|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Best 3D for a HUGE screen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-19-2011 11:08 PM
Amanda,
If you use side-movable masking for Scope (scope is wider than flat), then yes, in a typical cinema environment, I always recommend anamorphics. You don't get 30% more light...it is closer to 23%...maybe a tad more.
The cost of them vary based on the manufacturer selling them. In the states, I think Christie is the cheapest, Barco the most expensive. In fact, Barco barely mentions them and only, sort of, supports them on the "B" series, not the "C".
The means to deal with the anamorphic is built into the TI boards/software. I don't think Barco is putting the anamorphic factor on their software anymore so that would need to be set on the TI software and saved to the appropriate Barco file. Christie definitely still has the factor as does, I believe NEC on their software. In any event, it is set to 1.26 (the amount of anamorphic squeeze). This will merely stretch the height of the image (only) by 26% so when the anamorphic comes down, the width will be spread by 26% to make everything proportionally correct again. Thus, you use all of the pixels on your projector to fill your largest screen. Note, this does NOT increase your resolution (you can't get detail from what isn't there)...but you do reduce your magnification of your pixels in the vertical plane and you get the best light throughput.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-20-2011 08:02 PM
It isn't a bad scaling like you might think... it is a fixed linear type of scaling. Furthermore, it is only in one dimension. The anamorphics are where you are more likely to get artifacts. Only ISCO and Schneider, to the best of my knowledge made/make them. Their quality is pretty high.
But, aside from the light, when you merely zoom the image...you are enlarging all of the pixels and all of the artifacts within your projector (convergence, space between the pixels...etc) so you need to compare the zoomed image with the scaled/stretched image and honestly, in a typical cinema, nobody is going to pick off the anamorphic as the inferior image.
I would be less inclined to use an anamorphic in a review room situation. However, their screens are so much smaller as to not have as much of an issue with light.
However, in a conventional theatre...I'll go further to say, if you have side masking, you are doing it wrong to just zoom the lens...the anamorphic is the superior result when you add up all of the pros and cons.
Before you knock it...give it a try.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic