Quote:"There are a couple of problems you run into with a 2.35:1 screen, the first being that there are no consumer projectors available that will project a 2.35:1 image. The name of the game is 1080p and that's 1920 x 1080, a 16:9 ratio. So how do you get a 2.35:1 image from a 16:9 projector?"
Answer:
Use more than one projector. In fact, a cluster of inexpensive projectors. (raid+projectors?)
I don't know if you've heard of this but HP has a project called Pluribus in the works. Here's a link.
That is, in theoru, a really great idea.
The problem is that in order to get an uniform picture, you need to calibrate the projectors to give an identical picture. This may be a problem, especially if they are not the same age/brand/model. LCD panels age and the bulbs age fast.
That is an excellent idea, however the software may be a limiting factor (and trust me, you do not want to be writing software to make a projector work).
Two summers ago, I had the opportunity to visit NASA Ames, out in Moffett California. They showed us the most impressive visual demonstration I have seen, better than IMAX. Three "high definition projectors, projected on a 25 foot wide by 7 feet tall (aprox. from what I remember), all connected to the third fastest super computer in Silicon Valley. They ran google earth for us, and they could zoom in and out sooo fast it felt like you were bungee jumping over LA. Then they did a flyby of the moon, and finally, the most spectacular thing, a fly by of the Martian surface filmed in high definition. By high definition, I mean 3x 1080p type stuff. STUNNING.
So yes, theoretically, this is a somewhat possible solution, but I am not sure if the software/computing power is available.
you bring up a good point. But I assume Anand will send HP an email for request for more information and what not. Since Anand will have a rack of equipment, a rack mount server doing these task isn't really out of the question. but you never know till you try. I hope it works. this would be a godsend not just to Anand but all of us. DIY home theater.
Ah but that's the point of the horizontal expansion lens: it corrects the distortion caused by the vertical stretch. The end result is a screen that is a full 2.35:1 ratio, just like the source content, without any distortion or black bars :)
So if I understand correctly, you're leaning towards scaling vertically and using a CIH lens to tweak the width of the pixels. Onto a curved screen. DIY style.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd get an ulcer trying to make everything just right. Mostly because my pocket book would tell me that I only get one shot. (Yeah, OK. I probably would have run out of money somewhere around buying the lumber for the walls.)
It doesn't seem THAT hard
media player classic handles a ton of aspect ratio/scaling things on it's own right now automagically.
I could have a 640x480 (4:3) source video playing in a 1280x600 (2.13:1) desktop resolution on a 16:10 widescreen LCD and it will scale everything just dandy and put the right amount of black bars up when I full screen the video (i have to tell it to correct the monitor/desktop aspect ratio difference)
I don't understand how scaling then stretching a letterboxed widescreen image can possibly look better. A '1:1 pixel mapping' is already 'using the full resolution of your projector'. There's simply no more image data to display. Stretching the image area out over the otherwise unused pixels is just going to cause blurring as the image is interpolated. It may be an invisibly small amount of blurring with a good scaler, but it certainly can't /improve/ the image quality and might significantly decrease it.
The problem with the zoom method is that some of the projector panel is wasted to project the black bars, so you're not using 100% of your panel resolution. With a good scaler and good optics on your lens, you should be able to produce a fairly sharp image.
All of the 2.35:1 demos I saw at CEDIA last year were done with CIH setups and they all looked quite good. I should know for myself here in a few weeks :)
> The problem with the zoom method is that some of the
> projector panel is wasted to project the black bars,
> so you're not using 100% of your panel resolution.
Why do you want to 'use 100% of your panel resolution' in the first place? I'm assuming the image source is 1080p with letterboxing. That only has enough pixels in it to fill up 66% ish of your panel (at 1:1 mapping). Trying to 'use more of your panel' just blurs the image with no obvious gain.
That said I suppose the image will be slightly brighter, as the zoom solution effectively cuts the lumen output of your projector by a third or so.
The point of using the entire panel is: it projects a 2.35 movie squished horizontally but using every single pixel of the projectors panel (ie: without rendering the vertical black bars). A lens then simply stretches out that squished image back to 2.35 ratio.
Any very good lens will do this with excellent results - sharp as a tack. The image ends up sharper than lossy zooming because you are rendering the source material at full panel pixel resolution, then projecting it at the correct ratio.
Famous last words Anand. The best of luck to you, but considering you mentioned yourself that only a small section of movies are shot in 2.35:1, and no TV/Console games are shown that way, it sounds like a to much work for too little gain. I look forward to you pulling it off though (if anyone can DIY it, you can).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
14 Comments
Back to Article
Deusfaux - Monday, February 11, 2008 - link
He better be going with a fixed height screen setup.Really, its the best way to go.
BugSmashR - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
Quote:"There are a couple of problems you run into with a 2.35:1 screen, the first being that there are no consumer projectors available that will project a 2.35:1 image. The name of the game is 1080p and that's 1920 x 1080, a 16:9 ratio. So how do you get a 2.35:1 image from a 16:9 projector?"Answer:
Use more than one projector. In fact, a cluster of inexpensive projectors. (raid+projectors?)
I don't know if you've heard of this but HP has a project called Pluribus in the works. Here's a link.
http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2007/apr-jun/pluribus.h...">http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2007/apr-jun/pluribus.h...
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/pluribus/">http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/pluribus/
I am interested if this might be the way to go to get super-wide, super-high resolution projection.
I recently bought an Optoma 1690 DLP projector (1280x768) for $380 and if I can pick a few more I thought I might give Pluribus a try.
yonzie - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
That is, in theoru, a really great idea.The problem is that in order to get an uniform picture, you need to calibrate the projectors to give an identical picture. This may be a problem, especially if they are not the same age/brand/model. LCD panels age and the bulbs age fast.
customcoms - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link
That is an excellent idea, however the software may be a limiting factor (and trust me, you do not want to be writing software to make a projector work).Two summers ago, I had the opportunity to visit NASA Ames, out in Moffett California. They showed us the most impressive visual demonstration I have seen, better than IMAX. Three "high definition projectors, projected on a 25 foot wide by 7 feet tall (aprox. from what I remember), all connected to the third fastest super computer in Silicon Valley. They ran google earth for us, and they could zoom in and out sooo fast it felt like you were bungee jumping over LA. Then they did a flyby of the moon, and finally, the most spectacular thing, a fly by of the Martian surface filmed in high definition. By high definition, I mean 3x 1080p type stuff. STUNNING.
So yes, theoretically, this is a somewhat possible solution, but I am not sure if the software/computing power is available.
MGSsancho - Friday, February 8, 2008 - link
you bring up a good point. But I assume Anand will send HP an email for request for more information and what not. Since Anand will have a rack of equipment, a rack mount server doing these task isn't really out of the question. but you never know till you try. I hope it works. this would be a godsend not just to Anand but all of us. DIY home theater.crimson117 - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
I hate watching content that's stretched in some way.I had some sony dvd player that seemed to stretch everything taller, and for the life of me I couldn't get it to stop doing that.
Personally I'd prefer to see a smaller image rather than stretch it to fit a screen.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
Ah but that's the point of the horizontal expansion lens: it corrects the distortion caused by the vertical stretch. The end result is a screen that is a full 2.35:1 ratio, just like the source content, without any distortion or black bars :)Houdani - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
So if I understand correctly, you're leaning towards scaling vertically and using a CIH lens to tweak the width of the pixels. Onto a curved screen. DIY style.Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd get an ulcer trying to make everything just right. Mostly because my pocket book would tell me that I only get one shot. (Yeah, OK. I probably would have run out of money somewhere around buying the lumber for the walls.)
puffpio - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
It doesn't seem THAT hardmedia player classic handles a ton of aspect ratio/scaling things on it's own right now automagically.
I could have a 640x480 (4:3) source video playing in a 1280x600 (2.13:1) desktop resolution on a 16:10 widescreen LCD and it will scale everything just dandy and put the right amount of black bars up when I full screen the video (i have to tell it to correct the monitor/desktop aspect ratio difference)
Starglider - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
I don't understand how scaling then stretching a letterboxed widescreen image can possibly look better. A '1:1 pixel mapping' is already 'using the full resolution of your projector'. There's simply no more image data to display. Stretching the image area out over the otherwise unused pixels is just going to cause blurring as the image is interpolated. It may be an invisibly small amount of blurring with a good scaler, but it certainly can't /improve/ the image quality and might significantly decrease it.Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
The problem with the zoom method is that some of the projector panel is wasted to project the black bars, so you're not using 100% of your panel resolution. With a good scaler and good optics on your lens, you should be able to produce a fairly sharp image.All of the 2.35:1 demos I saw at CEDIA last year were done with CIH setups and they all looked quite good. I should know for myself here in a few weeks :)
Starglider - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link
> The problem with the zoom method is that some of the> projector panel is wasted to project the black bars,
> so you're not using 100% of your panel resolution.
Why do you want to 'use 100% of your panel resolution' in the first place? I'm assuming the image source is 1080p with letterboxing. That only has enough pixels in it to fill up 66% ish of your panel (at 1:1 mapping). Trying to 'use more of your panel' just blurs the image with no obvious gain.
That said I suppose the image will be slightly brighter, as the zoom solution effectively cuts the lumen output of your projector by a third or so.
ElrondElvish - Monday, February 11, 2008 - link
The point of using the entire panel is: it projects a 2.35 movie squished horizontally but using every single pixel of the projectors panel (ie: without rendering the vertical black bars). A lens then simply stretches out that squished image back to 2.35 ratio.Any very good lens will do this with excellent results - sharp as a tack. The image ends up sharper than lossy zooming because you are rendering the source material at full panel pixel resolution, then projecting it at the correct ratio.
ltfields - Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - link
"but how hard could that be?"Famous last words Anand. The best of luck to you, but considering you mentioned yourself that only a small section of movies are shot in 2.35:1, and no TV/Console games are shown that way, it sounds like a to much work for too little gain. I look forward to you pulling it off though (if anyone can DIY it, you can).