Cinemascope projection

[edwinr]

I reckon it's now time to upgrade to a cinemascope screen. I currently use a pulldown 16:9 92 inch screen. When playing DVD blockbuster 2.37:1 widescreen movies on a 16:9 screen, I get grey bars top and bottom, losing around 25% of the picture.

Soooooo...

I'm going to buy a cinemascope fixed screen - probably a 110 inch because sitting around 25 feet from the screen, any bigger will be tiresome to watch. Plus I may lost a little resolution and brightness with my Panasonic PT AE700 720p projector. I intend to upgrade my projector somethime this year to 1080p, but I'm in no hurry.

There's a couple of ways to utilize a true cinemascope screen with a standard projector. The best way is to use an upscaler and an anamorphic lense. Check out this Australian website. They ship all over the world: http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/ Using the upscaler and anamorphic lens you use all the projectiion resolution available. But, I don't want to splash out on an upscaler and anamorphic lens at the moment.

So the elcheapo way to do it is as follows. Buy a cinemascope screen, set it up as per normal, then using a widescreen DVD, zoom the projejctor out until the top and bottom bars disappear. Viola, a cinemascope image. There are some drawbacks though. I may have to manually adjust the zoom on the projector for each movie. By zooming out, the pixels increase in size by around 33% - this is not a real big issue with HD and full HD projectors I suppose as long as I don't go too big with the screen. It has been suggested that darker walls or a dark curtain behind the cinemascope screen will absorb residual light from the top and bottom bars.

Anyone else tried this???

The pic below depicts what a 2.37:1 widescreen movie would look like on a standard 16:9 screen with the top and bottom bars 'greyed out' by the projector. The white side panels depict the additonal screen size available using a cinemascope screen.

[edwinr]

Here's a pic with the above image expanded using an anamorphic lens. I would get a similar effect (although not quite as sharp) just zooming my projector out. I have to say the cinemascope image looks stunning...

[garyrc]

Please be sure to let us know how the "zoom out" solution works ..... I'm considering it for later.

You might be able to tolerate (and enjoy!) an even bigger screen when you get 1080p... so you might want to get the larger screen (or closer seating) now, if you can afford it. Although even 1080p is lower resolution than the potential of a film system, so one has to push video systems carefully, it is worth noting that the size of the widescreen image on your retina when you are sitting in the midsection of the downstairs seating of some real movie theaters is much larger than the retinal size you would get with a 25' distance on a screen 110" wide (or diagonal, for that matter). Here are examples of approximately equivalent image sizes on the retina, based on my measurements with a detachable camera viewfinder:

.144 inch true width (not diagonal) 2.35:1 Home Theater screen, as seen from 13 feet away

. approx. 42 foot wide (chord of the arc of the curved screen set in the curved curtains with a 52 foot wide curtain aperture -- there was some masking at each side for 35 mm projection) of the Coronet Theater in San Francisco as seen from the center of the 12 th row from the screen (at the Coronet, the seats went right down to within 3 feet of the chord of the screen arc, with no orchestra pit and no stage taking up space, so the 12 th row would be closer to the screen than in most converted stage theaters -- this was typical of theaters renovated by Magna theater corp).

The above Coronet theater example was for 35 mm projection. At first, 70 mm projection at the Coronet produced a much bigger image on the retina than 35 mm. For the first two 70 mm (Todd-AO, in this case) films shown at the Coronet, the full 52 foot curved width was used, producing a near hypnotic image so large that you could move back to the 20th row and see at the same size on the retina as 35 mm from the 12 row (and the same apparent image size as the 144 inch wide Home Theater screen at 13 feet in our first example, above, except that the Todd-AO image was also a bit higher, because the aspect ratio was 2.20 : 1 instead of 2.35 :1). Unfortunately, since makers of other 70 mm processes did not want to use (or pay for?) Todd-AO's correction for a deeply curved screen, a somewhat flatter screen was installed behind the curtains, and they got cheap, so it was a bit smaller. For the next 45 or so years, 70 mm projection produced only a slightly bigger image on the screen than did 35 mm CinemaScope or 35 mm Panavision. A few theaters did retain their deeply curved screens for a few decades -- the Century 21 in San Jose, and the New Pacific in Hollywood, to name two.

BTW, a minority of 2.35:1 widescreen films were made in real Cinemascope, (often written CinemaScope and nicknamed " 'scope") which was the brand name for Fox's wide screen process (they often rented it out for other studios to use) ... later processes were better, but some in the industry called them " ' scope," as well. When Panavision came along most people saw it as an improvement, with less visual distortion, although virtually all CinemaScope films had at least their original sound elements recorded in stereo, and a disgusting number of early Panavision films were recorded in mono, so we can't get DVDs or Blu ray disks with stereo sound for some of them. Too bad. 70 mm processes were potentially larger, sharper, brighter (bigger hole - better projectors & arc lamps), with more intense color (more dye per unit of screen space). They included, for 2.2:1, Todd-AO, Panavision 70 (later "Super Panavision 70"), Technirama 70 (later "Super Technirama 70), and many more. For wider aspect ratios, they had Ultra Panavision 70 and MGM Camera 65. Virtually all 70mm films had stereo sound.

[bhendrix]

From the Projector Central review of the Panasonic PT-AE3000U

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae3000_projector_review.htm

Lens Memory. Are you interested in Cinemascope 2.35 widescreen format? A lot of home theater enthusiasts who are mostly interested in widescreen movie viewing (as opposed to HDTV sports and 16:9 HD broadcast programming), are considering the wider format 2.35 screens these days since most movies being made are in this format. The problem has always been how to get the picture from a native 16:9 format projector to fill a 2.35:1 widescreen. The traditional method is to use an external anamorphic lens which can optically distort the image from a 16:9 aspect ratio into the wider 2.35 format. This certainly is one option. Unfortunately, anamorphic lenses cost a lot of money. Typically they are more expensive than the AE3000. So they add a huge expense that most people thinking about buying the AE3000 wouldn't want to pay.

The "poor man's" way to solve the problem has been to use a projector with a long enough zoom lens to move the image size back and forth-zooming to wide angle to fill a 2.35 screen, then zooming forward to fill the vertical height of the screen when a 16:9 or 4:3 image is being viewed. This eliminates the need to buy an anamorphic lens, but it introduces the nuisance factor of having to manually adjust the zoom lens and (often) vertical picture height as well every time you change the format of the viewing material. This can get annoying in a hurry.

Panasonic's "Lens Memory" system is a clever and exciting solution to this problem. If you have a 2.35 (or 2.4) screen, you can set up the projector with the lens toward the wide angle end, and fill the screen exactly to the format of a 2.35 (or 2.4) movie. Activate the Lens Memory feature, and it will go through a routine to memorize the exact position you have selected for the lens. Then zoom the lens forward so that a 16:9 picture fits perfectly into the height of your 2.35 screen. Now activate the Lens Memory feature again, and it will memorize this setting as well. Once you have done this, the AE3000 will automatically reset the lens either to 2.35 or 16:9 at the touch of a button. Presto! You've got an easy-to-use solution for 2.35 Cinemascope movies without the burdensome expense of the anamorphic lens.

We examined this feature closely to ensure that the zooming adjustments were precise and that focus was maintained after each re-adjustment. On our test sample, it passed with flying colors. In addition, keep in mind one thing: If your projector is mounted above the centerpoint of the screen so that it is projecting at a downward angle, the center of the projected image will shift vertically when moving from 2.35 to 16:9. The good news is that the AE3000 has the ability to reposition the 2.35 image up or down within the 16:9 native frame, and this capability has been integrated into the Lens Memory feature. So if your projector is mounted above the center of the screen, you can set both the lens position and the position of the image in the frame, and they will both adjust with a single touch of the button.

[edwinr]

Thanks bhendnrix. The Panasonic PT-AE3000 was recently reviewed by Smarthouse. In relation to the lens memory they said:

By collaborating with leading Hollywood filmmakers, Panasonic has enhanced the unit's performance to ensure that it produces images that reflect the director's artistic vision and intent. Additionally, cinematic widescreen formats like 21:9 or 16:9 may be set at the touch of a button, thanks to the projector's Lens Memory feature, which allows easy adjustment of different aspect ratios by storing three different preset zoom/focus positions that correspond exactly to a user's favourite cinemascope and TV aspect ratio.

The Panasonic's lens memory feature would possibly negate the need for an anamorphic lens (for me anyway). I'll check it out. The problem is, the Panasonic is expensive. But maybe not more than a standard projector, scaler and anamorphic lens... You'd still have the top and bottom bars, but a dark curtain or wall would fix that.

And garyrc, thanks for your post. I take your point about future proofing. I should buy a screen for my new 1080p projector, not my current one which is getting a little old. I am eagerly awaiting 'Lawrence of Arabia' on bluray, one of all-time favorite movies. Some of the earlier movies offer stunning colors and definition. Later releases just 'pale' in comparison.

[Youthman]

I chose to go with an 8ft wide (103' diagonal) for my HT. This is my first projection setup. I ordered the Panasonic AE-3000u last week. It arrives on Monday so I'm pretty excited about getting it hooked up and running. Once I decided to go cinescope instead of the standard 16:9, I knew buying an anamorphic lense, sled and scaler was way out of my budget. The memory zoom feature sounds great, I just hope it works as good as it sounds.

I've been following Jason's thread in the AVS Forum since he has a HT about the same size as mine and chose the panny as well. One thing that really impressed me was when he posted this.

Ok, so I gave into temptation.



Just to see what this AE3000 can do, I rigged it up ghetto style on top
of my back row of seating and brought the PS3 down to pop a few movies
in. Keep in mind this is SD DVD and not Blu-Ray. The image is being
projected from about 15-16 feet, and the image you see is roughly 130
inches wide in 2.35. Zoom is pretty much maxed out for this test.



One key thing to keep in mind is that I'm shooting onto a black painted
wall, about the worst possible scenario. This should give you an idea
of what the AE3000 can do. I can't wait to see it against the Carada.

That is just sick! That clear and bright on a black wall? That's pretty amazing. I can't wait to get mine hooked up.

[edwinr]

Now you have my mouth watering, Youthman. I run a PS3 as well. I can't believe the result screening on to a black wall!!!

[IndyKlipschFan]

OK, Please stop me, but I am not so sure that is possible on a black wall?

U sure it is? I just have my doubts! If flat black, much like felt, it should basically dissapear?

And if it is that good, why do you need a screen at all?

I am all for making everything up front black, so the only thing you concentrate on is the picture... (Especially if u hide the speakers too)

[Youthman]

Yeah, if you click on the link to his thread, you will see this picture as well taken on a black wall.

[bhendrix]

I am all for making everything up front black, so the only thing you concentrate on is the picture... (Especially if u hide the speakers too)

Oh, Roger, I just can't bring myself to hiding the Jubilees . . . .

[Youthman]

OK, Please stop me, but I am not so sure that is possible on a black wall?

U sure it is? I just have my doubts! If flat black, much like felt, it should basically dissapear?

I personally do not know the guy but I have no reason not to believe him so I did a little investigating. If you look at his thread, his panny arrived on 11-04-08 (link) and his screen arrived on 12-11-08 (link). If you look at the reflection on the ceiling on Rattatouie screenshot, you can make out a trey ceiling and a small light in the trey. When you look at this page showing the install of the screen, it has the same trey and lights. So that tells me that the screenshots were taken in his theater room. The photo shows that the wall is painted black and one other detail I just saw is that on the page that shows him installing his screen, you can see in the photos of the wall mount, the flash is actually being reflected off the wall instead of being absorbed by the black paint.

I'm no detective, just have too much time on my hands I guess and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think he's for real. Don't really have any reason not to believe him. My guess is that felt has properties (maybe texture wise) that absorbs more light than flat black paint.

[Youthman]

And if it is that good, why do you need a screen at all?

Couple of reasons...

1. Looks cooler than a black painted wall. []

2. Looks even brighter on a screen.

3. Screen that has a bevelled edge and felt conceils any overspill.

4. To keep the Wiimote from hitting your nicely painted black wall. []

All joking aside, a lot of guys in the AVS Forum say you can get a very good picture using white paint on a solid wall or buying black out material and making a DIY screen. I'm just not handy so I bought mine. Took me 10 min to put together.

[DU73]

Youthman - I am friggin lazy today - I havent read the whole post.. just looked at the pics - BUT is that your screen? if it is TOTALLY AWESOME...

and two great movies as well.. and on a Black Wall - where did that idea come from.. well clearly it works.

Excuse me if I have the it all backwards, like I said toooo lazy to read today... just write.. it must be all the fumes from the smoke around here getting to me.. Fires are still burning outa control, death toll at 181 but expected to rise to at least 200 possible into the three hundreds...not included all the injured and houses burned and live stock and pets...

[IndyKlipschFan]

I just can't for the life of me feel this can be done on a black wall. Maybe if a photogrphy guy like colter sias so.. or a stage guy as well... but you can shine any type of light (other than a laser) onto a black surface it just dissapears... or barely comes through?? But a pic liek that... U sure your not getting photo shopped tricked on this one?

So Even a flash light too>>> So help me to understand HOW it can be done..?? esp whites?

[IndyKlipschFan]

BTW, The Cinemascope projection screens ROCK... I have seen few installs and they are fantastic!

[IndyKlipschFan]

I am all for making everything up front black, so the only thing you concentrate on is the picture... (Especially if u hide the speakers too)

Oh, Roger, I just can't bring myself to hiding the Jubilees . . . .

You get a free pass Bill... heheheehehe

[JJkizak]

You guys have me snowed. In the old days an anamorphic lens expanded the horizontal plane 2.66 times the vertical, (later to 2.35 x 1) stretching out the compressed horizontal plane on the film to provide the proper aspect ratio without distortion. The film was taken with the anamorphic lens which squeezed the horizontal plane down 2.66 to 1 (so it would fit into a 4 x 3 aspect space on the film) and when you projected the squashed film you rotated the lens to expand it again to obtain the proper aspect of 2.66 x 1. If you use an anamorphic lens on a 16 x 9 picture and expand it in the horizontal plane only you will get very short fat people. What the hell are you guys talking about? All you have to do is zoom out the projected 2.35 x 1 film to however big you want it without any aspect distortion. Why do you need an anamorphic lens?

JJK

[Youthman]

JJK, you know totally more than I do about this and I have since this is my first experience with projection, I'm pretty new to a lot of this. What I do know is that the AE-3000u does not do what an anamorphic lense & scaler does. Panasonic created an affordable alternative to projecting 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Some call it a poor man's version but to me, $2500 for a projector is making me poor. [] Until Monday, the best display I've owned is a RCA 32" TV. Sad huh. I have yet to buy a plasma or LCD for the living room. One day... The one thing that I really like about the panny is the memory zoom. This allows you to set a preset for zoom & focus for 16:9, memory for 2.35:1 etc so that when you are viewing those sources, you can easily make sure that you have constant height and only grey bars on the side which can easily be masked.

[Youthman]

Youthman - I am friggin lazy today - I havent read the whole post.. just looked at the pics - BUT is that your screen? if it is TOTALLY AWESOME...

No, but mine should look at least that good by Monday when the same projector arrives. When you get a chance, you need to read through this thread to get the whole story. Those screenshots were from a guy in the AVS Forums. He was impatient waiting on his screen to come in so he figured what the heck, I'll shoot it on my wall.

Hate to hear about all the fires. I read about that not too long ago. Were they intentionally set?

[edwinr]

...What the hell are you guys talking about? All you have to do is zoom out the projected 2.35 x 1 film to however big you want it without any aspect distortion. Why do you need an anamorphic lens?

JJK

Let the guys from Aussiemorphic who seem to know what they're talking about explain the use of an anamorphic lens...

Step 1:

We start here with a Cinemascope projection screen that has a ratio of 2.37:1 (21.33 X 9). All cinemascope movies will have grey bars at the top and bottom which make up a total of 25% of the image height. These grey bars are not black as digital projectors cannot project black, only shades of grey (which vary according to the projector being used). Looks rather ordinary don't you think?

There are only 810 viewable lines of resolution for a 1080P Projector and only 540 viewable lines for a 720P Projector.

Step 2:

We then use a projector or an external scaler that can perform the electronic vertical stretch. This stretches the image vertically and utilises the active pixels that are wasted in the grey bars. The problem here is everyone will look tall and skinny. (In this particular shot it's the trees that look out of shape)

We are now using the entire 1,080 lines of vertical resolution for a 1080P Projector and the entire 720 lines for a 720P Projector.

Step 3:

The 3rd step is to use an Anamorphic Lens. The Aussiemorphic Lens is a horizontal expansion lens that optically restores the geometry of the vertically stretch image.

The result is deluxe cinemascope widescreen with no annoying grey bars top or bottom ever again.

Take a look at the top shot (the letterboxed image) and compare it to the image on the left. When you measure the image sizes. What you have is 1.78 X 1 - less 25% for the black bars - so we end up with 1.78 X .75 = 1.335 squares.

But for cinemascope we have 2.37 X 1 = 2.37 squares.

2.37 divided by 1.335 = 1.77. Which means your cinemascope movies, combined with a lens are now 1.77 times larger image than the original letterboxed viewable image.

Not only do you end up with optimal 16:9 image size but you now have a very immersive cinemascope image with more resolution, more detail and higher brightness. This is how they do it at the movies. The ads finish, a lens slides into place and the curtains open up to the walls.

Check out the original link in my first post for the accompanying pictures used to illustrate their argument...