# Sticky  16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen



## Prof.

These drawings show how the two different systems work, when it comes to screen size, image size, and aspect ratio..

The first one is for 2.35:1 DVD's..


----------



## Prof.

This is for 1.85:1 DVD's..









When a 1.85:1 image is vertically stretched, you do lose a bit of the image top and bottom..
Some people prefer to use what's called the "Pass through mode"..That just means that the light path is no longer through the anamorphic lens..
So the corect AR is maintained..


----------



## Prof.

And this is 1.78:1 DVD's..










As you can see for this AR, the Scope screen will have black bars at the sides..These bars can be simply masked, or as some people do, just leave them as they are..


----------



## Prof.

Reserved 3


----------



## Prof.

Here are some screenshots showing the various stages of converting your standard 2.35:1 DVD image to a full cinemascope image.
The camera hasn't picked up the blank part of the screen in the first two sequences, but you can see how the image changes..

All the pics were taken from the same position with the camera mounted on a tripod, and all at the same zoom setting..

The first shot in each sequence shows the normal image without any zoom on the projector..and without the anamorphic lens in place.









Now the images are vertically stretched by the projector or DVD player to the full height of the screen.








.
And finally the lens is in place, optically stretching the image to the full width of the screen, and restoring the correct geometry.


----------



## Mark Techer

Well done Prof, they are very CIH demo shots.

The best description I ever got was from the RUNCO guys at CEDIA. They did their speil as if no-one else had it, and they made simple.
They said CIH is two parts - Sclaing + Optics.

I guess the most difficult part is understanding the scaling aspect of the process. This is the electrical manipulation of the signal to - 
A. rid the black bars and
B. use the full panel for max rez and image brightness.

Optics are a science all by themselves, and the part that makes understanding the difference between an anamorphic lens and conventional zoom lens is that the anamorphic lens only magnifies in one direction - typically horizontally. 

The exact amount of magnification must equal the amount of electical scaling applied to the image. 

The amount applied to video is based on 1.33x because 1.33 x 1.33 = 1.78, so 1.78 x 1.33 = (when rounded) 2.37. It simply takes the next step as well as provides an extension for 1.33:1 displays - IE you can obtain 1.78:1 optically by using a 1.33x stretch lens with a 1.33:1 projector...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Thanks Mark..

I hadn't been having much success at setting the correct white balance on the camera, until I came across your method of setting it...Worked a treat..:T


----------



## Richard W. Haines

While in theory this makes sense, the cost is so expensive for the lenses is it worth it?
I'll put it this way. When I zoom up and eliminate the slight black borders on my 10
foot wide screen while watching the HD DVD of "The Wild Bunch", it looks almost as a
35mm print shown on the same size with anamorphic lenses and at the same distance
of 15 feet from booth to screen. What size screen are you using for comparison and
is worth the cost of the lens to remove the black borders and use more of the pixel field. 

One of the disadvantages of using any anamorphic lens is that you lose some resolution when you compress and expand the image which is why 70mm widescreen looks so much better than a 35mm
anamorphic print even when the 70mm print was optically enlarged from a 35mm negative.


----------



## Mark Techer

Hi Richard,

What projector are you using? Think of it this way - regardless of the rez, you will able to use the full rez of the projector all the time. If you take trueHD, you start with 1080 vertical pixels for 16:9 and progressively loose vertical pixels as the image gets wider. By the time you reach 2.35:1, you're down to about 810 vertical pixles. 

One method is to zoom in the image. This is very much projector and placement dependent - some projectors just don't have enough zoom from a given throw. If your projector does have the range, what you end up with is enlargening of the pixels in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Seating distance pending, you may even see pixel structure.

The other method to to use an anamorphic lens. Yes some models are expensive, but there are also cost the effective approach that can work as well - see HERE. When you employ a 33% stretch lens, you are able to horizontally expand the image by 33%, but not affect the vertical rez. Researh has proven that we are more sensitive to vertcial rez than horizontal, so using an anamorphic lens keeps the pixels at the same height. And instead of throwing away about 270 pixels, you image is now made of the FULL 1080 vertical pixels. It is denser and more film like. I have seen systems that DO look as good (if not better) as 35mm film on a small screen (I define a small screen as anything less than 4.0m). It is like watching a brand new release print...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Richard W. Haines said:


> While in theory this makes sense, the cost is so expensive for the lenses is it worth it?.


Unfortunately this is how many people view anamorphic lenses, and something way beyond their reach.. As a consequence, they don't even consider it as a possibility and don't look any futher into it..

Commercial lenses are very expensive, sometimes thousands more than some projectors..

I was of this belief about a year ago, and for me an anamorphic lens was just a dream..Something that I would never be able to afford, unless I won Lotto..

Then I came across Mark's Aussiemorphic lens, and for the first time it looked liked it *would* be possible to have an anamorphic lens..
I read everything I could find about it, and other peoples views on the lens who had purchased one..
and looked at a number of screenshots with the lens fitted..

I finally decided to buy one, still a bit hesitant as to whether I was going to get a quality lens or not, particularly when compared to lenses costing thousands of dollars..

Well to say that I was thrilled with the results would be an understatement..
I won't say what it cost me, except it was a fraction of the price of a commercial lens..

My point is this...You don't have to pay an arm and a leg to have an anamorphic lens..There are other ways of obtaining a lens that will perform almost as good as very expensive ones..
You can just buy the prisms, and put the lens together yourself..Or you can buy a lens kit (like mark's) and set it up yourself...

Believe me...If I can afford it...anyone can..


----------



## Mark Techer

Thanks Prof  and why I posted that link...

Mark


----------



## tonyvdb

Prof. said:


> Then I came across Mark's Aussiemorphic lens, and for the first time it looked liked it *would* be possible to have an anamorphic lens..
> 
> 
> Believe me...If I can afford it...anyone can..


Hi Prof, Im interested in looking into doing this sometime down the road but have a few questions. Where do you get this lens you speak of, I went to the link but dont see a price or place to buy it.
Also will it work on any projector? I just have a Sanyo Z2.

When you say affordable what do you mean by this as thats a relative word when dealing with little to no budget.


----------



## Prof.

tonyvdb said:


> Hi Prof, Im interested in looking into doing this sometime down the road but have a few questions. Where do you get this lens you speak of, I went to the link but dont see a price or place to buy it.


Tony, I bought my lens from Mark Techer, who is the maker of the Aussiemorphic lens..this link should give you all the info. you need
http://cavx.blogspot.com/2007/04/4-prism-lens.html



> Also will it work on any projector? I just have a Sanyo Z2.


Shouldn't be a problem..Mark's lens works on just about all projectors..



> When you say affordable what do you mean by this as thats a relative word when dealing with little to no budget.


Well I bought the Mk.1 lens and it cost less than $400AUD...the Mk.11 is a little dearer, but it now comes with coated optics and a slide mount..

BUT...you can even do it for a lot less if you're prepared to make up your own lens, by just buying a couple of prisms and assembling them into a case..

I would suggest sending a pm to Mark and ask him about how to get hold of some prisms...
You might like to click on this link as well...http://cavx.blogspot.com/2008/01/b-stock-prisms-for-sale.html..

When you are ready to set up for CIH projection and assembling the lens, Mark will give you all the help you need to correctly set up the lens...


----------



## Mike P.

Prof, I'm not familiar with the Sanyo Z2, but if it doesn't do the vertical stretch to the image, then a scaler would also be needed, correct? :scratchhead:


----------



## Prof.

Mike, the Z2 probably doesn't have vertical stretch, in which case he will need an external scaler if he's playing HD DVD's..
If it's ony SD DVD's, then just an upscaling player with a VS facility is all that's needed..


----------



## Mark Techer

I'm sure that the Z2 does work for SD, but may not work for HD. I have started a thread on using a HTPC with a program called YXY, which is how I got around the VS issues for HD on my system...

Mark


----------



## John Simpson

I just wanted to add my recommendation for Mark's product. By all reports it's fabulous for the price, and I think he needs to be congratulated for providing us with a cheaper option to those other ridiculous prices.

Aussie Aussie Aussie!


----------



## Mark Techer

Thankyou John. I only hope that I can continue in the future with the upcoming developments to Aussiemorphic Lens including the MKIII by keeping the pricing real...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark..How is the progress going on the Mk.111..Do we have a release date yet?
Also can you tell us what the difference will be over the MK.11.?


----------



## Prof.

John..How is your CIH setup going?
I think the last I heard, you were about to get the screen set up..Any further progress?


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> Mark..How is the progress going on the Mk.111..Do we have a release date yet?
> Also can you tell us what the difference will be over the MK.11.?


Unfortunately, no set date. The MKIII will be released in stages – 
1.	Injection Molded Plastic case that allows both future upgrades as well as backwards compatibility.

2.	Focal correction or “astigmatism correction” element

3.	CA correction where the new prisms will be made from two different types of glass that have been bonded together.

All of this takes time and money, and so a slow process when developing and funding a project like this yourself...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Unfortunately, no set date. The MKIII will be released in stages –
> 1.	Injection Molded Plastic case that allows both future upgrades as well as backwards compatibility.
> 
> 2.	Focal correction or “astigmatism correction” element
> 
> 3.	CA correction where the new prisms will be made from two different types of glass that have been bonded together.
> 
> All of this takes time and money, and so a slow process when developing and funding a project like this yourself...
> 
> Mark


This sounds like one serious lens!!...And my guess is that it will compete with the best of them..
Good luck with it all and keep us up to date with your progress..


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> This sounds like one serious lens!!...And my guess is that it will compete with the best of them..
> Good luck with it all and keep us up to date with your progress..


In order to make CIH a real success, there needs to be quality products that are affordable. This is part of the reason it will com out in stages...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

This seems to be the right place to ask the following question: 

If you have a high resolution (HD) and "screendoor free" 16:9 projector like the Panasonic PT-AE2000that is able to fill up the total width of your 2,35 screen without seeing any pixel structures, and you can electrically zoom out from 16:9 to 21:9 without having to adjust focus and/or lens shift. What does an anamorphic lens bring you? More lumen, more sharpness, more contrast? And will this be easily noticable?

Thanks.


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> This seems to be the right place to ask the following question:
> 
> If you have a high resolution (HD) and "screendoor free" 16:9 projector like the Panasonic PT-AE2000that is able to fill up the total width of your 2,35 screen without seeing any pixel structures, and you can electrically zoom out from 16:9 to 21:9 without having to adjust focus and/or lens shift. What does an anamorphic lens bring you? More lumen, more sharpness, more contrast? And will this be easily noticable?
> 
> Thanks.



The HD panel is 1920 x 1080. When you zoom, you only see 1920 x 810 with the remainder being projected off the top and bottom. As you zoom, the pixels increase both horizontally and vertically. 

Adding an anamorphic lens allows your projected image to be made from the entire panel instead of just 75%. The lens expands the pixels, but only in the horizontal direction, so the vertical size remains the same. This is benificial as we are more sensitive to vertical than we are to horizontal pixel structure...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> The HD panel is 1920 x 1080. When you zoom, you only see 1920 x 810 with the remainder being projected off the top and bottom. As you zoom, the pixels increase both horizontally and vertically.
> 
> Adding an anamorphic lens allows your projected image to be made from the entire panel instead of just 75%. The lens expands the pixels, but only in the horizontal direction, so the vertical size remains the same. This is benificial as we are more sensitive to vertical than we are to horizontal pixel structure...
> 
> Mark


Thanks for your reply Mark. I understand what you are saying. The question remains what the maximum viewing distance should be to actually benefit from this improved vertical pixel structure. On a 2 meter wide screen the pixels measure 1x1 mm. Even from the the shortest recommended viewing distance of 1,45 meter (field of view 140 degrees) I am not able to see any pixels. Maybe you can still see a difference in sharpness? I really don't know . Has anyone experienced this in a side-to-side comparison: "Zooming out" versus "Anamorhpic projection" with a HD beamer at different viewing distances?


----------



## Mark Techer

Acually you should work your seating distance from image height, not the width, where you should be no closer than 2x the image height and no farther back then 4x. 

The beauty of CIH with a lens is that those pixels stay the same size (vertically) as you change ARs, so you do not loose sharpness*.

*pending the type of lens.

When you zoom, your pixels do increase vertically, so it is almost like going back from 1080 to 720, but not quiet, it is actually about 810...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> Acually you should work your seating distance from image height, not the width, where you should be no closer than 2x the image height and no farther back then 4x.
> 
> The beauty of CIH with a lens is that those pixels stay the same size (vertically) as you change ARs, so you do not loose sharpness*.
> 
> *pending the type of lens.
> 
> When you zoom, your pixels do increase vertically, so it is almost like going back from 1080 to 720, but not quiet, it is actually about 810...
> 
> Mark


In my set-up the viewing distance is 3x the image height using 2.37:1 projection (34 inch high; 80 inch wide), and 2.5x the image height using 16:9 projection (41 inch high; 73.5 inch wide). 

So I don't have real CIH projection (constant image height). But in this way I keep the bottom of the projection at the same height (measured from the floor 31 inch) when going from one format to the other just by zooming. I have a variable masking screen that allows me to horizontally adjust the projection surface by pushing one button on the remote. 

In this way I believe I have created close to optimal viewing distances (according toTHX and SMPT standards) for both 2.37:1 and 16:9 formats. And yes, I understand I am not using the projector's full resolution capability with 2.37:1. 

But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens? 

Will the added sharpness be more predominant than the possible adverse effects of lens imperfections and faults introduced by the pixel recalculations for the vertical stretching of the 2.37:1 picture to fit the 16:9 LCD chip?

I am not a disbeliever. I just don't know! :dontknow:


----------



## Prof.

maikeldepotter said:


> But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens?


On a 2 Metre.. wide screen with an HD system....There will be some improvement but probably barely noticeable..
If you had a 3 Metre wide screen, then there would be some obvious improvement over the zoom method..



> Will the added sharpness be more predominant than the possible adverse effects of lens imperfections and faults introduced by the pixel recalculations for the vertical stretching of the 2.37:1 picture to fit the 16:9 LCD chip?


As far as I'm aware..it would not be an issue..


----------



## Prof.

Just to add to that...

The whole idea of having a Scope setup is not just to remove the black bars, but to have that very wide screen image...Like you see in the Cinema...that really immerses you in the action on the screen..

It is generally accepted that the minimum width for a scope screen is 8' wide, with 9' being ideal if your room is large enough..
Anything smaller is not going to give you the same effect, and if 2 Metres is your maximum size you are able to fit or have in the room..then it probably isn't worth the additional costs involved..


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> But again, will the picture quality visibly improve with an anamorphic lens?


Absolutely, becuase with a lens, your vertical pixel size remains the same for all ARs as does the useage. 

The image you see is made up of by the total (X) number of pixels on the panel, so why not max them all the time - a lens will let you do that, where zooming can not becuase you throw at least 25% of the vertical rez away.

If you have a 1080 projector and CIH, when watching 16:9 you have 1080 vertical pixels being used, and when watching Scope using the lens, you will also have 1080 vertical pixels being used. The best way to describe the CIH image is "dense", but in the end, seeing is believing...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Prof. said:


> Just to add to that...
> 
> The whole idea of having a Scope setup is not just to remove the black bars, but to have that very wide screen image...Like you see in the Cinema...that really immerses you in the action on the screen..
> 
> It is generally accepted that the minimum width for a scope screen is 8' wide, with 9' being ideal if your room is large enough..
> Anything smaller is not going to give you the same effect, and if 2 Metres is your maximum size you are able to fit or have in the room..then it probably isn't worth the additional costs involved..


Your are stepping on my soul Prof! :sad: Putting so much time and effort in building my dream HT and now hearing that my screen is too small to ever reach the Cinema feeling.... :crying:

But seriously, does the immersive feeling not more depend on the actual viewing angle (viewing distance : screen height ratio), than solely on the screen width? If I am sitting on the last row of a Cinema with a huge screen I have a much lesser immersive feeling than sitting 2,5 metre away from my 2 metre wide screen. 

Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done. 

The other possibility I can think of is that there exists someting like a minimal viewing distance in order not to put too much strain on your eyes to focus on the screen. I just never heard or read about such a phenomenon. Am curious though if anyone has more info on this, or other factors that influence the immersive sensation we are talking about here.


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> But seriously, does the immersive feeling not more depend on the actual viewing angle (viewing distance : screen height ratio), than solely on the screen width? If I am sitting on the last row of a Cinema with a huge screen I have a much lesser immersive feeling than sitting 2,5 metre away from my 2 metre wide screen.


This is correct and why I am happy watching scope on a 2.4m wide screen the same as watching scope on a 3.5m wide screen. If your seated between 2x and 3x the image height, screen size has no real bearing... 


> Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done.


an 8' screen Scope screen is still a good height. If your screen gets to narrow, then you might not ecperience the "big screen" effect, but as I said above, seating distances still apply here... 


> The other possibility I can think of is that there exists someting like a minimal viewing distance in order not to put too much strain on your eyes to focus on the screen. I just never heard or read about such a phenomenon. Am curious though if anyone has more info on this, or other factors that influence the immersive sensation we are talking about here.


2x the image height is the minimum and 4x the maximum. The so called "Preferred Angle of 36 degrees" is the same as 3.68x the image height...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> This is correct and why I am happy watching scope on a 2.4m wide screen the same as watching scope on a 3.5m wide screen. If your seated between 2x and 3x the image height, screen size has no real bearing...


Thanks Mark, that is the answer I was hoping for with my "only" 2.03m wide screen. :whew:



Mark Techer said:


> 2x the image height is the minimum and 4x the maximum. The so called "Preferred Angle of 36 degrees" is the same as 3.68x the image height...


OK, that's an easy one to remember: 36 degrees = 3.7x the image height (personally I like to sit closer to the screen, at about 2.8x to 3x).

Now, the issue I wanted to put forward is this:

If the "preferred" seating distance is 3.7 x the image height, I can theoretically have a "immersed" sensation looking at a 10 inch wide high resolution screen at a viewing distance of 15.5 inch. However, the focus effort for my eyes wil will be like reading a book :reading:. This is a different feeling than staring into a distance like in a very big cinema :yikes:. 

The question I want to put to the forum is: 

Does the viewing distance and resulting focus effort for your eyes has a significant impact on the movie viewing experience, especially with regard to the "immersed feeling" effect. I think it does not. Please comment :waiting:

PS Yes, I like Smilies.


----------



## Mark Techer

What you will find is that your eyes will probably strain more watching HD on PC monitor at 3x the image height than watching the same program on a screen that is over 2m tall. In this case, it not the size of the image, but the distance to the image that must be taken into account. I think you will find however that the "immersion" is reduced becuase the smaller screen size, but your field of view (what you actually see) should be about the same.

Hope that makes sense...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

maikeldepotter said:


> Could the generally accepted minimum width of 8' has to do with the assumption that you are not building your HT for just one or two people (little place within optimal viewing boundaries)? Because that is what I have done.


Maikel...Sorry if I quashed your ideas on the screen size..:R

It's a bit like TV sizes...You buy a 36" tv and put it in your living room and it looks big!!..
Then after some time you start to think "this tv is not all that big, I think I need to get a 42" screen"..:bigsmile:

And that's how it goes with projection screens as well..

I built my theatre for just me! (I'm a free man) and I made an 8' wide Scope screen..
When I first projected onto it with the anamorphic set up, it looked BIG!!...I sit 9'6" from the screen..
Now after just 6 months..It's not looking so big!

I'm about to make up a new screen, using a different finish than my current screen, and I'm tempted to make it even bigger, in fact another foot wider!!...
Do you see my point?

I can practically guarantee you that if you go with an anamorphic set up, you will not be happy for very long with a 2 Metre wide screen...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Prof. said:


> Maikel...Sorry if I quashed your ideas on the screen size..:R
> 
> It's a bit like TV sizes...You buy a 36" tv and put it in your living room and it looks big!!..
> Then after some time you start to think "this tv is not all that big, I think I need to get a 42" screen"..:bigsmile:
> 
> And that's how it goes with projection screens as well..
> 
> I built my theatre for just me! (I'm a free man) and I made an 8' wide Scope screen..
> When I first projected onto it with the anamorphic set up, it looked BIG!!...I sit 9'6" from the screen..
> Now after just 6 months..It's not looking so big!
> 
> I'm about to make up a new screen, using a different finish than my current screen, and I'm tempted to make it even bigger, in fact another foot wider!!...
> Do you see my point?
> 
> I can practically guarantee you that if you go with an anamorphic set up, you will not be happy for very long with a 2 Metre wide screen...


I see you point Prof. I am convinced :surrender: In the end it all comes down to the same conclusion: Size does matter, the bigger the better!

Thus, when creating your HT you should try to make the screen as big as your possibilities permit (room and financial wise). Since we are talking about Home Cinema on this forum, let's say the maximum height you can achieve is 8' (2.45m), resulting in a maximum screen width of 19' (5.80m) . Your minimum viewing distance lies around 16' (4.9m). 

So if you have a room of measuring 20'x20' (6mx6m) or more, why stick to a procliamed ideal 9', and not go for 19' wide? :T


----------



## Mark Techer

> Since we are talking about Home Cinema on this forum, let's say the maximum height you can achieve is 8' (2.45m), resulting in a maximum screen width of 19' (5.80m) . Your minimum viewing distance lies around 16' (4.9m).


Yes, 2x the image height is the closest you want to be regardless of screen size with 3x being preferred...



> So if you have a room of measuring 20'x20' (6mx6m) or more, why stick to a procliamed ideal 9', and not go for 19' wide?


Because 12 feet wide is about the largest you can have in a 20 foot deep room.

Formula is - 
20 / 3.68 x 2.37 = 12.88

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> Because 12 feet wide is about the largest you can have in a 20 foot deep room.
> 
> Formula is -
> 20 / 3.68 x 2.37 = 12.88
> 
> Mark


Thanks for pointing this out Mark. So, the ideal HT room measures 20' (6m) wide and 30' (9m) deep, permitting a 19' wide screen. Am I right?

PS I am just trying to get things really clear here, not only for the theoretical sake. I have friend who is buiding a new house and I like to give him the best advice on how to prepare his own HT.


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> Thanks for pointing this out Mark. So, the ideal HT room measures 20' (6m) wide and 30' (9m) deep, permitting a 19' wide screen. Am I right?


Actually the ideal room also requires careful consideration for room acoustics as well.

For example, a room's length should never be greater than 3x times the height, which is why you see room ratios like 1.0:1.6:2.3. 

Then you still have to take the screen height saeating distance into account...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> Actually the ideal room also requires careful consideration for room acoustics as well.
> 
> For example, a room's length should never be greater than 3x times the height, which is why you see room ratios like 1.0:1.6:2.3.
> 
> Then you still have to take the screen height saeating distance into account...
> 
> Mark



OK Mark, we are getting closer....

So if the maximum room height is 8' (2.45m), 
the maximum room depth should be 8'x3=24' (7.3m), 
the maximum screen width 24'/3.68x2.37= 15.5' (4.7m)
the corresponding screen height (at 2.37:1 projection) 6.5' (2.0m)

I then would put the screen 1.5' up from the floor.
At a viewing height of 3.5' (eye level) I will be at about 1/3 of the screen height.
Believe that's OK?

What do you think?

Maikel.


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> OK Mark, we are getting closer....
> 
> So if the maximum room height is 8' (2.45m),
> the maximum room depth should be 8'x3=24' (7.3m),
> the maximum screen width 24'/3.68x2.37= 15.5' (4.7m)
> the corresponding screen height (at 2.37:1 projection) 6.5' (2.0m)
> 
> I then would put the screen 1.5' up from the floor.
> At a viewing height of 3.5' (eye level) I will be at about 1/3 of the screen height.
> Believe that's OK?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Maikel.


I think the following would work really well (actually know this as I have built one in the past)

Room Ratio

1.0 : 1.6 : 2.3

Room Size

2445mm x 3912mm x 5624mm

Screen Size (MAX)
5624mm / 3.68 x 2.37 = 3622mm x 1528mm

Screen Size (MIN)

5624 / 5.18 x 2.37 = 2573mm x 1086mm

Seating Distances

MAX screen - Not less than 3056mm with 4584 being preferred.
MIN screen - Not less than 2172mm and not farther than 4344mm with 3258mm being preferred.

Surrounds to be at 3x image height...

Mark

PS You wil notice that even with the largest screen size there is roughly 150mm oneach side for the side masking curtains...


----------



## muzz

Never even considered CIH, because I also always felt that the lenses were WAY over my budget.

I now see that Mark has made this an affordable endeavor, that I may look into now.

Thanks Mark

Gary


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> I think the following would work really well (actually know this as I have built one in the past)
> 
> Room Ratio
> 
> 1.0 : 1.6 : 2.3
> 
> Room Size
> 
> 2445mm x 3912mm x 5624mm
> 
> Screen Size (MAX)
> 5624mm / 3.68 x 2.37 = 3622mm x 1528mm
> 
> Screen Size (MIN)
> 
> 5624 / 5.18 x 2.37 = 2573mm x 1086mm
> 
> Seating Distances
> 
> MAX screen - Not less than 3056mm with 4584 being preferred.
> MIN screen - Not less than 2172mm and not farther than 4344mm with 3258mm being preferred.
> 
> Surrounds to be at 3x image height...
> 
> Mark
> 
> PS You wil notice that even with the largest screen size there is roughly 150mm oneach side for the side masking curtains...


Hi Mark, 

I do not understand the 3x image height for the surrounds. Having a 9' wide and 3.8' high screen you would have to hang the surrounds 11.4' from the floor???? :unbelievable:

Maikel


----------



## Mark Techer

maikeldepotter said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I do not understand the 3x image height for the surrounds. Having a 9' wide and 3.8' high screen you would have to hang the surrounds 11.4' from the floor???? :unbelievable:
> 
> Maikel


No 3x the image height off the screen or 90 degrees to the seating positon of 3x the imaghe height if that makes sense...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mark Techer said:


> No 3x the image height off the screen or 90 degrees to the seating positon of 3x the imaghe height if that makes sense...
> 
> Mark


It does.
Thanks, Mark.
Enough info to do some usefull calculations.

Maikel.


----------



## Blaser

The only problem is with HD where a video scaler is required...That adds lots of money!


----------



## Mark Techer

Thankfully now, some projectors do not need a scaler for HD...

Mark


----------



## maikeldepotter

Like the Panasonic pt-ae2000 for "only" 2700 $ or Euro!


----------



## Blaser

OK and for projectors who do not have a scaler for HD, is there a cheep video processor to do do?


----------



## Prof.

The cheapest one that I know of would be the Lumagen Video processor..
You should be able to pick one up for less than $900.00..
http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=dvi_details


----------



## Mark Techer

blaser said:


> OK and for projectors who do not have a scaler for HD, is there a cheep video processor to do do?


Your signature suggests that you have not yet bought the Epson, so may I suggest you look at another projector that does offer scaling for HD?

Mark


----------



## Blaser

Mark Techer said:


> Your signature suggests that you have not yet bought the Epson, so may I suggest you look at another projector that does offer scaling for HD?
> 
> Mark


There is not projector with similar quality and black level at its price delivered here in Egypt. I really like it and I already paid for it, just waiting, should be here mid march.

B rgds
Ahmed Saleh


----------



## Blaser

Prof. said:


> The cheapest one that I know of would be the Lumagen Video processor..
> You should be able to pick one up for less than $900.00..
> http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=dvi_details


That is a good price, but it does not accept 1080p I think:dontknow:

Is there any quality improvement from a video processor? Rather than just doing VS thing?


----------



## Mark Techer

blaser said:


> Is there any quality improvement from a video processor? Rather than just doing VS thing?


If you spend money on them like the Realto (spelling ?), then yes...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

blaser said:


> That is a good price, but it does not accept 1080p I think:dontknow:


To get 1080p you will have to go to the Vision HDP model, at about $1200.00..

You would save yourself a lot of extra expense if you went for a projector that has VS as Mark suggested..
The Epson is a good projector, but there are other excellent projectors that have VS..


----------



## Mark Techer

Interesting add for the Marantz


> Vertical Stretch - Eliminate those unwanted black bars


I do notice there is no mention of the need for an anamorphic lens, but at least it represents a plug and play solution for CIH...

Mark


----------



## BrianAbington

wow...very informative thread...think I need to read this over a couple more times.


----------



## Prof.

If there is anything that you don't understand or not sure about...ask away..:T


----------



## basementjack

not entirely related to this thread, as I don't have an anamorphic lens, but I recently replaced my screen with a DIY 2.4:1 screen

for normal 16x9 source material (such as an xbox game) I have black bars on the left and right.
a nice bonus I hadn't thought about was that the mind/eyes don't notice the black bars on the left and right nearly as much as they do top and bottom.
I think this is because when the projector is zoomed to project a 16:9 image, there is no light spill onto the 2.4:1 screen on either side.

for wide screen movies in the 2.4:1 range, I zoom the projector lens and the movie fills the screen perfectly.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

Everyone who's seen it thinks it's fantastic!


----------



## Prof.

Well you've made a good start Jack, with a 2.4:1 screen..:T

More and more people are going this route now for their standard 16:9 projection..
It does make life a bit easier with just side masking for 16:9, or not bothering with it at all..
I've never found the need to mask my 2.4:1 screen..

However, you are missing out on full image quality, when you zoom to fill the screen..The pixels are being stretched horizontally and vertically, which degrades the image to some degree..

To give you an idea of how much better it would look, when you use an anamorphic lens..
Next time you have a 2.35:1 movie up on the screen, take a close look at how sharp and detailed it is, prior to zooming..
This is almost the same detail you will see, when a lens is used to expand the image..

If you go the DIY way or buy a lens kit assembly, it's not all that expensive to have a very reasonable anamorphic lens..


----------



## basementjack

Hey Prof, there's no doubt the anamorphic lens is the way to go
currently, I have a 720 projector, and I sit just beyond the point where I would see screen door when the image is 10 feet wide (thats how wide my screen is)

I've sat on the lens sidelines watching people with more disposable income than myself enjoy some really spectacular setups.

What are the DIY lenses costing these days?


----------



## Prof.

basementjack said:


> Hey Prof, there's no doubt the anamorphic lens is the way to go
> currently, I have a 720 projector, and I sit just beyond the point where I would see screen door when the image is 10 feet wide (thats how wide my screen is)


That's very nice wide screen and it would look absolutely brilliant with Anamorphic projection..



> What are the DIY lenses costing these days?


OK..There are two ways of going DIY..

1. Buying prisms from someone like this http://www.crystalfactory.com/CWD46-CWD57-CWD68.asp 
The 5"x7" is the size you need, and if you have just rudimentary carpentry skills, it's very easy to make a case for them..
Mark and myself can give you all the info. you need to do this..

2. You can buy a lens kit from HT Brothers or CAVX..I have the CAVX lens..http://cavx.blogspot.com/2007/04/4-prism-lens.html
Just scroll down for pricing..

As you can see, a considerable saving on buying commercial lenses..


----------



## AngelEyes

This is a really useful thread, thanks 

I don't even have a projector but when I do I would like to do it 'properly' and go for a CIH setup. This thread has helped me understand what actually happens and the benefits.

Can someone tell me the downsides to this approach?

Assuming I have a 2.35:1 screen, do I need to remove the lens when using some sources or can you just put up with black bars at the sides? I expect most of my movies will be HD and at least 2.35:1 but some DVDs will be 16:9, the only 4:3 I have will be something like Star Trek on HD-DVD.

What I would prefer is a setup I don't have to keep fiddling with each time I want to play a disc; I use an HTPC as a source so have to jump through enough hoops already :foottap:

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## Prof.

AngelEyes said:


> Assuming I have a 2.35:1 screen, do I need to remove the lens when using some sources or can you just put up with black bars at the sides? I expect most of my movies will be HD and at least 2.35:1 but some DVDs will be 16:9, the only 4:3 I have will be something like Star Trek on HD-DVD.


Adam,

I leave my lens place for 1.78 :1,1.85:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios..
I don't bother about any black bars at the sides.. and with my current screen the blacks are so good that it almost looks like it's masked anyway..
Some people do however prefer to mask the sides when showing 1.78:1 movies..

The other thing that helps to minimize adjusting procedures is that some 1.78:1 movis can be shown in 2.35:1 AR..I do this with a number of my movies..


----------



## takumi

what is the best projector for Anamorphic viewing?under $5k


----------



## Prof.

Hi takumi and welcome..

The best projector for Anamorphic projection will depend on several things..
Firstly, we need to know whether you prefer DLP or LCD.. 
What your projection distance and throw ratio will be..and whether you need a projector with vertical stretch, or whether you have a scaler or DVD player that will do the vertical stretch..
I presume your looking at getting a 1080p projector for that budget..


----------



## tenzip

And does that budget include the anamorphic lens?


----------



## takumi

thanks, now i will search for the difference between dlp and lcd projector. the only info i can give u is that i have 16'x23' media room with french doors in the back, its also pre wired for 5 speakers.


----------



## takumi

scaler? vertical stretch? i have a lot to learn.


----------



## Prof.

takumi said:


> scaler? vertical stretch? i have a lot to learn.


OK..so it looks like you're starting from scratch..
This makes it a simple choice if you follow what a lot of people have done, who have an anamorphic system..

DLP projectors have a number of makes that provide vertical stretch..and is generally the preferred type of projection system..

Vertical stretch is where the projected image is electronically stretched vertically by the projector, which makes people look tall and skinny..and then the lens expands the image horizontally to restore the correct geometry..
Without going into all the other aspects of this..I suggest that you have a good read of my "16:9 vs 2.37:1 CIH Screen" in this forum..as well as the postings by Mark Techer..
You will find all you need to know about Anamorphic projection..

As far as the makes of projector to look at..These would be my choices..

Benq
Optoma
Sony
Panasonic

All have the vertical stretch facillity..but some of the earlier models may not..

I see your theatre room is 23' long..so I would get a projector that has a fairly long throw lens, to help reduce pincushion effect..


----------



## takumi

long throw lens, i guess that would narrow my choices. I will do a search on the pincushion effect


----------



## Mark Techer

A long throw can be determined by two methods - 
1. The Throw Ratio where the native 16:9 image width is divided into the distance from the screen to the projector.
2. How many image heights the projector can be back from the screen. 

If we take my BenQ W5000, at the min zoom (smallest image) the TR (from 1) is about 2.2) or 3.1 times the image height. Therefore I would really consider the BenQ W5000 to me a mid range throw device, not a long throw device which would be closer to 3.7x the image height...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> If we take my BenQ W5000, at the min zoom (smallest image) the TR (from 1) is about 2.2) or 3.1 times the image height. Therefore I would really consider the BenQ W5000 to me a mid range throw device, not a long throw device which would be closer to 3.7x the image height...
> 
> Mark


Mark...At a 2.2 TR..do you notice much difference in pinchusion effect over your previous Sony projector..which had a much lower TR I believe.?

I always thought that the earlier BenQ projectors had a fairly short throw lens, but I'm at 3.5 times the image height, with a 1.8 TR.!!


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> Mark...At a 2.2 TR..do you notice much difference in pinchusion effect over your previous Sony projector..which had a much lower TR I believe.?
> 
> I always thought that the earlier BenQ projectors had a fairly short throw lens, but I'm at 3.5 times the image height, with a 1.8 TR.!!


Prof,

Maybe I have got the math wrong...and it looks like your right...

My screen is 949mm high x 2.37 = 2250mm.

1st row 2000mm.

2nd 3000mm (a bit tight).

Projector, just behind that at about 3200mm.

Therefore TR should be 3200mm / (949 x 1.78) = 1.89:1

Sorry for the confusion about the 2.2TR...

So anyway, the pincusion was less than the 1.3:1, but not totally reduced. My screen is adjustable, so I can compensate here. 

I am however looking to extend the Throw Ratio, so will most likely go to a VC lens next. 

The TR won't change as TRs for VCs are taken off the Scope Image width, not the 16:9 image width, but the projection distance will increase 3200mm to over 4250mm allowing better spaced seating.

Also with a VC, you don't get pincushion at all and I can actually go back to a flat screen. What you get is "barrelling" but the barrelling is much less than the pincushion. 

CA that normally runs vertcially with a HE will now run horizontally, but I am not expecting to see any CA with my new lens (a shamless plug ) that is under development right now and will use achromatic doublets.

Lastly is the focus issue where typically a DIY prism lens tends to loose a bit of shapness towards the edges, the VC maintains sharpness all the way and this is why Panamorph used the VC design for so many years. If there is to be any loss in sharpness with the VC, it will be seen at the top and bottom of the image not the sides. 

My lens is also cylindrical, not prismatic, so I have designed anstigmatism correction into the design as well...

The only problem with using a VC is that the lens must remain in the light path all the time or the 16:9 image become much taller. This is not really a problem (with 1080 anyway) as the light levels, pixel density and colour all remain the same when leaving the lens in place - which I have been doing anyway with my HE lens. Removing the lens may even reqire two (or more) calibration settings...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Prof,
> 
> Maybe I have got the math wrong...and it looks like your right...
> 
> My screen is 949mm high x 2.37 = 2250mm.
> 
> 1st row 2000mm.
> 
> 2nd 3000mm (a bit tight).
> 
> Projector, just behind that at about 3200mm.
> 
> Therefore TR should be 3200mm / (949 x 1.78) = 1.89:1


It looks like your screen size and TR are almost identical to mine.:bigsmile:..except I don't sit quite as close as you do..don't have the same resolution as the W5000..




> So anyway, the pincusion was less than the 1.3:1, but not totally reduced. My screen is adjustable, so I can compensate here.


I'm guessing that with your current set up now, you probably have about the same amount of pincushion that I'm getting.. 
It would seem that the W5000 would fit nicely in my room.. 



> The TR won't change as TRs for VCs are taken off the Scope Image width, not the 16:9 image width, but the projection distance will increase 3200mm to over 4250mm allowing better spaced seating.


WOW!!.I had no idea that VC would increase the projection distance by that much!!..which would put my projector outside in the yardl!!:bigsmile:



> Also with a VC, you don't get pincushion at all and I can actually go back to a flat screen. What you get is "barrelling" but the barrelling is much less than the pincushion.


That would be nice to have but unfortunately I don't have the length in the room.. 



> CA that normally runs vertcially with a HE will now run horizontally, but I am not expecting to see any CA with my new lens (a shamless plug ) that is under development right now and will use achromatic doublets.


I'm very interested to see the pics of that lens when it's finished..



> Lastly is the focus issue where typically a DIY prism lens tends to loose a bit of shapness towards the edges, the VC maintains sharpness all the way and this is why Panamorph used the VC design for so many years.


That would be nice to have..




> If there is to be any loss in sharpness with the VC, it will be seen at the top and bottom of the image not the sides.


I would find that annoying, because I'm more aware of the sharpness, top and bottom of an image when watching a movie, rather than the sides..and it's only when I specifically look at th sides that I notice it in some scenes.. 



> My lens is also cylindrical, not prismatic, so I have designed anstigmatism correction into the design as well...


Cool!!



> The only problem with using a VC is that the lens must remain in the light path all the time or the 16:9 image become much taller. This is not really a problem (with 1080 anyway) as the light levels, pixel density and colour all remain the same when leaving the lens in place - which I have been doing anyway with my HE lens.


Likewise for me...I'm even leaving the lens in place for all AR's of the movies I buy or rent, so everything is viewed in cinemascope...even if the occassional head gets chopped off!!


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> It looks like your screen size and TR are almost identical to mine.:bigsmile:..except I don't sit quite as close as you do..don't have the same resolution as the W5000..


1080 rez allows you to sit close as you simply do not see the pixel structure. 2x the image height is actually quite good, but until I saw this for myself, I didn't believe it...





> I'm guessing that with your current set up now, you probably have about the same amount of pincushion that I'm getting..
> It would seem that the W5000 would fit nicely in my room..


Probably would...I like the BenQ despite the neg reviews it got from around the world....



> WOW!!.I had no idea that VC would increase the projection distance by that much!!..which would put my projector outside in the yardl!!:bigsmile:


I want the projector behind the seating and not above it, so this is the only way to do that...


> That would be nice to have but unfortunately I don't have the length in the room..


Can't have everything 




> I'm very interested to see the pics of that lens when it's finished..


There will be plenty of pictures, don't worry about that 



> I would find that annoying, because I'm more aware of the sharpness, top and bottom of an image when watching a movie, rather than the sides..and it's only when I specifically look at th sides that I notice it in some scenes..


 And the reason I am going cylindrical this time too - you can adjust the focus of the lens to be razor sharp corner to corner - prisms will never allow that..




> Likewise for me...I'm even leaving the lens in place for all AR's of the movies I buy or rent, so everything is viewed in cinemascope...even if the occassional head gets chopped off!!


I won't chop heads. I use eithe the 4x3 mode or the letter boxed mode to ensure that I have true CIH for those ARs...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Probably would...I like the BenQ despite the neg reviews it got from around the world....


I've only ever seen good reviews..What are the negative aspects?



> And the reason I am going cylindrical this time too - you can adjust the focus of the lens to be razor sharp corner to corner - prisms will never allow that..


So, still no possibilities for marketing the new lens.?



> I won't chop heads. I use eithe the 4x3 mode or the letter boxed mode to ensure that I have true CIH for those ARs..


.
I'm afraid I've been utterly spoilt with cinemascope images..to the point where I'm very reluctant to watch any movies in 1.78...It just seems so boxy!!..almost like the old 4:3 box TV..:R


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> I've only ever seen good reviews..What are the negative aspects?


Where to begin? I don't want to come across as negaitve, but there are many issues with these projectors. BenQ have done the right thing and arranged repair or exchange when faults are reported so well done to them for that. The 8720 was a beast of a projector, and I had just hoped that quality would have been carried into the new models. It seems that was not the case and that legacy ended at W10000. 

Some of the issues are simply manufacturing - the have done the right thing by keeping prices low, but QA did drop a touch - it had too. Take the lenses for example. Many (not all, as mine seems to be one of the good ones) have silicon contamination. I am told that this means that the sand used to make the glass was not pure silcon sand, and I have even seen artifacts such as "blue blobs" (like dust blobs on LCDs) projected on screen from several W5000s and a W20000. 

Light leakage is a concern and it too can be seen on screen in some instances because of the way the vents are aligned.

FW updates - BenQ have been really good here updating FW for free and even arranging pick up and drop off of the units for people - talk about great customer service here!!!

But for the money, this product is still one of the best projectors out there and allowing true HD for that price is something BenQ have done well...




> So, still no possibilities for marketing the new lens.?


No, I have the ZEMAX designs now  Just looking for manufactures that can make that diameter lenses. As soon as I get glass, I will be posting images - lots of them 




> I'm afraid I've been utterly spoilt with cinemascope images..to the point where I'm very reluctant to watch any movies in 1.78...It just seems so boxy!!..almost like the old 4:3 box TV..:R


Scope is great, but not everythig was filmed that way, so in the name of "preserving the art" I will watch the smaller ARs when such films are presented as such.

For me, AR change is easy. I just switch from Letterbox to the 4 x 3 mode. For you, you would also have to toggle the EZ View mode taking the player back to WIDE first, then switching the projector to 4 x 3...

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark Techer said:


> Where to begin? I don't want to come across as negaitve, but there are many issues with these projectors. BenQ have done the right thing and arranged repair or exchange when faults are reported so well done to them for that. The 8720 was a beast of a projector, and I had just hoped that quality would have been carried into the new models. It seems that was not the case and that legacy ended at W10000.
> 
> Some of the issues are simply manufacturing - the have done the right thing by keeping prices low, but QA did drop a touch - it had too. Take the lenses for example. Many (not all, as mine seems to be one of the good ones) have silicon contamination. I am told that this means that the sand used to make the glass was not pure silcon sand, and I have even seen artifacts such as "blue blobs" (like dust blobs on LCDs) projected on screen from several W5000s and a W20000.
> 
> Light leakage is a concern and it too can be seen on screen in some instances because of the way the vents are aligned.
> 
> FW updates - BenQ have been really good here updating FW for free and even arranging pick up and drop off of the units for people - talk about great customer service here!!!
> 
> But for the money, this product is still one of the best projectors out there and allowing true HD for that price is something BenQ have done well...


That is surprising!..I had no idea they were having so many problems..and no FW update is going to fix light leakage problems, or contaminated lens elements..and I can't see BenQ looking for a replacement lens, that doesn't have any contamination!!..

I would have to seriously re-think about getting one, when I upgrade to 1080p..
Pity really, as they looked to be a good choice for Anamorphic projection..:sad: 
It's good to hear at least, that BenQ are doing the right thing by their customers..

Have you had this problem of light leaking onto the screen..or does the lens help to block this off.?




> No, I have the ZEMAX designs now  Just looking for manufactures that can make that diameter lenses. As soon as I get glass, I will be posting images - lots of them


Probably your best bet would be China..I had the name of a lens manufacturer in China who would make up any type of lens..and in relatively small quantities..I'll see if I can dig it up..




> For me, AR change is easy. I just switch from Letterbox to the 4 x 3 mode. For you, you would also have to toggle the EZ View mode taking the player back to WIDE first, then switching the projector to 4 x 3...


Actually it's the same for me...The player stays on WIDE all the time and I just have to press 4 x 3 on the projector remote to go to 16:9..:bigsmile:


----------



## Mark Techer

Prof. said:


> Have you had this problem of light leaking onto the screen..or does the lens help to block this off.?


In the my case, the light leak is up higher than the screen, close to the ceiling. It is light coming out the exhaust vent. 

Don't let the problems I have high lighted put you off. The projector is still very very good, but I have identified and reported the problems and thought I would share them here...




> Probably your best bet would be China..I had the name of a lens manufacturer in China who would make up any type of lens..and in relatively small quantities..I'll see if I can dig it up..


That would be very good if you could Prof, thanks...



> Actually it's the same for me...The player stays on WIDE all the time and I just have to press 4 x 3 on the projector remote to go to 16:9..:bigsmile:


Yes, that is it 

Mark


----------



## Prof.

Mark..This is the Chinese lens maker I was referring to..

http://en.highlight-opt.com/GeneralContentShow/&contentid=78c7aacf-3d0f-43b7-af2c-31c33c720fd0.html
You might even find something suitable off the shelf..


----------



## Mark Techer

Thanks Prof 

Mark


----------



## mnfish

Mark, Any news of the new lens yet?


----------



## mnfish

BTW..I have a BenQ W5000 and am looking a getting or making a lens. I've heard good things about these projectors and was suaded over the Sony's, which I could get cheaper, for this one. I have a Screen Innovations Reference 92" 16:9 screen new in the box but am going to sell it and make a 110" 2:35:1 screen. I think in white? 1.0 gain? I'm not sure what my throw will be but I will probably hang the screen then move the projector back until I get the height correct on the v stretch mode and put it there on the ceiling. Will I need the anamorphic lens in place first before I do that? Might be hard to do? I might have to have two people hep me to do that?


----------



## SAY IT LOUD

Here in the first pic is my DIY 16:9 painted screen and the second is DIY 2:39 painted screen. You can see the size difference between the steinman audio center and my DIY center in the second pic with my DIY sub.


----------



## Prof.

Nice job Troy..:T
What paint did you finish up using on the screen?


----------



## SAY IT LOUD

Thanks Prof used British Paints Ultra Flat white designed for projector screens. I used my existing wall as it was in great condition. 2 coats with a mohair roller with a 75mm flat black border the screen is 2:39 130" cheap total cost 2L ultra flat $30AU bunnings flat black 500ml $8.70AU TOTAL $38.70AU BARGAIN! The room is painted in MOJO flat. Its like a dark blue purple mix.


----------



## Prof.

I hadn't realised that it was a 130" screen..That's quite a big screen and it sounds like you did it all for a very low price..Well done :T


----------



## Prof.

This should be asked in the Screen Discussion forum..
Post moved..


----------



## NBPk402

I see a lot of anamorphic lens for sale on eBay for cameras and movie projectors... Would these work? I ask this because I see them from $100-$1000, which is way cheaper than a store bought anamorphic lens for a projector. What would I look for in a lens if I want to buy one and then DIY the mounting sled?My room is 23' long and I am looking at a 14' wide 2.40 CH screen.


----------



## Prof.

Ron,

One of the problems with using camera or cinema projector lenses is the diam. of the lens..
As you know, anamorphic lenses generally use large diam lenses..e.g ISCO and the Prismatic lenses..because you need to keep reduction in light transmission to a minimum..
In your case using a very wide CIH screen, you're going to need all the light you can get!
I would look for a second hand ISCO or similar lens..
With the advent of memory lens projectors, there should be some second hand anamorphic lenses around..


----------



## NBPk402

There is a variation in post number 1 that you are not showing I believe...
If you set your height for no border top or bottom on a 16x9 image, and then zoom in with a 2.37 image (of course you need to have a screen that is wide enough for the 2.37)... You will not have any bars when you view a 2.37 movie, and you can mask the sides when you have a 16x9 movie (and unzoom), correct? I am asking this because I just picked up a Panasonic AE8000 with power zoom, focus, and memory.


----------



## Prof.

Yes that is correct..The diagrams on page one just show the effect of adding an anamorphic lens with no zoom and stretching the image electronically to fill the screen top and bottom..The lens then expands the image to fill the width of the screen..

If your projector has memory lens, then no zooming is required..apart from some initial zoom when you first setup the 16:9 image on the 2.37 screen.. You then just set the correct aspect ratio in the menu and you usually have a button on the remote to switch between the two AR's..At least that's how mine is setup..


----------



## HatlessChimp

Below is me unboxing and testing the Epson 6040ub/ 9300. Very happy with it so far! Most would be more than happy with it. If you watch any sport or play games then you should be leaning towards a 16:9 but then rooms can play a big part too but although I game a lot I love CIH and will go a 135" 2.37:1 AT screen in the new house






Gaming is insane on it - Battlefield 1 on PC


----------



## Prof.

Nice projector!..:T It should look brilliant on a 135" 2.37 screen..


----------



## tbase1

2:35.1 is the way to go...........I'm looking to go scope curve next.


----------

