# Anamorphic Mode & 3D with JVC DLA-RS50



## Sgt Howl (May 6, 2011)

The JVC projector does not support anamorphic mode with 3D inputs. Is there any way to make this work, e.g., with a 3rd-party scaler? This is new to me, so please forgive the newbie question. I basically would like to be able to watch 3D movies in 2.35 x 1. Thanks!


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Welcome to the forum. Skip the anamorphic lens and digital processing. Just use zoom and lens shift.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Sgt Howl said:


> The JVC projector does not support anamorphic mode with 3D inputs. Is there any way to make this work, e.g., with a 3rd-party scaler? This is new to me, so please forgive the newbie question. I basically would like to be able to watch 3D movies in 2.35 x 1. Thanks!


I am not sure why JVC missed this with their new line of projectors. So at this time, the MINI 3D radiance is needed to scale for CIH in 3D. 



Alan Brown said:


> Welcome to the forum. Skip the anamorphic lens and digital processing. Just use zoom and lens shift.


The only plus for the zoom method is the so called 1:1 pixel mapping. Zooming means you throw away 25% of the vertical rez and can't watch dual aspect films like TRON LEGACY in 3D because you go from a scope image to a 16:9 image that over shoots the top and bottom of the screen. 

Granted a good A-Lens costs as much, if not more than the projector it will be used with, however if you want to create truly cinematic images at home, then the A-Lens is the only way to go.


----------



## Sgt Howl (May 6, 2011)

Thanks very much! The Radiance is a great tip.

Best,
Gary


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> I am not sure why JVC missed this with their new line of projectors. So at this time, the MINI 3D radiance is needed to scale for CIH in 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pluses for the zoom method:
-far less cost
-avoids potential scaling artifacts
-avoids light loss from additional optics
-light loss from larger image can be compensated with switching to brighter lamp mode and/or iris setting
-less complexity in design
-less complexity in installation
-no need for a curved screen to correct for pincushion and focus errors
-infinitely adjustable for aspect ratios between 1.78: and 2.40:1 (no black bars or overscan)

Dual aspect ratio films?:
-simply re-adjust the zoom setting (and vertical lens shift if not mounted at screen center)

Cinematic images at home?:
-see all points above

Pluses for typical anamorphic lens method:
-allows for automation of aspect ratio adjustment
-uses full resolution of imager chip(s)


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Alan Brown said:


> Pluses for the zoom method:
> -far less cost


Is the only real plus.



> -avoids potential scaling artifacts


Scaling artifacts are projector based and not something all projectors or scaler do. I don't have any with mine and I am always looking for some to appear. I have seen them on a JVC HD550 once, but it was so small, I don't think anyone else noticed.



> -avoids light loss from additional optics


Lens pending there. If you are concerned about this, you can alway calibrate for lens and lens out.



> -light loss from larger image can be compensated with switching to brighter lamp mode and/or iris setting


Using an Anamorphic Lens allows full panel use, hence more light output period.



> -less complexity in design


In what part? The design for a HT using an A-Lens for CIH is not any different to one that does not, apart from the lens itself. 



> -less complexity in installation


They are not that hard to install. Anamorphic Lenses are pretty much set and forget and enjoy.



> -no need for a curved screen to correct for pincushion and focus errors


The curved screen is for pincushion, not astigmatism correction. That is done in the lens set up and will deliver corner to corner razor sharp images regardless if the curved screen is used or not.



> -infinitely adjustable for aspect ratios between 1.78: and 2.40:1 (no black bars or overscan)


Only with a good scaler and A-Lens is this totally correct. Zooming ALWAYS has overscan, even if that overscan is only black bars. 


> Dual aspect ratio films?:
> -simply re-adjust the zoom setting (and vertical lens shift if not mounted at screen center)


How distracting to suddenly have to stop the film to re-adjust the projector.



> Cinematic images at home?:
> -see all points above


Cinema has used anamorphic lenses since the 1950's. HT has finally caught up.


> Pluses for typical anamorphic lens method:
> -allows for automation of aspect ratio adjustment
> -uses full resolution of imager chip(s)


And the sheer bliss of how good a Scope image (assuming a good lens is used) is


----------



## Sgt Howl (May 6, 2011)

For what it's worth, I have a Prismasonic anamorphic lens and am very happy with it. It makes watching movies a real treat. (Vutec 153" dual format screen). I think I'll take the Radiance recommendation and report back here my findings. Thanks to all who responded to this thread.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

The mini3D should do all you need to do.


----------



## Sgt Howl (May 6, 2011)

Mark, thanks much for the tip. You are right - the Radiance mini does the job. 3D anamorphic works perfectly.


----------



## KelvinS1965 (Feb 6, 2011)

Mark Techer said:


> The mini3D should do all you need to do.


I have one of these with my HD350 along with an Isco II lens. If I ever end up with a (nice cheap used :T) RS40/X3 one day I'm set to go 3D anamorphic, but seeing the lumens issues on some forums maybe not...

I don't generally bother with lens vs zooming arguments these days (in fact I've pretty much stopped bothering posting on AV type forums as I'm busy with my car instead and just enjoying films when I have the time). I bought the Isco as a trial for a cheap price 2 years ago so I could have sold it on if I didn't think it was worth the expense over zooming...I still have it: I believe I benefit by being able to use minimum zoom hence max contrast and the lens/screen gain gives me enough brightness at a modest (by US standards) 9.5' wide screen, plus I can't 'see' the overspill of the black bars (even against a dark screen wall I could detect them).


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

KelvinS1965 said:


> I don't generally bother with lens vs zooming arguments these days


Unfortunately, I think the zoom Vs Lens debates are as thick as those about religion and there will never be an end to them. 

I did like the look on the faces of the people that attended a recent get together I ran about CIH using my new MK5 prototype. The looks certainly meant I was having a win with the lens side of the equation.


----------

