IMAX and changing aspect ratios - solutions using Anamorphic lenses
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- Hi Folks a quick Video showing one way to manage the changing aspect ratios of some content that is available now. We hear from customers with Anamorphic screens that this is driving them a little crazy. This solution works well for us at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting up your TV or Projector? Use these starter pack test patterns: from Diversified Video Solutions
Each one includes super accurate industry standard test patterns that you can absolutely trust that include:
• Title (This stream includes pertinent information of the test patterns characteristics)
• Black Clipping
• White Clipping
• Color Bars
• Color Clipping
• Sharpness & Overscan
Standard Dynamic Range Patterns
DVS UltraHD / SDR BT709 Basic Setup Test Patterns (.mp4) - sowl.co/bxDtT2... USD
DVS UltraHD / SDR BT2020 Basic Setup Test Patterns (.mp4) - sowl.co/Er1SX ... USD
High Dynamic Range Patterns
DVS UltraHD / HDR-10 Basic Setup Test Patterns (.mp4) - sowl.co/FAiwq ... USD
DVS UltraHD / HLG-HDR Basic Setup Test Patterns (.mp4) - sowl.co/bcdskC... USD
DVS UltraHD / Dolby Vision Basic Setup Test Patterns (.mp4) - sowl.co/vu4DL ... USD
Complete set of (Professional or Serious Enthuisiast) Video Test Pattern discs/downloads:
DVS UltraHD / HDR-10 Test Pattern Suite (.ts/.mp4) transactions.s... DVS
UltraHD / HDR-10 Video Calibration Blu-ray Disc v2.0 (Disc) transactions.s... Развлечения
Please don't get me wrong, but I think this video emphasises the advantages more than the disadvantages. I use an anamorphic lens myself. As a disadvantage, you can see even in the video that although more pixels are used, the sharpness decreases significantly. The gain in light is partly lost again through the lens. The 30% that you gain in 16:9 images with black bars by stretching the 21:9 image is lost in IMAX sequences, because you lose 30% of the image information there. This can be seen well, for example, in the cut-off sky, if you compare the images see ruclips.net/video/0bRH1syAVr4/видео.html with those of the anamorphic lens see ruclips.net/video/0bRH1syAVr4/видео.html There may not be such important content there, but the image composition still looks different. Another disadvantage is that especially the edge sharpness decreases depending on the quality and size of the anamorphic lens (keyword chromatic aberration) and there is a geometrical (pincushion) distortion. An unmentioned advantage is that you can project a wider image at a shorter distance.
Love your videos, and love your patient description of things. But one thing you didn’t mention that I think is important for people to understand is that the scope portion of the content is fixed on the imaging chip. The stretch you do doesn’t suddenly take those fixed number of pixels and have them occupy all that extra real estate with actual information. There’s serious data interpolation going on, so you still have the same original quantity of actual information. You just have additional pixel resolution, as opposed to source resolution. And those of course are two different things.
Wow, I didn’t understand this. They way anamorphic lens is described is that 30% of you image is missing and by adding the lens we will see the added 30%. I’m new to this. I was liking the concept of lens but after seeing one today on a Sony 5000 and a 150" it was grainy for my eyes. I expected a sharper image, almost closer to a LED tv screen.
You incorrectly state, when using the lens on the imax section, that the only real compromise is that the image is stretched out. No the compromise is that you are cropping the top and bottom of the image any time the aspect ratio is not scope. That’s actually not a major compromise either. When Aquaman (or any other changing ratio movie) was shown in a non-imax theater they cropped the top and bottom just like you’ve shown here. This video seems to over complicate what is actually very simple with regards to anamorphic lenses. They allow you to utilize the entire 4K panel for scope provided you have a means of stretching the image vertically in the player or projector.
Hi Chris. Good reply. However later in the video I do cover the loss of image top and bottom and we discuss this in reference to camera safe zones. We felt from feedback that a lot of people have not seen how an image works with an anamorphic lens and wanted to demonstrate this. Yes it is a simple process but having spoken to a lot of people who are a bit confused we felt showing how an image behaves would be helpful. We welcome your feedback it helps us consider the material we produce. Thank you
Home Theatre Engineering People who spend 10s of thousands on their home theater would NOT like LOSING VIDEO IMAGE and STRETCHING the VIDEO IMAGE. Who in their right mind PREFERS a DISTORTED & CUT IMAGE???
@@Freakyguy666 I get what you are saying. But this video is specifically about managing the change of content mid anamorphic movie to 16:9 (or IMAX) on an existing Scope screen. So the issue here is that when this happens you are missing content as it is already projected outside of the screen if you have zoomed. So....watching using an anamorphic lens is obviously the correct way to watch scope content (remember studios used a lens to "distort" the content onto the recording media in the first place) so using a lens just corrects that. Now, whatever we do.. if using a Scope screen something has to give. So these are the options. We are not suggesting people use anamorphic lenses to watch 16:9 content stretched but just saying it is a consequence of watching multi format content on a scope screen. The only real solution is of course to use a 16:9 screen. But not everyone does this. Interesting to see Lumagen provides a way to view 16:9 content on a scope screen with their NLS feature. I would be interested to hear your solution for watching multi format content on a scope screen. Projectors with auto detection is a nice idea in theory but by the time the lens has adjusted the scene is often over and I find this more disruptive than the subtleness of an undetectable change that we demonstrate here for those brief scenes. Always open to new ideas and suggestions.
I have a 16:9 screen that is semi permanently masked to 2.40, and I use an ISCO anamorphic lens to watch scope movies. I can either leave the lens in place and scale 1.85 content to the same height, or remove the lens and zoom in. I prefer to leave it in place so the pixel density and image brightness remain the same for 1.85 content. I always watch 1.85 less wide than scope which is how it is intended.
For IMAX content, I remove the lens and top and bottom masking, This way I see all aspects in correct relation to each other, so that IMAX and Scope have the biggest visual impact, as intended, and 4:3 and 1.85 are the smallest. 16:9 is a TV ratio, not really a movie aspect ratio (though some have been made in that ratio). The only movies that should be seen taller than scope are IMAX.
If you zoom for scope, you are effectively moving 33% closer to the image, so the pixels are visually 33% larger, and the image is coarser than if you use an anamorphic lens with good scaling. With an A lens and scaling, the image is using more pixels to render the image (2 million more for 4K content, 0.5 million with Blu Ray) so transitions in diagonals and circles for example will be smoother. With a good lens the image isn't softer though may appear so in some cases due to more pixels and smoother transitions. When you compare zoomed with an A lens most people see an image improvement, and is why they spend money on the A lens, which can often be many thousands of dollars. Why spend more if the image is worse? Poor lenses such as early prismatic lenses without a 5th corrector element can only be focused on the horizontal so will appear softer with larger resolution projectors.
Depending in the type of lens, will determine if there is light gain or not. For example, a horizontal expansion lens may not necessarily give an increase in brightness - it depends on where the projector is in it's zoom range before you add the lens. I have seen set ups with those lenses that have dropped the measured lumens at the screen by a little or remained the same. The only lens that guarantee an increase are the vertical compression lenses (like Panamorph DCR lenses) which can add above 30% (as much as 38%) as I recall.
What anamorphic lens do you recommend? The cheapest I could see $10K
Sadly lenses are not cheap but then a decent projector with a lens can still be done at a "not crazy price". In terms of which lens Panamorph sits at that price bracket. Prismasonic is a few $k cheaper on the higher side are lensesike isco. If you are thinking lenses get in touch and we will see what we can do for you
All directors, cinematographers, studios and distributors should be told at the development stage of a cinematic feature: PICK ONE FORMAT AND STICK TO IT!!!
EXACTLY. IMAX can die and I will dance on it's grave. Cinemascope forever...
whoever came up with the idea to switch formats during a movie is a very naughty boy
It would have been better when the tv industry moved to widescreen, for the tv producers and movie producers to come up with a compromise. Perhaps a little wider than 16:9 but get rid of 2.35:1. Eliminate black bars for good.
I hate it
Yea its costing people serious money.
Yes, I would love to know what jackwad thought that was a good idea!
@@irwfcm Chris Nolan for one. He's wrong of course!
Great advantage, a very expensive solution but you pay for convenience
Terrific video. Necessary one. Well explained. BUT I still have a question...in this setup using an anamorphic lens do you no longer need to have remote in hand to switch between aspect ratios?d And what are a few of the best on the market you'd recommend for a JVC NX7? or Sony's just debuted 715 and 915?
Hi Thanks for your question. If you are asking do you need to use the remote to switch between 16:9 and a 2.3x:1 ratio for normal viewing then the answer is YES. BUT if you are viewing a mixed aspect movie and you are starting in 2.3x:1 then NO you just leave it on that and ignore (or dont even notice) the aspect change. Hope that makes sense. The best lenses are lenses like ISCO but in terms of balance of cost per performance possibly Panamorph but you need a 1.4 minimum throw ratio. Or you can go to Prismasonic. Its hard to say which is "best" as that can be judged so many ways.
I think the first company to produce a really good cheap lens will take over the market I wish I had all that money to get one I would do it in a heart beat but sadly I don't I'm hopeing some day one anamorphic lens will come out for a good price
@@scotttild no, there isnt, but there are many movies that arent in 2.40.1 so you will get black bars regardless, like 25% of content, including many new movies
But you are right...... expensive as balls
What is cheap? The SLR Magic Anamorphot 50mm is less than 1k :P
@@rkan2 Yeah I was thinking the lenses cost $15,000. $1,000 is nothing for such a significant upgrade in performance. I spend $1,000 on 2 snare drums like it’s candy. I guess the first person that develops a high performance $89 anamorphic lens will have a winner on their hands.
@@Assimilator702 89$ pricing would never happen for that big piece of glass (ok, maybe, just maybe for the diy trophy-wedge glass type of construction made in china). I just bought a used anamorphic lens for 500$. It is pretty nice, though I'd still like to test the SLR Magic, since it might be even better quality.
@@rkan2 My point is people are complaining about high prices and not being able to afford something that will give significant upgrade on performance. Maybe Home Theater isn't for them. I would love getting into racing European sports cars and having a garage full of them. But I can't afford it. If you look at the iem market, a set that costs even $80 now out performs $1200 sets of 10 years ago.
If you have this setup on a 2.35.1 screen like you guys have at the end how much of the IMAX shot are you missing out on? Or just 16/9 content in general. I watch alot of both but not sure exactly what you are getting with just 16/9. I'd ideally want to use the full 2.35.1 at all times regardless
instaBlaster...
IMAX is shot with the main content within the 2.40 area (so people aren't looking u for long periods which would give neck ache), the stuff added above and below is usually just fluff and filler to add immersion rather than actual content - that's why you lose nothing story wise in the 2.40 version, and that version is seen by the vast majority of the public in normal theatres. Some movies do frame the 2.40 portion a little differently for the non IMAX release (slightly above or below the IMAX centre) but generally there is very little difference.
Early IMAX movies were 4:3 and were considerably taller than scope. Then they were 16:9, but now many are 1.90, which is a bit taller than scope, but less tall than 16:9, so the effect is diminished. With IMAX movies, seating is much closer than in normal commercial theatres, so even scope looks taller and wider, so if you design your own theatre set up, you can arrange teh front row of seats to be within the same range as in an IMAX theatre - having the front row so that you have a horizontal viewing angle of 60 to 70 degrees will replicate that. You just have to ensure the top of the scope image isn't more than 15 degrees above your eyes when seated, or you may suffer from neck ache from looking up for too long.
The info is good, sort of. The screen is NOT anamorphic , it is a 2:39:1. The thing in your hands is the anamorphic lens. No doubt you know all this but just didn't use the right terminology. With the projector in anamorphic mode, it squeezes the sides of the image in toward the centre and the lens then expands it back out. So when the projector is in A-mode and set to fill the height of the screen, the projected image does not fill the width. The A-lens, when positioned in front of the projector lens then unsqueezes the image to fill the width. You are correct (and this is one of the major advantages of using an A-lens setup with 2.39:1 movies) is that you make the projector use all of its available pixels, no masking is required. This increases resolution and brightness. So, in the main, you are right but explained it badly. What you should also mention is that when watching a regular 16:9 movie, that the A-lens is removed from in front of the projector, otherwise you will get a distorted picture.
Hi Ron, while you are technically correct here I’m in Western Australia and here they are generally referred to as anamorphic or scope screens. Hence the reason for the term, but while it is not correct it is the screen you need to watch anamorphically created content on. The screen we are using is 2.35:1 and not 2.39:1 and you are also incorrect re the process within the projector. It does not squeeze the image in towards the centre for scope content, it just stretches it vertically and then the lens adjusts it by stretching it to fit the screen. This is done in several ways depending on whether the lens is a horizontal expansion lens or a vertical compression lens such as the newer Paladin DCR lenses. You are also incorrect about the 16:9 image being distorted. Nearly all projectors feature a second mode for this that horizontally compresses a 16:9 image so that with a lens in front it appears correctly formatted. This option means you get both 16:9 and anamorphic in a button press but yes you lose pixels in the 16:9 version hence a lens on a sled does provide the purest option but is not always practicable or affordable. Neither of these however were the point of this video but our intent was to show how multi format movies look when viewed using an anamorphic lens. Hope this clarifies things.
@@AndrewPoole01 You explained it just fine Andrew and answered a few of the questions i had in mind. Thanks for your hard work mate and effort in bringing the results to light without getting too technical. Most people don't want technical as they just want results and you showed that perfectly.Splitting hairs only adds to frustration and there is a time for it and a time not to go down that path. Perfect demo and more than what most people in our country would do.Thanks mate
Ron, have you been diagnosed with Aspergers yet?
@@chumleyk Are you really that much of a a-hole or are you just joking? I suggest you do some reading on cinemascope movies, screen ratios, anamorphic projection, anamorphic lenses and how they work.
I am yet to enter the world of projection screens but I sure hope the cost comes down on these lenses when I do :-)
I wish the price would come down too. Optical lens work is unfortunately expensive and I don’t see them coming down in price any time soon. If there is a way though we will be sure to let you know:-)
@@HomeTheatreEngineering happy New Year and thanks for the reply! What do the entry level lens cost? A few that I've looked up or about 9 Grand
Good video. Note about safe zone and not losing important content was new information to me, but i have doubts that all directors conform to this rule. Wouldnt it be better to have an option in software to automatically squeeze the narrow segments so that parts of the movie would have black bars on the sides when projected on wide screen? The source material was intended to be played on 16x9 screeen, thats why there is letterboxing in wide segments.
THE BATMAN 2022 is shot with anamorphic lenses with 2.39:1 I think and from the trailers the film looks awesome.
Will IMAX do the film justice?
How does an anamorphic lens work with older widescreen films NOT in a typical scope ratio? Like on 70mm movies that are displayed in 2.20:1 or 2.76:1 (2001 A Space Odyssey, Patton, West Side Story, Ben Hur, the Hateful Eight), does it just get stretched and reformatted to 2.39:1 or does it retain it's OAR with extra space on the sides or top?
Same thing with the original 2.55:1 Cinemascope (Rebel Without a Cause, Bridge on the River Kwai, La La Land), does it actually stay in 2.55:1 when projected with a lens or does it get converted and distorted to another ratio?
It’s just a lens abd the vertical component is always a ratio of 1.. so just the width of the projected image varies. It all comes down to how the material is formatted on the version you are watching and then the width of the screen you own..
My projector doesn't have a v- stretch I heard there was some kind of video scalar I can get do you know anything about that or I can get it and how much it cost . thank you
Please get in touch via email which you can get from our website
Will an oppo 203 do this for me on my epson 5050? (With an anamorphic lens of course)
Quick Question: Do you need a projector that has the ability to use the anamorphic screen ratio (like in the video when you click it to “A”), or can you just manually or permanently put on the anamorphic lens to stretch the 16:9 picture out. So basically what I am asking is, do I need both, the ability to click the anamorphic screen ration button in the projectors settings, and the anamorphic lens, or can it I just put the anamorphic lens in front of the 16:9 image and have it be stretched out? Let me know
dirangoal Hi, great question. Yes you do need an ability to stretch the anamorphic image on your 16:9 chip vertically first before using a lens. This is normally in the projector or can be an external device like a lumagen. But you do need to vertically stretch it
Home Theatre Engineering ok thank you and which projector generally has the ability to stretch the 16.9 image. Would they usually be the sony’s and the jvc’s? Do any optoma projectors do it? Like the optoma uhd60?
Wouldn't it be better to get a 16:9 screen and just mask the letterbox bars with black velvet plates? When you watch IMAX content you can just remove the black velvet plates so you get the full IMAX image
Only if you prefer the evening news to be bigger than your blockbuster movies. Its a personal choice at the end of the day..
Hi. Great video!
I have a question. If I have a 4k projector and plan to watch a 1080p (Blu-Ray) anamorphic film (like, For a Few Dollars More), will I be losing pixels the same way I would lose in a 4k film if I use the built in projector zoom? Because the fact that the film is only 1080p means that maybe I won't lose pixels, because the projector chip has 4x the number of pixels of the 1080p film. Is my thought correct? Thank you
Luis Eduardo Nunes Nice thought. So in theory when it comes to the actual number of pixels your idea is correct. But that’s not really how it works. All 1080P content gets scaled to fit your 4K chip with the additional pixels being interpolated. So in terms of counting pixels no, but in terms of the image you see yes you still lose 30% of the chips pixels and light output. It’s a bit hard to explain in text only but that’s what’s happening.
@@HomeTheatreEngineering Thank you for the quick reply and explanation
@@HomeTheatreEngineeringwhat does "interpolated" mean?
My problem is that lens is like 6k!? That's more than most people's pj!
There are a lot of affordable lenses. Where are you located
@@HomeTheatreEngineering Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Michael Randa send us an email enzo@hometheatreengineering.com
We can help you
@@HomeTheatreEngineering you guys never answered my emails!?
@@battousai412 Hi.. can you try again on andrew@hometheatreengineering.com
For 150”” what color can be the wall for the best 4K vision let me know please thank you for you info thanks again
Regardless of screen size....black!
Just get a square wall
stretching an imax image seems like the wrong thing to do
I think the point is constantly changing aspect ratios is probably not the ideal thing to do. If its anamorphic let us watch it that way, if its 16:9 let us watch it that way and if its IMAX let us watch IMAX but please don't make us have to chop and change aspect ratios mid movie. Fine on a TV (because you don't have any choice!) but not in a dedicated home cinema. But it gets more confusing than that, IMAX enhanced has 2 predominant ratios 1.43:1 or 1.90:1 the most common it seems will be 1.90:1 so the thing here is if you watch this then the top and bottom of the image is then cropped on a 16:9 TV. If you are using a projector you could use a zoomed size and if you are running CIH (constant image height) then your IMAX image is then effectively the same height as 16:9 but narrower! There is a tendency at times to start using large 2:1 screens to try to cope with all formats which is fine and we have done this for clients, but you almost always get black bars somewhere then. My personal preference is the wide screen format. I like 2.35:1 and wider but that's just me. So yes you are right but the option is ..............?
@@andrewpoole4878 I love 2.35:1 & 2.40:1 for a home cinema, IMAX for my large screen TV; that's how I would do it. There isn't an option as of now to fix this changing aspect ratio problem & shrinking the 2.35:1 image; that to me is a massive compromise than losing the tall IMAX image converting it to 2.35:1 tbh.
@@andrewpoole4878why in hell are producer/directors and movie using mixed aspect ratios in ONE movie.?/ that is crazy. I’m starting with great audio and adding a home theater hoping for great quality from projector and screen. I’m so frustrated I’m tempted to call it a day , purchase 95 ince tv watch 16:9 . Am I wrong?
I now this is 3 years old but just came across it. At 4:30 I have to disagree, you can stretch the image over the chip to use all your light output but you can't gain resolution from the image.
A movie at an aspect ratio of 2:39:1 is only 3840x1607 pixels, not full 4K. Using the anamorphic lens is not going to change that.
Ok so when you use zoom to watch a scope image you are blanking out approx 30% of your pixels. So a loss of 30% of useable pixels
Compared to 16:9 so yes a definitely loss of resolution. By stretching the image up and then using a lens we are increasing resolution over that of zooming as we are recovering those lost pixels. We weren’t claiming to get more pixels than you can get from a 16:9 chipset but definitely claiming better resolution or the recovery of those lost pixels using a lens than compared with zooming. I understand what you are saying but your argument is about scaling and not about the number of pixels in use or physical pixel resolution. The argument then becomes about how well the projector can scale that image but that’s the same argument you can use against not buying an 8k tv to watch pretty much anything !
You can't get extra resolution that isn't there on the source.
Agreed. Totally true but you can maximise the number of pixels per surface area and optimise that and the light output instead of throwing this away.
Right, but every video I keep seeing on anamorphic lenses is saying you're getting back the resolution, you're getting back your 4k, etc. Not true.
I agree you are getting the increased light output and potentially (hopefully) getting the menus to not be projected onto the wall. I'm not sure how it all works. That's why I'm here, but having trouble finding a video that explains what happens exactly.
I believe when you run anamorphic lens, you'd have to stretch the image vertically in software, and then the lens compresses it again. And to do that I'm guessing you'd need to use a PC as your source? Or do players and things like Apple TV have functionality to do that for you?
Having trouble finding videos that explain how all this works.
@@grandpixel This is a deeper topic than I can do justices to . They are right, and wrong! Ok so do you recover the 4k pixels of your projectors panel ? Yes! Do you get more resolution than is on the source disc? No. Do you get a better outcome using a lens then? Yes. So in short you are using all of the pixels available within your projector but the original source material had been extrapolated to achieve this. But no more than watching 1080 on a 4k TV or 4k on an 8k tv. My choice if I dont have native scope is to use a lens.
@@HomeTheatreEngineering how does the extrapolating happen? Is this something that's built into most projectors for use with a lens?
@@grandpixel the short answer is yes. It takes the scope image and expands it (vertically mostly) to fit the panel. The lens does the rest
We’re can I get a anamorphic lends for a optima UHD 60 projector? No to expensive
Its not easy to find cheap anamorphic lenses but contact us directly and we will see how we can help. We have some demo lenses for sale at crazy prices.. enquiries@hometheatreengineering.com
P&r Skok - unfortunately, that does not exist.
The best way to see a movie with variable format, is to use a projector with immediate automatic lens memory. Using the anamorphic lens in the 16: 9 image is deforming it. In the sample for being a landscape, it is not noticeable, but I would like to see your test in another scene with people or objects, these would be deformed at the sides.
Yeah... I'm with Oscar on this one. I will NEVER be stretching my image. I actually find it kind of amusing that a solution for videophiles, presented by videophiles would ever even CONSIDER stretching the image. SACRILEGE!!!! It's just not a viable solution. Anamorphic lenses and screens are amazing. But, if you plan on watching IMAX content films which preserve the popularized, constant change of aspect ratios... it's time to ditch the anamorphic lens and screen and invest in a taller alternative offered in the world of the 16:9 aspect ratio. Our goal at home is to recreate the theatrical experience at home. If you like IMAX movies, then you have to do what they do at the IMAX cinema. I promise you, IMAX is not mutilating the image for the audience.
This is interesting. The way the movie is filmed in the very first place is by "distorting" it onto the film using an anamorphic lens. This has always been the "true cinematic" way to create widescreen content. I think we need to be careful using the word distorting. The only way to get true 4K resolution or 1080P for that matter, lets say display image capability is by using an anamorphic lens. it is now ore relevant today than ever. Without it you never use all the pixels of your projector and you lose light output as well which impacts HDR. Yes IMAX and changing formats mid film throws a spanner in the works. We hate format change mid movie, it is a real "exit door effect" but some directors feel its important. The very best option is a lareg screen format such as 2:1 and using a motorised anamorphic lens with something like a lumagen that can trigger change with content. Then everything is seen as intended. But. Given that most content is in "anamorphic widescreen" it is our preference to use an anamorphic len which "undoes" the distortion created when the image was compressed onto the film in the first place. It is the "correct" way to do things. But at the end of the day we can do what we want and many people chose to zoom. As long as they know they are losing light and 30% of their pixels then that is fine too.
@@2000thx Good lord. Are you so anxious to pile on to the mob mentality of criticism that you're simply not listening to how this process works? When all processes are COMPLETE, the image is neither stretched nor distorted. The purpose of the anamorphic lens is to allow for the proper reformatting of 'scope content onto a home theater 'scope screen. In the case of Sony's for example, there is a vertical stretch applied which stretches the image portion of content vertically so that all pixels are used on image, not to produce black pixels for the letterbox bars. At this PRELIMINARY stage, the image is stretched vertically. Again, this is to get the imaging chip to use the entirety of the pixel array used on image content. Less discussed is that there is scaling and data interpolation done at this stage, since of course, you can't just increase source resolution. The source material has only so many pixels allocated to the 'scope image area. But with good scaling, this process increases apparent pixel density and detail enhancement in the same way that good scaling takes 1080p source material to 4K/UHD pixel resolution (as opposed to source resolution). The SECOND stage of this process is that the anamorphic lens apples an equal portion stretch in the horizontal domain, restoring correct geometry but now with the added benefit of no light spill from using the zoom method of 'scope display on a 'scope screen, and more pixels in image content, and all light concentrated on active pixels, which again are a combination of original source content and scaled/interpolated pixels rendered in the projector's vertical stretch process. The legitimate criticism of a fixed anamorphic lens with 16:9 content is that to keep correct geometry, there is image scaling that results in a decrease in horizontal resolution on the order of 3072 horizontal pixels rather than the full 3840 array in the source material. This is a trade-off made by film enthusiasts who watch material that is predominantly 'scope (2:35, 2:39, 2:40) in presentation.
@@scottwallace1 Could not have said it better. Very detailed and concise explanation thanks
@@scottwallace1excellent comment. Above my head but some of it makes sense. I was going to purchase a Sony laser 5000 protector, a panamorpjic lease and a Screen Innovations black diamond but after watching this in a home theater I was uderwhelmed. Maybe I should just get a 95 to 100 inch old and call it a day??/? Would this be correct/? Seems like a lot of obstacles to overcome to have a decent home theater
Question:
You have to manually put on the anamorphic lens attachment before the movie, and you have to manually detach after usage for normal 16:9 content again ?
Good question. There are 2 main ways of doing this. 1. The most common way is with a permanent lens and using the anamorphic aspect ratios within the projector, but this does mean your 16:9 image is slightly compromised but accepted as a majority of movies are anamorphic. or 2. Using a lens that is motorised and moves either out of the way or reconfigures internally. Hope that helps..
@@HomeTheatreEngineering i want to watch sports in tv + movies too.
@@MrBazsi888 yep you can do that. Many of our clients want the same thing. A fixed lens is fine for this like the panamorph paladin lenses. Some of our clients actually watch their sports with the image stretched. Sounds a bit off but looks great. Not for everyone but some folks love it. But the choice is yours. And 16:9 to anamorphic is a button press away on most projectors. Get in touch via our website or email for futher help www.hometheatreengineering.com
@@HomeTheatreEngineering So a rich sport-loving client who pays high 6 figures is happy with that amount of stretch? Don't believe that sales patter for a second. You're selling to film buffs only.
@@chumleyk maybe wait until you have seen Lumagens NLS function. It’s a personal choice of course but good chance you might change your mind. No sales patter here just talking about points of interest.
Hollywood directors are killing physical media with the 2.4 format 🤦
So youre distorting the image by stretching it out? What? Do you think thats what the filmmakers want you to do? When you go see Dark Knight in IMAX at a theater, you WANT to see the change in aspect ratio. It goes from 2:1 anamorphic to 1.43:1 IMAX depending on the scene. Thats part of the fun! Why would you change that? Now youre not only losing part of the image, youre also stretching it out and distorting it. WTF
Ok so let's break this down. First of all we are talking about trying to watch IMAX at home not in a IMAX venue which is what the director intended. This is after all a Home Theatre Channel.
Yes as you correctly say it is meant to be viewed in an IMAX Cinema. The closest one to me is 3500km away!
Ok so to go through this a step at a time.
First of all Scope images. When these are filmed, they use an anamorphic lens to compress the wide image onto a standard chip or film. The correct way to view this is to reverse the process and use all of your projector's capability is to put a lens in front of the projector and then restore that image. Not unlike zipping and unzipping a file.
Ok on to IMAX.
Again, the only way to watch IMAX unless you have the ceiling height for a very tall screen is on a TV (16:9) or a projector screen. On either the 1.43:1 ratio is smaller (narrower) in a constant image height system (which most are) so on TV your IMAX, supposedly the most impressive part of the movie is the smallest with black bars left and right and the "less impressive" content which you quote as 2:1 or 18:9 is only a teeny bit wider than 16:9 nothing like 2.40:1 scope so now black bars top and bottom on a TV if correctly set up. Sometimes this is zoomed and cropped so most people don't notice. Other than going to an IMAX venue there is no ideal way to watch these formats especially with mixed aspect ratios.
So, the frustration here is that yes while wildly dramatic when seen at Imax venues the creators are now producing content in a format that millions will never get to see in the way the director intended. We are very open to hearing from you as to how you propose that we at home we can see the IMAX content in a production in a way that is grander than the remaining content in the film...
How does the Anamorphic lens handles the Snyder Cut 4:3 aspect ratio?
It’s not so much how does the lens handle it but how the projector does. There are pretty much no 4:3 chipped projectors so blanking is required to get that aspect. Then it depends on whether the projector can work with that and a lens.. or you use a manual or motorised lens and move it out of the way
The wut?
@@TheMrGiannisgr The JL Snyder cut with IMAX “4:3” ratio
@@BrunoDeMarques also called the " I am a pretentious ass hole Snyder douche cut".
You shouldn't call it an anamorphic screen. It's a 2.35 screen. Not all 2.35 movies are anamorphic. Some use super 35, and do NOT use the anamorphic lens.
Yes we have addressed this several times in previous comments
Wow, um... anamorphic doesn’t mean what you think it does and as far as a “cinematic feel” more than half the movies shown in cinemas are in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio so...
Hi Sean I well and truly know what anamorphic means. In Australia incorrect as it may be screens are sold and referred to (incorrectly) often as anamorphic screens. We again appreciate you pointing this out.
Nice one armchair Sean
@@chumleyk it’s not arm chair anything it’s my profession and my job working in professional cinema engineering and design for high end cinemas and studios. I’m sorry if you don’t like it but it is what it is and when you are doing high profile work like major Hollywood premieres and the studio presentations at the major cinema industry trade show you have to be accurate with what you say and do.
Yeah I couldn't help but think this too. Anamorphic as I understand is when the image is stretched vertically and then anamorphically squeezed back down to its original intended scope. As for the screens 2.35:1 or cinemascope v 1.85:1 or 16:9 along those lines..
Why would i spend all that money on a home theater just to end up watching a stretched movie picture? I would understand if it's the year 2005 and you just got your first HDTV and started watching stretched TV on it, but i think we're way past that now.
I think you might have completely misunderstood anamorphic film production and projection. When the movie was filmed it was filmed using and anamorphic lens that compressed the image onto the film. Then in the cinema (or at home) a lens is used to reverse the process and return the image to its original state. This is the correct thing to do. The short cut to watching anamorphically filmed content on a widescreen is to zoom a 16:9 image out. The correct way is to use a lens! Stretching is what you are meant to do! It’s what the cinemas do everyday! The only question we are addressing here is with content containing changing aspect ratios and how to manage that without disruption on a widescreen.
@@HomeTheatreEngineering What the person meant, I think, is that with anamorphic projection, you get the full resolution of the chip of the projector, but since the 2.35:1 source material does not occupy the full vertical space of the native resolution of the 16:9 frame, the image will actually be stretched. Twice. Once vertically through the projector settings, and once horizontally with the anamorphic lens. You end up with a brighter image, as you use the whole chip, but the resolution of the material itself will be the same as if you zoomed in a 16:9 letterboxed projection to fit the anamorphic screen. Just like you did at the beginning of the video.
@@khymaaren no that’s incorrect. If you zoom for anamorphic you chop off 30% of your pixels. When you use a lens you use all pixels. So 30% more pixels on screen than zooming..
@@HomeTheatreEngineering Yes, when you only consider the resolution of the projector's chip. But the source material? The resolution of a 2.35:1 movie on a 4K bluray disc is something along the lines of 3840x1670. The source material already has 30% fewer pixels than the full 16:9 frame at 4K. It seems obvious to me that you can only stretch that to fit the 4096x2160 chip in the projector.
This is so dumb u cn get this by prisms glass wedge 5x7 inches u need to and wala u get the same effect for cough cough 32 bucks each
You don't spend thousands on a projector and screen to put up with the fringing and problems that 2 prisms bring though. Anyone who has tried this in videos I've seen acknowledges the set up is not as good.
Anamorphic lenses should only be used with CinemaScope material - start to finish. Multi-aspect ratio films shall be viewed in 16:9. Any form of stretching or cropping is unacceptable.
Generally I totally agree with you and that is the purist philosophy. But if you have a wide aspect/scope/anamorphic screen and not a 16:9 screen and the vast majority of the content is anamorphic and you prefer to watch it filling your entire screen then that is a matter of choice as opposed to watching anamorphic content squeezed into the middle of a 16:9 window with black bars both above and below and now left and right also on your 2.40 screen. Personally and only my opinion, mixed format movies irritate me. Give me one format or another but dont chop and change. If the director chooses to do that then I will choose to watch it the way that I enjoy most.
Personally, I choose 16:9 screen. For CinemaScope material I use masking and anamorphic lenses. For 16:9, IMAX etc I would always choose to take advantage of the full width of the screen, so I remove masking accordingly.
@@blackrider2000 Hi, I would never criticize personal choice. Each to our own. I thought Id give our rational for anamorphic format screens.
1. We build cinemas not TV rooms
2. By far most hollywood blockbusters are in some scope format from 2.35 to 2.40:1 (at the moment)
3. We prefer to watch our movies on a screen where they are larger and use 100% of the real estate as opposed to the "TV" shows being the bigger format and the blockbuster movies sitting in a smaller field in the middle of that screen.
4. The human eyes field of view is wider horizontally than vertically so scope gives a great enveloping feel.
5. We dont lose 30% of our pixels from our projector chip by blanking the top and bottom 15% (total of 30% roughly) of the chips pixel count. Including associated light output. (I do acknowledge you said you use a lens... and masking..but many people dont)
6. Using a lens (which you say you do) is stretching, but you say thats unacceptable??? I dont agree here.. The film was originally shot with an anamorphic lens in front of the camera which squashed the image onto the film or chip. So "stretching" is literally the correct way to resolve it. This is what they do in cinemas its the way it was intended. Which is why we love it so much.
So thats our perspective. Doesn't mean we are right though. At the end of they day if someone asks for 16:9, or anything else thats what they get..
Surely it's subjective and not 'unacceptable'
@@niro750 He's a sperg, only knows binary.
No this is nonsense - Unsqueezing a non squeezed movie is just distorting - DO Not Buy an Anamorphic lens to do this
We are not suggesting at all that anyone buy an anamorphic lens to do this. This is a discussion on options with changing image aspect ratios mid movie. Also just to be correct any 16/9 projector that uses an anamorphic lens is electronically distorting the image to stretch the image to full chip height in the first place before it is stretched out by the lens. There is no pure artefact free way to watch CinemaScope other than using something like a Barco dedicated widescreen chip set to start with. What do you propose people do to watch movies that repeatedly switch aspects? Neither options available are ideal and some are downright slow and frustrating. We welcome your suggestions.
stretch the picture.....no thanks
Thanks for commenting but you’ll need to explain your thoughts in a bit more detail. Not sure which part of stretch the image you are referring to. A lot of people don’t realise that when a 2.35:1 image is originally filmed an anamorphic lens is used to compress the image onto the film so the ONLY way to restore and watch that using the complete film frame (or in our case chip area) is to uncompressed it using another anamorphic lens so “stretching” the image is exactly the right thing to do! It’s when Hollywood mixes aspect ratios that they throw the cat among the pigeons.
@@HomeTheatreEngineering 06:46 you said stretched out a bit. Does that mean the picture is being stretched more than it is naturally meant to be?
@@doyouluvit ah ok I know which ‘stretch’ you are referring to now. So yes when the director changes from 2.40:1 say to 16:9 or IMAX something has to give unless you constantly change the settings in your projector. So ultimately you have to choose. On a TV you just keep jumping from black bars to full screen. On a projector with a widescreen ratio that is not so easy.