COMM:Panamorph Anamorphic Lens
Weststate A/V Systems
For detail see:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~colinf/Panamorph.htm
Jennifer Cross
do vertical compression... it would seem a tilted mirror
would do the job quite neatly (front surface mirror anyway).
I would have thought a lens would only be needed if you
intended to stretch the image wider.
This is not at all to put this product down, just would
like to know what I have missed...
Jennifer
Trevor S
news:3BA1BF27...@ecel.uwa.edu.au...
> I never quite understood why you would need a lens to
> do vertical compression... it would seem a tilted mirror
> would do the job quite neatly (front surface mirror anyway).
> I would have thought a lens would only be needed if you
> intended to stretch the image wider.
>
Which is exactly what you need to do. As an example, watch an enhanced DVD on a TV with
no 16:9 compression, you will see it needs to be "stretched" horizontally. This is what
an anamorphic lens does on the front of a native 4:3 projector eg a 4:3 LCD or DLP. This
will actually provide a superb picture as you are using the full image from a WS enhanced
DVD (i.e. not a downconverted image) and the full resolution* of the 4:3 device.
Of course if you want to watch LDs or letterboxed DVDs or 4:3 native material, it can be a
pain in the butt as you will need to remove the lens (software solutions via HTPC aside)
Trevor S
* well for 1:1.78 titles anyway
Laurence
>
> "Jennifer Cross" <jcross...@ecel.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3BA1BF27...@ecel.uwa.edu.au...
> > I never quite understood why you would need a lens to
> > do vertical compression... it would seem a tilted mirror
> > would do the job quite neatly (front surface mirror > > anyway).
> > I would have thought a lens would only be needed if you
> > intended to stretch the image wider.
>
> Which is exactly what you need to do. As an example,
> watch an enhanced DVD on a TV with no 16:9 compression,
> you will see it needs to be "stretched" horizontally.
It seems we have some forest and tree vision issues here
"Stretching horizontally" and "compressing vertically"
are essentially the same thing.
There is no reason you couldn't get an anamorphic lens
that compresses vertically to produce exactly the same
image once the zoom was adjusted.
Laurence
Miro
projection, has an image off two mirrors been brighter than that out of the
projector. Using distorted statistics, you have shown that a smaller image
is brighter than a bigger image ....... Hurrah.
"Weststate A/V Systems" <col...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3BA01D83...@iinet.net.au...
John Robinson
The claim of the Ad is correct, the image of the output of a 1.33:1
projector and panamorph lense will be much brighter than the same
image letterboxed, simply because it allows you to make use of the
full display panel.
Regards
John
JohnP
> I think the claims in the ad are fiction.
Incorrect the claims are absolutly correct it is your misinterpretation of
how it works that has confused you.
>Never in the history of image
> projection, has an image off two mirrors been brighter than that out of
the
> projector.
> Using distorted statistics, you have shown that a smaller image
> is brighter than a bigger image ....... Hurrah.
No in DLP and LCD projectors that would have a large percentage of those
pixels off when doing widescreen can be stretched out to 3:4 using all the
pixels and then compressed vertically with the panamorph. This increases
definition and brightness when comparing the final image with the same
height as the widescreen image before.
Tell you what I will give a detailed personal response when mine arrives
from the manufacture Cygnus in the USA (when the shipping restarts). It is
due any day now.
Again for somebody in the industry you sure do not keep abreast of the
latest developments do you ?
When a potential customer ask about something like a panamorph do you stand
looking confused or (eek) make up a bs story about how it's no good (cause
you have no idea what they are talking about)? 8-)
JohnP
Weststate A/V Systems
with a Minolta LS-700. You have to remember that black bars are both the
absence of light and unused pixels.
35 mm film projectors have used Anamorphic lenses to convert between the 35 mm
square film to the required widescreen aspect ratio for years so it is not a
new science.
If you take a look at the Sony site on the 11 HT specs
(javascript:product_detail_direct(18785,18786,'VPLVW11HT') you will see that
the 11 HT loses 250 ANSI lumens when showing a 4:3 image due to unused panel
and light wasted on black bars. This is the same loss that a 4:3 projector has
when showing a 1:78 widescreen disc.
Sony 11 HT
Light output: 1000 ANSI lumens (16:9)
750 ANSI lumens (4:3 or Cinema Black Mode)
Now if you look at say the Sony VPLH-S1 (800x600) when you are showing a 1:78
Dvd you will only use 450 of the vertical pixels and 150 vertical pixels
produce nothing except for the black bars. Where as when using a Panamorph you
are using the whole 800x600 and the projectors full available brightness
because the whole panel is being used to produce the picture.
For lack of a better description you are effectively turning your 4:3 projector
into a 1:78 projector along with all of the benefits that that offers when
showing widescreen.
Now I do not know the real and actual Ansi lumens of the Sony VPLH-S1, but lets
say its 600 Ansi's just for a case example. When showing a 1:78 (16:9) disc you
will only get 450 Ansi lumens out of that projector. Now because the Panamorph
uses the whole panel you will get the whole 600 Ansi's in your 1:78 (16:9)
picture if you use the whole panel with the Panamorph doing the squeeze.
Its not that hard to understand once you think about filling the whole panel
and compressing it down optically to the correct aspect ratio. Its also pretty
obvious that when seeing the image that it is finer in detail and brighter in
the depth of shadow details.
We have just today updated our web site with a few more examples.
We will be updating with even easier to understand data and pictures over the
next week or so.
Colin
http://members.iinet.net.au/~colinf/Panamorph.htm
Miro
pixels with no black bars and squashes the picture into 16:9 format
............ that just about sums up the reason why the 4:3 projectors are
not worth buying.
Since it increases the lumens and relative line res.... what does it do for
the contrast ?
"Weststate A/V Systems" <col...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3BA3F22C...@iinet.net.au...
Weststate A/V Systems
well as to blacks. Think of it like buying a 750 Ansi device and getting 1000
Ansi available in the image instead.
For all your negative 4:3 projector comments, the thing that you have to
remember is that 43% of movies are wider than 1:78 (16:9) so you lose out even
when choosing a 1:78 native device on at least 43% of available movies.
The loss in brightness and pixels by showing a 2:35 movie on a native 1:78
projector is the same as the loss from showing a 1:78 (16:9) movie on a 1:33
(4:3) projector.
Remember fixed pixel devices are limited in that they can only represent one
aspect ratio, where as we know several are in common use. The three common ones
used in mainstream movies are 1:33 (4:3), 1:85 (17:9) and 2:35 (21:9).
If you notice I did not say 1:78 because it is not really used for film although
it was chosen for HDTV because it is right in the middle of 1:33 (4:3) and 2:35
(21:9).
It was a compromised choice but probably not a bad one when you really look at
all the options.
This being in the middle works out pretty well because, we can use the same
Anamorphic lens on a native 1:33 (4:3) projector thus giving us 1:78 (16:9), or
we can use it on a native 1:78 (16:9) projector giving us all the pixels and
brightness in a 2:35 (21:9) image.
Jennifer Cross
means you don't have to reposition the projector to
bounce the picture off a tilted mirror - fair enough,
though for the expense, I think I'd go with the mirror system
(but then I have the do-it-yourself streak :)
Colin (weststate), I think you should change the
panamorph entrance page, as it is misleading (the "before"
image is cropped, not just black bar (matted) which
is really the alternative - unless you are offering
anamorphic widescreen replacements for all our 4:3 disks :)
thanks for the information
jennifer
Weststate A/V Systems
Jennifer Cross wrote:
> ok, so it seems that the panamorph lens simply
> means you don't have to reposition the projector to
> bounce the picture off a tilted mirror - fair enough,
> though for the expense, I think I'd go with the mirror system
> (but then I have the do-it-yourself streak :)
Correct the throw distance position of the projector doesn't change. The
projectors vertical position does change by 0.081 x the throw distance.
This is down if its floor mounted or up if its ceiling mounted.
Not quite sure what you meant by "bounce the picture off a tilted mirror" .
The Panamorph is a liquid Prism which has an adjustable compression ratio
which is adjusted via tilting as it sits on its bypass able mounting
bracket.
Original Panamorph designs where done with mirrors but efficiency and
size/cost for first reflection mirrors where too difficult to do
accurately. That's not to say a handy person could not do it, just that
optics tend to get expensive to do well. As optometrists and good camera
lens prove.
> Colin (weststate), I think you should change the
> panamorph entrance page, as it is misleading (the "before"
> image is cropped, not just black bar (matted) which
> is really the alternative - unless you are offering
> anamorphic widescreen replacements for all our 4:3 disks :)
Or maybe the lens has a magical way of creating that additional cropped
information!!! (HaHa)
To be honest I never looked at it from that angle.
It was only meant to represent a TV look compared to the natural look of
widescreen, not the content to scale.
It was easier to keep it relatively small yet see a picture.
I can matt it and see how it looks being that small.
Thanks for the accuracy tip.
> thanks for the information
> jennifer
Cheers
Colin
http://members.iinet.net.au/~colinf/Panamorph.htm