Anamorphic Lens on Projectors?

[Chris D]

I'm wondering what experience anyone has had using anamorphic lenses to change a 4:3 native resolution projector into one that naturally shows 16:9 widescreen, utilizing FULL vertical resolution. George, I know you specifically use your NEC PJ, which is native 4:3, but do you use an anamorphic lens?

The thing is, I'm dead-set on using a projector that can show a true 720p resolution as a minimum on a 16:9 picture. This means I then either get a WXGA or higher 16:9 native PJ, an SXGA or higher 4:3 PJ and then only use the middle part of the picture to show 16:9 still in 720p, or get an XGA 4:3 PJ and then use an anamorphic lens to keep all vertical resolution in showing the 16:9 picture.

The first option seems the best and easiest, without having to do modifications. But if it comes down to it, what's the cost and difficulty of using an anamorphic lens? How's the results?




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

[Dean McManis]

Chris, I have had a ISCO I anamorphic lens with my JVC G1000 and later G15 projector, and later upgraded to the ISCO II.
Plus I have a Panamorph 2.35:1 liquid anamorphic lens as well.

I have enjoyed the use of the anamorphic lenses for years now with my 4:3 native format projectors. Some lenses squish the image height and maintain the normal width, and others maintain the image height and stretch the image width (ISCO).

The advantages are that you get to use the full 4:3 panel for 16:9 (1.85:1 and 2.35:1 letterboxed movies) resulting in a smoother, and visibly brighter image.

The downsides are that the lenses are not cheap, sometimes have some pincushion distortion, can soften the picture detail, and the 4:3 projector and lens may get close to the cost of actually buying a native 16:9 projector.

I haven't seen the new glass lens Panamorph anamorphic lenses, but the finest quality lenses that I've seen for home theater are by ISCO. These are the anamorphic lenses used in many movie theaters, for traditional film, and new digital movie projectors.

The tricks about having/using a 16:9 lens are that NTSC media is in 4:3 format, except for 16:9 enhanced DVDs. So unless your projector has a full-panel-height (letterbox) mode, or if you have a home theater PC which can stretch the image to 4:3 format, the image will be short and wide.

I use a HTPC for NTSC material, and have a special tweak to alter the image to full height with the JVC for HDTV input. For my NEC DLP 4:3 projector, I remove the 16:9 lens when watching HD material and also watching regular TV (4:3) via DSS, the internet, and video games.

To clarify, I use the same ISCO II lens with both of my projectors because it's easy to setup, and I'm only watching one projector at a time.

I have a big (180"diag) perforated, Grayhawk screen, so I need as much brightness as I can get, and the extra light from the 16:9 lens certainly helps. Plus the smoothing effects of the lens makes the image look more film-like to me, as opposed to the somewhat edgy digital look from a straight projecting digital display. (but some people like that more sharp look).

Also there is an additional benefit that the image smoothing eliminates that moire effect between the pixel gap of the digital projectors and the holes of my perforated screen (not a problem for everyone).

4 years ago when I was first moving to digital projectors (from CRT models) there were only 4:3 projectors available, usually as business projectors, but now there are some very nice 16:9 native projectors out there, so there are more options available for HT use.

-Dean.

[George Bellefontaine]

I had given some thought to an anamorphic lens, but they are abit too pricey. Also, I recently had an opportunity to view a D-VHS movie on my NEC HT1000, and I could be quite satisfied using 1024 x 576 of my panel if and when I ever get into HDTV. Still, if the prices for these lenses ever come down to a reasonable number, I would probably reconsider.




My Homepage!

[Chris D]

Thanks, you two, that's exactly what I need to know. I'm trying to decide whether I should even consider a 4:3 projector with an anamorphic lens or not. Whatever I get, I'm specifying that it HAS to be able to produce a 16:9 image at true 720p MINIMUM.

I've thought about the 4:3 source issue with an anamorphic lens. All television I would watch on the screen would be through a satellite receiver that would output a 16:9 picture, letterboxing the 4:3 image, so when it's stretched with an anamorphic lens it would go back to the original aspect ratio and show properly. I think the only time I would have to remove the lens would be for stuff I show from my VCR, which nowadays would hardly be anything at all.

Dean, I actually had no idea that there were those two types of anamorphic lenses, but it makes sense conceptually. Does one type have any advantages over the other?




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

[George Bellefontaine]

Chris, the new BenQ dlp, that I believe is priced around the NEC HT 1K, is a true WXGA ( 1280 x 720). The BenQ is being favorable compared to the NEC in both picture quality and contrast. If there's a dealer in your area it may be worth a look. Will save you getting into a anamorphic lens situation.




My Homepage!

[Dean McManis]

Dean, I actually had no idea that there were those two types of anamorphic lenses, but it makes sense conceptually. Does one type have any advantages over the other?

Chris,

It really depends on your theater setup and projector used.

There is MUCH more freedom if you are designing a home theater from scratch.

If someone already has their projector and screen installed (especially if they have a pull-down 4:3 screen) then it can be better to choose an anamorphic lens that maintains the image width, and reduces the height.

But for people that want a bigger screen, or have a short throw distance, then using a lens that stretches the image width is better.

VSR has a new Panamorph lens out for under $800 (my 2.35:1 lens had a $2800 list price), so it is a consideration.
http://www.panamorph.com/

The Ben-Q 8700 does look very appealing for under $5000!

[Chris D]

Actually, funny you should mention the BenQ, guys. That's one of the ones on my short list, and I've heard some very good things about it. But I wanted to at least check out my options, such as going with NEC and anamorphic lenses.




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"