Anamorphic Lens

[Marcel Birgelen]

Keep in mind that any form of scaling will also introduce some artifacts, as it's not a simple doubling of pixels in one direction. Back in the Series 1 and Series 2 era, anamorphic solutions for common height screens did make sense economically. If it makes economic sense to do anamorphic right now in OP's situation is hard to judge and probably will mostly depend on what an anamorphic attachment will cost and how long he's going to keep his DP4K around.

The light efficiency, obviously is real, it's simple physics: You're using about 20% more of your DMD surfaces.

The arguments about prime lens movements are real, the constant movements will have effect on focus. I'm afraid hard physical stops are a practical impossibility. Christie CineLife+ projectors do have automatic focus and other automatic calibration features, but I've not used them until now, so I don't know how well they perform in real life. Then again, constant recalibration of professional projection equipment is a simple fact of life.

IMAX could use "non-square pixels" in their DCPs to maximize attainable resolution, but sadly, they don't. While IMAX isn't beholden to the DCI standard for their own formats, DCI itself explicitly forbids non-square pixels in the delivery format, so we'll never get a "true anamorphic" scope format in DCI.

What's somehow sad is that the DLP-based 1.3K pre-DCI projectors came with anamorphic lenses for scope presentations, but the anamorphic lenses for scope, which were a fact-of-life in the 35mm age, were left on the chopping block for the final specifications. I'm pretty sure that decision was being made to make it easier for manufacturers to enter the DCI market. Automatic zoom lenses weren't anything special on digital projectors, but swapping lenses in-flight certainly was...

[Steve Guttag]

Series 0/Mark VII projectors (like the Barco DP40/DP50 and the Christie SLH) were SXGA (1280x1024) projectors and used a 1.5 anamorphic for flat and 1.9 anamorphic for scope. These were the projectors that, essentially, hung off of film consoles with some adaptive optics to massage the light to what the DLP needed. They also hung at an angle. These are the projectors that ran Star Wars EP 1. I don't believe any of them had automatic anamorphic lens or motorized lenses.

Series 1 are the 2K projectors and where NEC enters the game. All three OEMs supported anamorphics (1.25x). The astute person will note that 1.25 does not 2.39:1 make. It makes 2.37 but a 1.25X scale will have FAR fewer artifacts than a proper 1.26x scale will. In fact, Christie offered a WCL lens that was 1.26x (not an anamorphic, merely a 1.26 magnifier). As per DCI rules, they were all motorized to permit an unattended changeover from one format to the next (though not on all projector models from all manufacturers).

DCI rules are that there are to be no "visible" artifacts from the scaling (at the seated position. I've used anamorphics enough, in some higher-end places to know that they don't You get more artifacts from keystone, curved screens (both of which also eliminate "square pixels" ).

Personally, I think anamorphics should have stuck around for constant height theatres. I also think masking should be the norm still as should grand drapes. You know, presentation. However, when the various projector companies got enough lenses to cover just about all combinations of throw ratios, people accepted the zoom more, though, with xenon, hitting SMPTE specs on all formats can be a challenge and will shorten lamp life. With laser, it is less of an issue. Laser has its own issues of its own.

As for DCI...they have a way of changing the rules to suit the "big-boys." Masking was once in the DCI spec. How did the non-motorized Solaria 1 projectors (and some early NEC S2K stuff) get around the unattended changeover between Flat and Scope? Barco licenses 3rd party servers to be used in their projectors...the exact thing that DCI wanted to avoid, referencing back to Digital audio for film where we had three non-compatible digital playback systems. Without VPFs, DCI compliance is more of a suggestion and it was never really enforced anyway. All DCI really cares about, nowadays, is security of the content (before the studios rush digitally perfect copies out to streaming and wonder how it could be stolen).

[James Henry]

I really think TI needs to make a 2.39 aspect ratio chip for constant height theaters and DCI should allow a second scope format for such chips. The flat DCI file would still be exactly the same.

[Ed Gordon]

There are so many Errors in your post that I don't even know where to begin.

Sascha, Feel free to share your knowledge. My ego is can withstand corrections.

[Stefan Scholz]

The problem is that modern non-TI ICPs have flaky support for anamorphic image stretching. Barco's ICP-D is a good example. And while some of the modern Christie projectors might support it, it requires expensive add-on licenses for the "image morphing" features. So, I think that anamorphic for DCI is, unfortunately, mostly dead nowadays and the installations that still use it are mostly legacy installs with limited time left.

Afaik my recent Christie 4435rgb from 2025 has a menu point stating 1.25 x anamorph out or not by clicking. Keystone correction is a standard feature, but the other warping functions are paid extras.

[James Henry]

If only Barco was as open to it as Christie!

[Marcel Birgelen]

With regards to the 2.39 AR native DLP chip: I'm afraid that will remain unobtainium. It even remains to be seen if we ever get a true DCI 8K production DLP chip. The lack of "normal" 8K DLP chips is probably the reason many projector manufacturers are now pushing pixel-shift as an alternative.

For the high-end market, I doubt we'll see a push into 8K projection. I think, active display solutions are the future for this market segment. Resolution is more than just pixel density, it's also color gamut and contrast and modern LED walls do have a clear advantage. Semi-transparent LED walls will hopefully fix the sound issues.

Series 0/Mark VII projectors (like the Barco DP40/DP50 and the Christie SLH) were SXGA (1280x1024) projectors and used a 1.5 anamorphic for flat and 1.9 anamorphic for scope. These were the projectors that, essentially, hung off of film consoles with some adaptive optics to massage the light to what the DLP needed. They also hung at an angle. These are the projectors that ran Star Wars EP 1. I don't believe any of them had automatic anamorphic lens or motorized lenses.

Barco offered the DP30, 40 and 50 at one time. If I remember correctly, the standard version came with a single anamorphic lens mount in front of the prime lens, which you had to manually swap between scope and flat. But there also was an optional dual-lens holder which was automated. The interesting thing is that the motor for that mechanism was already inside the "Light Engine enclosure".

Those Barco projectors were released back in 2002 in close cooperation with Kinoton, which provided the lamp houses and pedestals. The first movie I watched on such a projector was Star Wars Episode 2. Star Wars Episode 1, as far as I can remember, was showcased on two separate technologies, one based on a light-coupled 3-tube CRT projector by JVC/Huges and another one based on TI's DLP chip. The latter one also made it across the pond to a select few locations in Paris and Brussels. I remember seeing Toy Story 2 on such a machine.

Afaik my recent Christie 4435rgb from 2025 has a menu point stating 1.25 x anamorph out or not by clicking. Keystone correction is a standard feature, but the other warping functions are paid extras.

Good to know the option is still there, have you ever checked if it actually works and is it callable via automation cue? The irony is, the sales representative I spoke like 3 or so years ago when we were going to look what would replace our aging DP4K machine, couldn't tell me if Christie would support anamorphic in the "base version", but they were eager to quote me some Christie Mystique licenses.