minimum pieces, and be in a position to enhance later, not to replace.
I was talking to Richard about how to respond to your inquiry, it has many
angles on the analysis of what would be best for you, but you should read
the articles of 2.35:1 CinemaScope if you have not done so already. Richard
was drafting another piece on that subject but for rather doing 2.35:1
viewing using the zoom features of the projector, not with anamorphic
lens/transport, provided your projector has remote control zoom and remote
focus capabilities.
There are pros and cons on both styles of operation (with anamorphic lenses,
or without lenses using just the zoom), and this email is not going to
address those, but I would say that provided all the products are of
excellent quality, implementing one approach or the other has some
differences such as light output, utilizing part or all of the resolution
pixels on the projector chip, automatism, perfect pixel mapping all the way
to the farthest corner on the screen, the feeling (or actual) optical
compromise when adding more lenses to the light path, to mention a few.
So "better" is on the eyes (and the pocket) of the beholder, to answer your
question.
This subject is quite complicated and it should never be presented if not in
a complete form, because the options and alternatives could be
misinterpreted on their features, relative quality, ROI, etc. Reason by
which my series contained several parts, and other parts hopefully will come
to cover in detail the lens transports, lens, viewing experience, etc.
I should be able to write them one day, but the published parts should be
enough to familiarize yourself with the anamorphic system supported by only
a couple of projectors in 2006 when I started with this, and is now widely
supported by most projector manufacturers that have done partnerships with
the few lens providers out there, Panamorph is being the preferred lens
system by most projector partnerships.
I recommend for you to think in what Aspect Ratio (AR) you watch most, 16:9
or 2.35:1, and design your screen accordingly, considering that if you
mostly watch 2.35:1 and you choose a 2.35:1 screen shape, the moment you
project a 16:9 image it would be smaller in overall size, because the system
maintains the same height for both types of images. The result would be
that 2.35 images will impact you, but a HDTV 16:9 image using part of that
screen with black pillars might disappoint you after viewing a 2.35:1 movie,
unless you sit closer to the screen on those.
The opposite might be true as well, which is, that you might decide for a
16:9 screen where the 16:9 images would be great in overall size, but when
you project a 2.35:1 image the objects become proportionally smaller for
that AR, surrounded by top/bottom black (or dark gray in many cases)
letterboxing bars, no visual impact, not the one you expect from a wider
CinemaScope image.
The beauty of a CinemaScope system is that the screen itself is 2.35:1 for
images of that aspect ratio (or 2.40:1), the black bars disappear either by
zooming them out with the projector itself, or by letting the anamorphic
lens system and scaler stretch the image to fill the screen in the four
directions. The final result using either approach on a 2.35:1 screen and
image is that objects would have the correct relative geometric proportion
to the AR, it is not that heads and feet would be larger and will be cut,
but in some cases foreign movies that use the subtitling over the black bar
of the bottom disappear as well, on those there is nothing you can do.
Either approach (zoom or anamorphic lens) would give you about the same
feeling of dimension of those objects within the director's camera take, on
a very immersive and impacting wide image that fills your lateral viewing
angle to the max the screen can give, even wider than THX requirements based
on 16:9. In other words, the feeling of Cinerama 40-50 years ago when the
automatic system opens the lens and the curtains mechanically move wider and
wider.
So assuming you will buy a 2.35:1 screen and a 1080p projector with
sufficient lumens, to anticipate a drop of maybe about 30% of light output
after ISF from the out-of-the-box spec, you can safely buy both pieces now,
to start with the more manually oriented zoom approach and a rock bottom
investment, and if you like it and if you want to further invest on a full
automatic system that uses all the pixels and light output of the projector
chip, you might want to spend the extra $6K+ for the anamorphic lens and
transport, and possibly some labor if you rather have a professional
installation, and find one installer that knows this stuff.
I suggest that you make your design assuming you will go that way so the
projector and screen you choose, considering installation distances for
anamorphic lens/projector lens/ screen to lens ratio, would eventually meet
the requirements of the additional lens, plates, transport, etc. when you
install them, and the projector and scaler must be capable to do the
vertical stretch electronically (while the lens to do the horizontal stretch
optically), etc. So it will only be a matter of paying and installing
remaining pieces that you already know will work with your system.
Regarding your room light conditions, it is always good to have blinds that
cut the light that comes into the room, you can always get a screen designed
for light reflections, you should buy a projector that has sufficient lumens
to still project a decent image in a shaded room (with the matched screen
for that purpose), or run the projector lamp in bright mode (although that
increases cooling fan speed and noise), or set the iris to a manual position
that would show a brighter image during the day, or can even use ISF
day/night to store those settings after calibration.
It also depends if you are looking to imitate as close as possible the low
lumens of a local theater for film, or you want a striking image of the same
movie of the theater, but bright as HD Net, on a very large screen playing
Blu-ray sourced from film, even when is not the way the director intended
that film/lumens relationship. I am always looking for high light output to
open the possibilities, which will also run out as the lamp ages by the way,
but one can always compensate with wider settings on the iris, or running in
bright mode if the projector is installed away from your hearing level.
I would get a bright model with flexible lens shift in the four directions,
and motorized everything if possible. There are models that only have
manual zooms and focus, those would force you to buy the anamorphic system
from day one, because they would be very inconvenient for the manual
adjustments every time you decide to view another AR, imagine bringing the
ladder from the garage and playing with the zoom ring while your guests tell
you when to stop. There are also lens systems that you leave always in
place, but although anamorphic lenses are now doing an great job at
implementing the 2.35 feature optically, I would never want an additional
lens I do not need all the time (for a 16:9 image for example) in front of
the good quality lens of the projector.
I hope this is good enough for starters, it sounds like that new boy could
not arrive on a better place considering those large cartoons on Saturday
morning, for which you should start saving for replacement lamps (like the
College fund).
Best Regard,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
Behalf Of Jason Burroughs
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:34 AM
To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
For the 2:35:1 amateurs like me - I'm considering replacing my TV with a
front projector some time this year. If I get a 16x9 screen, I'm
assuming I still watch 2.35:1 content, but with bars on the top. How
much "better" does it look when using the panamorph lens than without?
Also, some basic front projector questions:
The room that I would put it in has a lot of daytime light that is not
easily controlled.
I work from home and we are having a boy in September. I expect to watch
TV, movies, etc throughout the day as much as at night. Are modern
projectors still as sensitive to light as they traditionally have been?
Jason
Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> This is good news than you have chosen that combination, and not the Sony
> 60.
>
> I have seen the 60 with anamorphic lenses and about that large size of
> 2.35:1 screen, and the image did not pop out of the screen as bright and
> contrasted as the RS2 did, but there were prototypes.
>
> I have seen then again separately but it is almost impossible to find any
> A/V place in the area that have such 2.35:1 anamorphic installation,
because
> most people do not want to pay that much on top of the price of the
> projector, especially for something many do not understand.
>
> I hope this works for you, these were the same two choices I would have
made
> now (the RS2 was not available in Nov 06 when I selected the Optoma 81,
and
> the RS1 did not have vertical stretch for the anamorphic horizontal
> expansion to work).
>
> Your comment "This theater, at bottom, is designed for viewing a film the
> way the
> cinematographer, sound editor and director intended that it be seen, and
is
> not for show....thus, "decoration" will be minimal."
>
> Let me comment on that many film lovers like the Sony 50 or 60 light
output
> because the image gives you that feeling, but I rather be able to increase
> the lumens when necessary.
>
> Sounds like a good lab, my type of HT; most people go the other way around
> and think on the popcorn machine at the same time they are choosing the
> projector.
>
> I did not see what Robert recommended but knowing him, he must have chosen
> the RS2 as well.
>
> Please do not forget to send me or Shane the photos and description of
> equipment (and wiring) when finished, so I can mention your implementation
> on a future article of CinemaScope.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Rodolfo,
>
> Again, many thanks for your helpful comments below.....I'll keep you
closely
> informed of our progress.
>
> Based in no small part on your and Robert Fowkes' responses, as well as my
> own research over the past few years, I'm going to go with my original
> choices, the JVC DLA-RS2 FP, the Panamorph 380 lens and transport system
and
> a Stewart Studio-Tec 130 135" diagonal 2.40:1 fixed screen.
>
> As you note, the Sony, while a high-performing FP, simply does not have
> enough light output for this size installation.
>
> The suppliers are involved in properly setting up the system through my
> dealer and installers.
>
> The theatre has controlled lighting and seating for five, optimized
visually
> and aurally, of course, for the warmest one.
>
> My architect and I also designed the theatre from scratch using the golden
> ratio, so standing waves are no problem from the get-go, and since the
> theatre is dedicated, it also has double walls, non-touching, insulation
> between, stand-off bushings, sound panels, etc. for sound design.
>
> This theater, at bottom, is designed for viewing a film the way the
> cinematographer, sound editor and director intended that it be seen, and
is
> not for show....thus, "decoration" will be minimal and the seating,
viewing
> and listening will be as optimal as we can design, fabricate and install.
>
> The home will be ready this summer...I'll keep you posted.
>
> Once again, warm thanks to you and to Robert for both of your thoughtful
and
> very helpful comments.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Malkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Date: 3/10/2008 9:58:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> Responding you questions.
>
> Today, those products would be my choice for that money. Or I would choose
> the Sony higher end model for $15K, or a 3-chip DLP.
>
> But the return on image quality for the $ investment is not proportionally
> the double (or triple). Probably the same reason by which you might have
> decided on the under $5K Sony.
>
> Tomorrow who knows. Reason why I am changing projectors often, while
> keeping the Firehawk and the Panamorph lens system; until something better
> comes down the road for those as well, but not as soon as the
> projectors/scalers I suspect.
>
> Regarding Stewart, they have very reliable and well finish products not
just
>
> the name, and I am happy with mine. Your choice should be driven by the
> matching with the projector and your room light conditions.
>
> When I chose mine I was exploring the Cinecurve 2.35:1 from Stewart with 4
> way motorized masking, but for the size I needed paying $16,000 (at that
> time) was overkill, and the projector and lenses did not require a curve
> screen for Cinemascope purposes. I have another system for motorized
> lateral masks and curtains that match the width of the projected image.
>
> When I worked with Optoma and Panamorph in determining what was the best
> matching of the projector/lens/screen (I got my system when they were as
> young as prototypes other than the screen, so I was a Guinea Pig by
choice),
>
> they were trying several screens and anamorphic lenses at their labs
before
> deciding that was the best combination. Optoma chose Panamorph due to the
> perfection on the lens quality, and the screen choice of both was flat,
not
> curve. I could not afford to have that testing facility unless I order and
> trash a dozen screens and lenses, and the labor, etc. etc.
>
> In your case you should ask Sony, Stewart and Panamorph to guide you on
the
> best choices for that projector, and the gain.
>
> Regarding the size of your room, it seems OK to me, just make sure you do
> not use the 21 feet length to the limit and not do like many HT owners
> making it a fancy room but installing the rows of seats so far away from
the
>
> 2.35:1 screen that it looses its panoramic impact reducing the angle of
> view.
>
> Look at the THX tables for the height of your screen and 16x9 images at
> 1080p, trust the quality of 1080p resolution, you will not see the pixels
> unless you get your nose to the screen, and keep your distance as short as
> needed for your best seat, the one that will be warm all the time.
>
> I do not know how much 16x9 vs 2.35:1 viewing you will have, but consider
> that when you project 16x9 images on a 2.35:1 screen they will be
relatively
>
> smaller (and less wide of course) due to the constant height setup of the
> screen in Cinemascope anamorphic. The angle of view L/R would also be
> relatively smaller compared to 2.35:1 width from the same viewing
position,
> so make your calculations (and compromises) right before those seats are
> bolted and the carpets are cut (not to mention before ordering the
screen),
> and most certainly, when the 7.1 audio sweet spot is determined, which
> hopefully would be coincident with the viewing sweet spot, no standing
> waves, no bass loss, etc.
>
> Good luck; sounds like a good project; send us some pictures when done.
>
> I would probably do one more article in the Cinemascope series and include
> your setup as an actual implementation, they are growing in number, but
> still not too many around when the anamorphic lenses and transports exceed
> the price of many projectors, reason by which many decide to use just the
> zoom approach with no lens to get rid of the bars, but every alternative
has
>
> their trade offs.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:54 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I did indeed mean Panamorph, Rodolfo (I apparently had a brain freeze) and
> many thanks, once again, for your extremely helpful comments.
>
> I do agree with every point you make below and am still working through
the
> very issues you raise.
>
> I have looked at both of the JVC fps and was very impressed....except,
> frankly, with the price.
>
> I gather that if one can afford one of the JVCs, retail or pro model, that
> would be your choice, along with the Panamorph 380 lens and transport, for
a
>
> 135" Firehawk screen in a 16' by 21' dedicated HT?
>
> One last question...do you believe the Stewart fixed masking screens are
> worth their breathtaking prices?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Date: 3/10/2008 5:39:22 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Michael,
>
> You might have meant Panamorph http://www.panamorph.com/index.html
>
> Probably the model 380 with the lens transport
> http://www.panamorph.com/ModelUH380.html.
>
> I own both pieces since 2006 and I recommend them. The transport is very
> professionally done, and flawless on its operation.
>
> The lens is very good quality and effective, and I see no image
aberrations
> to the point of concern considering the large image I project, you will be
> happy.
>
> http://www.panamorph.com/TrueWidescreenBasics.html
>
> Since I tested the system, most projector manufacturers made partnerships
> with Panamorph.
>
> Make sure you take all measurements for throw, screen size, etc before you
> commit to a fix installation or ordering a screen size
> http://www.panamorph.com/SetupBasics.html
>
> I must make you aware that by expanding the image it will loose a bit the
> punch, and if the projector is not bright/contrast enough you might
consider
>
>
> a smaller screen, or another projector, considering that the Sony 60 after
> ISF could be a bit low in light output, even though is better than the 50.
>
> You should take a look at the JVC 100 or RS2`LCoS before you make the
> decision. Is more expensive but it will give you 2.35 vertical stretch and
> a stunning bright image if you are looking for BIG.
>
> I currently run the anamorphic lens with the DLP Optoma 81LV (Large Venue
> lumens) and a 130+ 2.35:1 screen, and the image is stunning, but the Sony
> does not have that high light output, especially after ISF.
>
> I initially had the Optoma 81 1080p DLP projector (on this picture
>
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... rt_i_-_the
>
>
> _concept.php), but I upgraded to the 81LV for about 1000 more lumens after
6
>
>
> months, and knowing me I would probably change the projector again soon,
but
>
>
> the lens and transport stay all the time.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine Tips List On
> Behalf Of Michael M. Malkin
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:10 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Re: Sony VPL-VW60
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thom (and the List),
>
> Did you receive any responses to your questions below about the Sony
> VPL-VW60?
>
> I'm designing a from-scratch HT and am strongly considering that
projector,
> along with a Panagraph anamorphic lens.
>
> Any user feedback from the TIPS list?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Malkin
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Thomas B Kemp
> Date: 11/29/2007 5:50:43 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine Tips List
> Subject: Sony VPL-VW60
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Anyone have any personal experiences with the new Sony VPL-VW60
> projector? I finally saw it being displayed in a good setting at the
> Myer-Emco store next to Montgomery mall yesterday. While I was only
> able to do a very quick review I was very favorably, actually
> surprisingly, impressed with the projector. I intend to go back in
> the very near future and spend a lot more time viewing different
> sources on it. The most impressive demo was a Blu-Ray disc being
> played of a rock concert. I know that the projector will process
> 1080/24p but I'm sure that must be via the HDMI connection. They
> were using a Stewart Firehawk screen. Anyone have any suggestions
> about another choice of screen? I got the impression that Myer-Emco
> will deal on the price as they have on the two other HDTVs that I
> have purchased from them over the years. I think that they will sell
> it in the $4,440 - $4,500 range. I am thinking about a screen in the
> 110" range. While I will have to make some significant
> rearrangements in my room to accommodate the projector, my one
> serious concern is that I only have a 7 1/2 foot ceiling in the
> room. I would almost rather put the projector on a table than hang
> it from the ceiling. Is that a bad idea? The only thing that I
> haven't been impressed with so far about the projector is that the
> lamp only has a 90 day warranty while the projector has a two year
> warranty. It appears that the lamp replacement cost is in the $500 range.
>
> Also, Myer-Emco is now also a Denon dealer and I am also looking to
> upgrade my receiver from the Denon 3803 to either the 3808CI or the
> 4308CI both of which have HDMI 1.3 switching, lossless Dolby and DTS
> audio and deep color. While I think that those capabilities are
> essential in a new receiver, I'm not aware that there is hardly any
> source material available at that level, certainly not broadcast
> material. Any comments about personal experiences with this receiver
> would be appreciated as well.
>
> Now, IF I go ahead with this I will most certainly need a Blu-Ray
> player and probably an HD-DVD player as well. As ridiculous as it
> sounds, I will probably buy a Sony PS3 to get Blu-Ray capability
> (does it output 1080/24p?) and an external HD-DVD player to hook up
> to the XBOX 360. Does the HD-DVD player for the XBOX 360 output
> 1080/24p over component video connections? I would seriously doubt
> it and unfortunately the XBOX 360 that I have doesn't have HDMI
> output. Supposedly the PS3 is HDMI 1.3 while the XBOX 360 doesn't
> have HDMI output so that may be a bad idea. Can anyone confirm any
> of this? Do most HD-DVD standalone players do HDMI 1.3 and 1080/24p as
well?
>
>
>
>
> Sorry for all the questions. As always thanks, for any comments and
> suggestions.
>
> Maybe I need to hit the lottery first.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> My goal in life... is to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.
>
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
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]
