Tutorial: What is anamorphic projection

[mc85eu]

An excellent tutorial in helping me understand how to achieve with an anamorphic ratio with a 16:9-native projector. Thanks!

[sonicballer8888]

why not just move the projector back to fill the screen? sure seems like a lot of work just to remove some simple black bars.

[iGLGred]

@sonicballer8888 Do you mean move it forwards? Anyways, I totally agree w/ what you mean - but theoretically the quality degrades, but paying thousands of dollars for an anamorphic lens which is basically a hunk of glass, really sucks.

[sonicballer8888]

well yea. The quality doesn't really degrade. Just move back to cancel out the difference. I mean if you look at it regularly, you could say that the quality is worse than if you backed it up. Digitally scaling it up would be pretty bad for the quality, not just moving the screen or the projector.

[IAMI4I]

How much do you think the hunk of glass the movie was shot on costs?

[erjohnson227]

@IAMI4I Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those lenses can range well into the 750,000 dollar range.

[JD95]

@sonicballer8888&IGLGred Well you can use that method if you dont mind moving the projector, line the picture perfectly onto the screen,adjutst trapezoidal distortion,adjust focus, and probably move your couch for a good view everytime you watch a movie with different aspect ratios (not all moveis are 2.35). If you are setting up a Home theatre with 235 screen (not the usual 16:9) you are probably looking for something professional and permanent and would not want all that adjustment everytime.

[Jarren95]

probably cuz of osme sort of quality prob?

[IAMI4I]

You use all the resolution in your projector. Thus, gaining sharpness and contrast.

[sonicballer8888]

then why not just watch it on a 16:9 projector and ignore the black bars. If you're watching a dvd or blu ray, and if you're used to watching movies on a TV then it won't be a big deal.

[lovelohan]

@sonicballer8888

because the overall viewable picture will not be as big for 2.35:1 movies

also i believe the picture is more brighter using the anamorphic process becasue no light from the lens is wasted projecting useless black bars

[lovelohan]

@sonicballer8888

because the picture wont be as bright if its furthur from the screen.

and the black bars will still be there, just off the screen. so you still have wasted resolution on black bars

[MFrymus]

Where can I find that lens?

and whats a good HD projector for this lens under $1500CAD?

[mainlymusicman]

ha at that price i think your out of luck, since the anamorphic lenses themselves, can cost 2-3000 dollars

[MFrymus]

actually, there are cheaper ones for around $900-$1200.

I found some.

[mainlymusicman]

but is the quality of them good enough compared to the more expensive ones like panamorph?

[MFrymus]

maybe not AS good not too sure, because these are meant to be at a closer distance to the screen. Since I only had about 10 feet or so. The Panamorph I was told to be at least 18feet.

[WillieCocker]

He's retired now, has plenty of time for that type of thing now lol

[marycaddle]

Good Demo. Should have used a masking screen to demonstrate both 178:1 and 2.35: with no black bars.