-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Does anyone shoot 2.35:1 Native?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4 replies to this topic

#1 of 5 OFFLINE   Elfmaze

Elfmaze

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: May 25 2007

Posted May 27 2009 - 02:37 AM

I went to the theater for the first time in a long while and remembered how much i loved the wide screen. Currently i am using a 4:3 projector i've had since high school and is comming up on the end of its bulb life. I am looking to replace it.

I am using framed blackout cloth for my screen. And the 4:3 screen has work so beautifully i figured i would just get a new screen made to the 16:9 format. As big as i can get within the restricted vertical limits of a yard of fabric. The 16:9 projectors are easy to find now and seemes to be the way things are going right now.

BUT after last night i got to thinking what if i made the screen the biggest it could be in 2.35:1 get that nice immersive theater screen. But a quick google search did not come up with any native "theater" style projectors.

I have picked up something about lensing(anamorphic) to get the proper ratio but i don't know much about it yet.

Are there people who run a native 2.35:1? I wouldn't want to run a cropped 16:9 its whole life because i see that as a waist of the projectors light and resolution capabilities.

#2 of 5 OFFLINE   Elfmaze

Elfmaze

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: May 25 2007

Posted May 27 2009 - 09:51 AM

Maby my logic is backwards on second thought. If going by the THX standards and recomendations a 40* field of view on a cinema ratio vs. a widescreen would be the same width i would just be making it not as tall going with the wider ratio.

So maby it is better to stay with widescreen and make it taller to fit inside the field of view?

#3 of 5 OFFLINE   SethH

SethH

    Screenwriter

  • 2,867 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 17 2003

Posted May 27 2009 - 10:49 AM

I think the only way to accomplish this is with the lens you mentioned. If you do a search on "constant height" you should find lots of information on using a projector with the anamorphic lens to get a 2.35:1 constant height experience.

#4 of 5 OFFLINE   Elfmaze

Elfmaze

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 54 posts
  • Join Date: May 25 2007

Posted May 28 2009 - 11:49 AM

WOW anamorphic lenses have no reason to be that expensive do they? a lense should not cost more than the projector itself. But who am i to question it. I did find a good alternative though i guess it does crop a bit. the panasonic PT-AE3000 Panasonic PT-AE3000 Projector Review Looks like a very cool machine.


I will go with the 2.35:1 screen on my rebuild it seems!

#5 of 5 OFFLINE   Michael TLV

Michael TLV

    Screenwriter

  • 2,909 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 2000
  • Real Name:Michael Chen
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted May 29 2009 - 01:20 AM

Greetings

How much is a good piece of glass for a camera lens? Generally north of $1000. Now make the lens bigger to accommodate the projector ...

Now add in economies of scale ...

Who gets to say how much a lens should cost? Should it cost $300 because you have a $600 projector? Or $6000 because you have a $20000 projector?

regards
Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
THX Video Systems Instructor/ISF Instructor
Lion A/V Consultants Network - TLVEXP.com