Creating CinemaScope With 2 Projectors

This article is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading.  First it talks about creating a cinemasope image using two projectors.  That leads the viewer to assume you are referring to edge blending (using two projectors, one for each half of the image).  Which of course has its own compromises.

But then it says “The projector used for the 1.78:1 image would be forward of the projector doing the 2.35 wide image.”

OK, so in fact we aren’t talking about using two projectors to create a cinemascope image at all, we are just talking about dedicating one projector to 2.35 and one projector to 1.78.  And even then, the projector used for 2.35 is still only going to be using some of the pixels.

I’m not debating that this is a legitimate alternative approach, albeit one that is appropriate for a ridiculously small number of installations, I just feel that some clarification is due.

Of course some would argue that the positives that a lens such as the Isco gives you far outweigh the VERY minimal distortion it introduces, but that’s a whole debate of its own .

Woulnd’t the distortion inherent in an anamorphic lens system be offset by the fact that you are using the full resolution of the DLP (or D-ILA or LCD) panel?  It seems to me that using ALL of the display area would increase picture contrast and also increase the overall resolution of the image.  Please explain to me how the solution presented here is superior…I am thinking this solution is a kludge.

This, to me seems absolutely ridiculous.  Furthermore its articles like this that make our whole industry look like a bunch of crazies.  I cannot imagine how in any way this would be good for a client.  Waiting for one projector to start and the other to turn off when you want to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1?  Now Mrs. Customer you need to turn on the other projector to watch blu-ray…  Really?  If anyone was this concerned about the tiny amount of distortion or loss you get from using a lens, they would, I hope, just buy a better projector.

jnemesh,

The Isco, which is the standard in anamorphic lenses, results in a contrast reduction of LESS than 5%!  Pincushioning, which is the “distortion” referred to with lenses, is so minimal that it can barely be detected with test images at the outer edges of the screen.  This ASSUMES the lens is Isco and the throw distance is long enough.

The pros are a brighter image and higher resolution and of course the ability to have a BEAUTIFUL 2.35 widescreen image.

Keep in mind when you hear people talking about the negatives of anamorphic lenses that the movies themselves are shot with anamorphic lenses!

I do understand the position of those such as Joe Kane who are opposed to anything that adds any “distortion”, but personally I’ll take the anamorphc lens every time (which are also used in movie theaters BTW).We are talking about personal preference here.  None of my comments should be interpreted as indicating less than the highest respect for Joe’s immense knowledge of all things video.

Good discussion, and indeed in cinema it is done both ways. The theater owners association prefers the anamorphic option for all the reasons we do; more pixels, more light, more contrast for a very minor lens & processing trade-off. A high end lens and video system using dual mode processing and motorized optics allows you to inspect both approaches, and though a pixel phase test pattern can show the effect of a de-mapped scope image, all you need to do is defeat the lens motor and toggle between the 800p and 1080p option with real content to see for yourself. You can’t really see any damage when black bars are filled in, but you sure can see the pixels grow when you zoom up the 800p image to fill a scope screen. That’s the real problem, larger pixels mean smaller screens and a more TV like viewing geometry. Expanding our technology beyond TV limitations gets us closer to the viewing geometry of cinema, and I don’t mean the last row either!
Field of View is the last frontier for higher end home theater, and that is what defines the truly cinematic experience. Try seeing Avatar in one of the new IMAX Digital Cinema theaters (twin 2k DLP’s showing 1080x2048 on screen). It will recalibrate expectations for home cinema in both viewing geometry and brightness, two of my favorite things. The 70 degree VA row is perfectly cool, and it’s in the rear 1/3 of the theater, using 1080p, very much like our own best 3 chip DLP’s.
It’s time we pushed beyond 40 degree viewing angles and moved to the 50’s, 60’s,70’s (over multiple rows of course). Our clients always appreciate a better experience, and its our job to deliver it. It’s a lotta fun too!
JB
Personal Cinema Architect
b/a/s/  b-a/s/  s-p/c/a/

Being in the projector business I’m all for selling more projectors, but I have to take issue with Joe Kane on using two projectors in lieu of an anamorphic lens solution to achieve both 1.78 and 2.35 aspect ratios. The whole point of pre-stretching vertically and then using the outboard lens to stretch horizontally to the 2.35 aspect is so that all of the 16x9 chip is being used…no black bars, better fill, more contrast and brightness. 
If I understand correctly, your article was offering an alternative whereby one projector would be dedicated to 1.78 and the other to 2.35. I’m not sure if the screen is a masking screen or a single aspect screen. If the former, then presumably the projector dedicated to 2.35 would be zoomed out to fill the unmasked 2.35 frame. If the latter, then there would be black bars—either on the top and bottom or the sides, depending on which single aspect was chosen.
So you either lose resolution, contrast and brightness on 2.35 material (but with no black bars)...or you have black bars and lose resolution, contrast and brightness on 2.35 material. How can this be considered a good solution?
It’s true that a good anamorphic lens—one that does not introduce artifacts (i.e. Schneider or ISCO)—can be costly. But if you are going to buy a second projector that is essentially zoomed differently than the first projector, you might as well zoom the first projector as and when necessary and put the cost of the second projector (and the savings in lamps and energy) towards an anamorphic lens.
That’s my take on the matter.
Best regards,
Peter Lazarus
PD Lazarus & Co

Why does a post by Peter Lazarus look as though it was posted by the writer of the article, Robert Archer??

Hi David, Peter sent the comments to me directly.

I asked him if I could post it to add to the online discussion.

Bob Archer

Peter’s a friend, and so is Joe, and the JK approach is valid, in terms of filling a 2.35 native shaped screen with the actual pixel content of the disc, and nothing more (artifactily speaking). It is the practice in mastering labs and post houses to do just that, as their world is pixel analysis as much as anything else. Using indexed zoom and focus is the usual way its done in pro-cinema when they opt not to use anamorphic lenses, but for us, if the CE projos are inexpensive (relatively speaking) you can get the pixel mapped image up on the screen economically. All good, but the goal of pixel mapped 800p scope is best video experience. I choose the anamorphic approach ushered in by Cinewide because you get the maximum viewing geometry, ie a closer to the cinema experience than a video experience, and that’s my goal. Mastering labs are fun too, but small screens in bat caves have experiencial limits when it comes to immersion. Immersion was the first goal of Avatar, as it is for many movie productions. You can’t duplicate the 9th or 10th row at the Samuel Goldwyn Academy theater using 800p pixel mapped images, You’re going back to the 18th or 20th row, and thats the other side of the trade off. Today, at the very high end of Home Cinema, you can use the anamorphic process in combination with indexed lens control. Anamorphic is used to get you to the 235 image size, but for wider content, (2.55, 2.76, & 2.89, all of which is available on BRay), you simply zoom up from scope to cinerama to get rid of the little black bars left when viewing this content on a scope format screen (How the West Was Won is only 660p without the anamorphic process). That amount of zoom is minimal, so projector install placement is more flexible than the non-anamorphic approach (ILS systems require the projo to go in one spot, with only inches of tolerance, sometimes worse than the CRT days). I call this combination ILS anamorphic approach UltraCinewide as it allows a constant height solution for screens built to 2.55, 2.76, or even 2.89:1 aspect ratios. Nothing looks cooler than a truly wide cinematic screen, and the anamorphic process means our 1.78 image size is exaclty the same as it would be under the old video, we just let the width grow, and grow, and grow. That’s cinema! Not TV. We’re lucky to have all these tools and options today. Our rooms are getting better, wider, and brighter!
IMAX Digital is just that, now wait until you see our dual projection DLP 3D home cinema solution, but that’s another story isn’t it.

This is the same effect as using the zoom method but applied to projectors with a zoom range lower than 33% and with a picture offset large enouth to prevent clipping by the projector located at the front. I have not checked but I suspect that this is possible with the Samsung projector that is marketed as being tuned by “Joe Kane”. In that matter, one can suspect some vested interest in selling more projector of this brand. BTW, another solution with low zoom range is to mount the projector on a slider. This is likely to be cheaper than a second projector and will not have any clipping issue. And all this is only possible if you have enough depth in your room to accomodate either way.

“And all this is only possible if you have enough depth in your room to accomodate either way.”

And living in your parents basement with no wife or girlfriend .

The article doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.  Why use 2 projectors if you can just use 1 projector with multiple zoom position memories?

What’s really mind boggling is that Joe Kane, in designing the Samsung didn’t think about doing zoom memories like the Panasonic PT-AE3000/4000.

Why would anybody buy two of Joe Kane’s Samsung plus the hassles of mounting 2 projectors, running two HDMI cables, etc… when it’s only marginally better than the $2000 Panasonic PT-AE4000U?

After I upgraded my professionally installed 1993 theater by myself a few years ago (with a professional carpenter and electrician) I started to throughly enjoy my SONY Ruby, and with blu-ray things are fabulous.  So I haven’t visited this site in a while, and seeing this article on two projectors and some of the comments, I remember why I stopped coming here:  I like movies, and I don’t like neurotic anxiety, so I try to keep the two activities separate.

I can only add that as the most endorsed and most sold anamorphic lens brand, our dealers, partners and OEM projector customers as well as our end-users are some of the most discerning perfectionists we know and I doubt they would buy into (and have bought into) our anamorphic lens solutions for so many years if they did not feel this technology was of significant value.  While it’s certainly possible to add a generic lens to a projector and end up with an unwarranted trade off, this just does not happen with quality optics, whether the older Isco/Schneider cylindrical designs or our newer hybrid cylindrical/prism designs.  The zoom method, of which a dual projector approach is fundamentally an example, still just begs the question of the performance difference between a masked letterboxed image and an anamorphically enhanced image.  The main issue in my mind with the zoom method is pure brightness - you are asking your 16:9 projector to fill 80% more screen area with 25% less of the DLP / LCD / LCOS chip (s). 

The fact that our sales volumes are measured in tons of glass world-wide should represent good evidence that the market has already substantially decided this point.

I guess I should have made it clear in the previous post that I represent Panamorph