Newsletters
Facebook
RSS Feed
EH Store
Since its introduction to the public a few years ago as a home theater concept, anamorphic home cinema systems have grown steadily in acceptance.
Custom installers and intrepid DIYers have used CinemaScope solutions to combat not only that pesky letterboxing, but the commoditization of the video category.
With the help of anamorphic lenses, super-wide screens and high-performance projectors, integrators have been able to offer a step-up theater experience to clients. CinemaScope has been, for the most part, universally applauded for its ability to deliver high-definition images in the correct aspect ratio without adding much time to the installation process.
There are some, however, who contend that as good as anamorphic-based home theaters are, they can be better through the alteration of the CinemaScope system equation.
One of those voices belongs to video expert Joe Kane, chief executive officer of Joe Kane Productions (JKP). Kane says installers interested in offering an unprocessed CinemaScope image can do so without adding extra work to the installation.
Good, Better, Best Widescreen
For those not familiar with CinemaScope, it is a name the film industry uses to refer to a lens system made approximately 50 years ago. Today the term is commonly used to describe wide aspect ratios of 2.35:1 up to 2.66:1.
Kane says today’s home CinemaScope solutions are great for theater enthusiasts, but there are compromises within the most commonly used setups. First, he says, there’s the potential compromise of adding vertical stretch processing to fill out a projector’s inherent 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Second, is adding an extra lens to the system to horizontally stretch the 1.78:1 image to a wider CinemaScope ratio.
The final compromise is what the consumer sees, Kane says, including obstacles with viewing distance and pixel structure of 1.78:1 and CinemaScope images.
Add a Second Projector
There is a way to avoid those limitations, and it’s not that difficult, according to Kane. It’s just a little counter-intuitive.
“The two-projector approach doesn’t involve the compromises of the first two points of using the anamorphic lens approach. There is no electronic video processing distortion in the image and there is no distortion from the lens in stretching the image out to a 2.35 width,” he suggests.
“Logically, you might think the two-projector approach would be more expensive, but that isn’t always the case. A good anamorphic lens will cost about as much as the projector. If outboard image processing is used to stretch the image vertically in the anamorphic configuration, then the two-projector approach would likely be less expensive.”
In response to some of the comments, I contacted DVE Distribution, the company that handles the JKP-endorsed Samsung projectors and this is the comment I received:
“Joe Kane is not a paid spokesman for Samsung OR DVE Distribution. The proposed solution is absolutely projector brand neutral and will work for any type of 16:9 projection technology.
Joe Kane uses the Samsung projector in discussions such as this because he assisted in the
development of the projector and contends that it produces the best projection image at the price point.
To be clear, any projection device can be used to achieve the concept outlined here. However it is also true that the ‘best’ image stands to lose the most by making the compromises required to implement anamorphic projection through processing and optically stretching the image [think
‘garbage in, garbage out’].
As both DVE and Joe Kane contend, the
SP-A800 and SP-A900 produce the best projection images and these projectors stand to lose the most by adding a ‘stretched’ anamorphic solution to the equation,” says Jeffrey Goodman, vice president of DVE Distribution, Inc.
So, if I understand correctly, you won’t have to worry about possible image degradation due to the second lens in front of the projector, and you don’t have to worry about possible distortion due to the digital image stretch… But Now aren’t you worried about possibly having two different looking images since you will be at two different positions along the projector’s throw range? Not to mention a brightness difference since one projector will be farther away from the screen. Or the fact that if you don’t have a projection booth to house these multiple projectors (now) it will not be very appealing to the eyes… Point being, that although these are minute differences and likely not big issues in either set up, are most viewer’s visual acuity enough to spot out the differences? And if so, is it enough that they warrant the $4,000 cost difference between a decent anamorphic lens (~$9,000 w/sled) and another projector (~$13,000)? I doubt it…
@Randall
Yes you will not be utilizing the full chip, but assuming you actually calculate the content resolution, you can have a screen that is the proper size for both aspect ratios without having to worry about any visual degradation for the 2.35:1 image.
Maybe I’m not reading his solution correctly, but wouldn’t this solution still sacrifice roughly 30% overall resolution since it’s still projecting the black bars? I don’t see how this is in line with the performance gain of an anamorphic lens. As the previous poster stated, this would be similar to what Panasonic does on their AE3000, but at twice the cost and inconvenience.
+ View all comments on for this article
- News
- Cool Homes
- Blogs
- Photo Galleries
Planning Your Outdoor Audio and Video System
No backyard is complete without awesome A/V. Here are tips on how to plan your system.
Making a Grand Entrance with Automated Lighting
Home rolls out the red carpet for guests thanks for automation system.
Brighter LCD TVs on the Horizon?
3M technology poised to boost the vibrancy and richness of colors on LCD screens.
22 Outdoor Speakers for a Sizzling Summer
We take a peek at some of the current options for outdoor audio.
Ya, I am sure Joe worked with Samsung on their projector free of charge. I am sure he works with DaLite on their screens pro bono including being in their advertisements. Give me a break. He was at CEDIA last year promoting these projectors and screens. Noone works that hard at promoting something out of the goodness of their heart. I am not disputing his passion for the industry, but to maintain impartiality when you endorse products? I just dont buy it.
Again, a projector that lets you index zoom and focus positions and you have zero need for 2 projectors. Maybe because the Sammy does not have this feature, this was never mentioned. I don’t know, I don’t care. My point was there are different solutions to digitally and optically stretching or compressing your image, and buying two projectors is just one of them.