• Thanks for visiting the Kaleidescape Owners' Forum

    This forum is for the community of Kaleidescape owners, and others interested in learning about the system, equipment, services, and the company itself.

    It is run by a group of enthusiastic Kaleidescape owners and dealers purely as a service to this community.

    This board is not affiliated in any way with Kaleidescape, Inc.
    For official technical support, product information, or customer service, please visit www.kaleidescape.com

  • You are currently in "Guest" mode and not logged in with a registered account.

    The forum is free to use and most of the forum can be used by guests who are not registered....

    ... but we strongly encourage you to register for a full account. There is no cost to register for a full account.

    Benefits of registering for a full account:

    • Participate in the discussions! You must have a registered account to make posts on the forums. You will be able to start your own thread on a topic or question, or you can reply to other threads/discussions.
    • Use the "Conversation" feature (known as "private messaging" on other forums) to communicate directly with any of the other users here.
    • Access the Files area. The "resources" area of the forum contains many "Favorite Scene" and Script files that can dramatically increase the enjoyment of your Kaleidescape system. Go directly to great scenes in your favorite movies, created by other owners, and add automation to playback of your system with Scripts.
    • You won't see this annoying notice at the top of every screen!😊

    It's easy and free to register for the forum. Just click the "Register" button in the upper right corner of this page, and follow the instructions there.

Anamorphic Lens and Video Processor

House72

Well-known member
Hello All

I am working with a AV Design Firm to retrofit an existing room to a media room. This room is completely light controlled and planning to use my JVC NZ7 projector. The firm advices me to get an 130 inch 2.4 fixed screen with white material & variable masking. To project they also advised I go with an Anamorphic Lens and MadVR Envy.

I already expressed my interest to use Lumagen if a video processor is needed. My only question is do I really need the anamorphic lens or can the processor help me with this.
 
If you go with a 2.4 screen, then light from the projector will exceed the height of your screen, with the typical practice of setting it for equal amounts above and below. The anamorphic lens squeezes that extra light back onto the screen. This effectively brightens your image while also eliminating the light overspill. The video processor cannot bend the light and so it has no means to remediate the errant light. It can however resize the image so that the image fits inside the screen in the absence of a lens.

Some are bothered by the extra light, some don’t notice it. In my home, it’s a mixed bag with split opinions. I’m in the camp that doesn’t like the light above and below.

I just recently removed a JVC NX7 with an anamorphic lens in favor of a Sony XW7000ES without a lens. I like the image from the Sony better, but I’m undecided about how I’m going to address the light above/below. I’ll likely add a lens, or I’ll go back to JVC and reuse my existing lens because it’s compatible with the new JVC’s. It’s important to note that I have a Lumagen Radiance Pro and I wouldn’t have a projector without one even though it’s not necessary. The combination of a lens and video processor is superb and I never intended to be without a lens, but I failed to check compatibility of my lens with the Sony. My bad. My very bad, dumb mistake.

As for Lumagen or Envy, both are very good. I just don’t see a good reason to pay Envy's extreme price premium when superb results can be achieved with a Lumagen for less.
 
16:9 always looked great to me! That’s the majority of what I watch. I’m not without a lens intentionally, as I mentioned. I wouldn’t want one if it ruined 16:9.
 
MadVR Envy is a PC with a capture card. It has one input and one output. It’s co-owner is a brilliant software engineer who started MadVR as a weekend project several years ago and has been offering it for free for PCs for many years. This is the first time its offered as a pre-built package as in a custom PC with custom tailored MadVR for such use. As long as his passion remains alive for updating the software, MadVR will continue to be on the cutting edge. From what I hear, it does a few things better than Lumagen Radiance Pro but its PC based architecture is holding it back elsewhere. It relies on Nvidia graphic cards which are expensive and difficult to source lately. That’s why its price is beyond premium levels.

Lumagen is also owned by a brilliant electronics engineer. It has been around as professional product for over 2 decades. It’s already on the more efficient FPGA based hardware. You can order it with multiple inputs and outputs. It is far less electrically and magnetically polluting than a PC so it’s more audiophile friendly. The team demonstrated over the years, they can evolve the product to even things it wasn’t designed for in the beginning. It will eventually catch up on those few things MadVR is leading and potentially beat it.

In summary, I would say on the hardware side, Lumagen is a little more practical for home theater use. On the software side, it’s a toss up. Right now Envy is leading but it can change any moment. I like the fact that there is competition which will force both to deliver even better results.
 
There are certainly light-output advantages to using an anamorphic lens. In addition to the Lumagen and the MadVR, our players also support our own CinemaScape feature, for resizing content to work well with 'scope screens.

I don't want to get in between you and your installer, but I would invite you to consider something as you plan your room. It's becoming increasingly common for directors to create movies that have variable aspect ratios during the course of a single film. Showing these films on a 'scope screen will always involve some kind of compromise.

A 2.40 screen with side masks is what's called a "constant-height" installation. You can also do a 1.78 screen with top and bottom masks. This is called a "constant-width" screen. This is what movie theaters use, and this type of screen works pretty well for these variable-aspect titles. You can have side masks on these screens as well if you watch older content in 1.33 often.

And then there's a 2.0 screen with 4-way masking and either projector zooming or digital scaling or both. These systems are called "Constant Area" systems. The advantage of these installations is that 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35/2.40 content all have similar square footage. This type of screen would work fine for those variable-aspect titles as well.

Note that you can also do constant-area on a 1.78 screen. This is what I chose for my theater, because I figured IMAX should be as big as possible. I currently run my screen in constant-width because I haven't sorted out the side masks yet.
 
There are certainly light-output advantages to using an anamorphic lens. In addition to the Lumagen and the MadVR, our players also support our own CinemaScape feature, for resizing content to work well with 'scope screens.

I don't want to get in between you and your installer, but I would invite you to consider something as you plan your room. It's becoming increasingly common for directors to create movies that have variable aspect ratios during the course of a single film. Showing these films on a 'scope screen will always involve some kind of compromise.

A 2.40 screen with side masks is what's called a "constant-height" installation. You can also do a 1.78 screen with top and bottom masks. This is called a "constant-width" screen. This is what movie theaters use, and this type of screen works pretty well for these variable-aspect titles. You can have side masks on these screens as well if you watch older content in 1.33 often.

And then there's a 2.0 screen with 4-way masking and either projector zooming or digital scaling or both. These systems are called "Constant Area" systems. The advantage of these installations is that 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35/2.40 content all have similar square footage. This type of screen would work fine for those variable-aspect titles as well.

Note that you can also do constant-area on a 1.78 screen. This is what I chose for my theater, because I figured IMAX should be as big as possible. I currently run my screen in constant-width because I haven't sorted out the side masks yet.
Thank you so much for the detailed write-up on the screens. I did ask about the Constant Area Screens and was told it would be $30K plus for a good screen that can do 4-way masking. That is way over my budget. If not, that would be my choice.
 
There are certainly light-output advantages to using an anamorphic lens. In addition to the Lumagen and the MadVR, our players also support our own CinemaScape feature, for resizing content to work well with 'scope screens.

Mike, are there planned updates to the CinemaScape feature that will address more aspect ratios? I'd happily use that feature if it worked with every aspect ratio, but if I'm going to still be using lens memories and zooming a little here and there for new ARs I'll just continue with a custom lens memory for each aspect ratio.
 
Thank you so much for the detailed write-up on the screens. I did ask about the Constant Area Screens and was told it would be $30K plus for a good screen that can do 4-way masking. That is way over my budget. If not, that would be my choice.
4-way motorized masking is definitely pricey, but you can inquire with the manufacturers such as Seymour about a constant area setup with a more standard 2-way motorized masking system for either top/bottom or left/right masking, and then use manually placed magnetic panels for the other masking setup. This can drop the price dramatically and still be a great solution, though admittedly, not fully automated.
 
Thank you so much for the detailed write-up on the screens. I did ask about the Constant Area Screens and was told it would be $30K plus for a good screen that can do 4-way masking. That is way over my budget. If not, that would be my choice.
Fair enough. What I would suggest that you do if you go with the CIH setup is to ensure that you have a way to manually force the system to treat a given piece of content as a given aspect ratio. That way, you have the option to zoom in on one of these multi-aspect films and just fill your 2.3x screen, cropping the top and bottom off of the IMAX scenes. That works pretty well for many/most of the multi-aspect titles, although some will have noticeable issues in some scenes (Aquaman, I'm looking at you). Otherwise, what you end up with is 1.78 in the center of your screen for the IMAX scenes, and then black bars on all four sides with a miniature 2.3x image in the middle.

Mike, are there planned updates to the CinemaScape feature that will address more aspect ratios? I'd happily use that feature if it worked with every aspect ratio, but if I'm going to still be using lens memories and zooming a little here and there for new ARs I'll just continue with a custom lens memory for each aspect ratio.
It's definitely on the to-do list, but at the moment there are some other projects on the schedule which are higher priority, and require the same engineers to implement.
 
Fair enough. What I would suggest that you do if you go with the CIH setup is to ensure that you have a way to manually force the system to treat a given piece of content as a given aspect ratio. That way, you have the option to zoom in on one of these multi-aspect films and just fill your 2.3x screen, cropping the top and bottom off of the IMAX scenes. That works pretty well for many/most of the multi-aspect titles, although some will have noticeable issues in some scenes (Aquaman, I'm looking at you). Otherwise, what you end up with is 1.78 in the center of your screen for the IMAX scenes, and then black bars on all four sides with a miniature 2.3x image in the middle.


It's definitely on the to-do list, but at the moment there are some other projects on the schedule which are higher priority, and require the same engineers to implement.
@MikeKobb Thanks for your input. I will talk to my designer and see if we can do constant wide instead of height. I do have the Hisense 120-inch UST for watching TV content in my bedroom. I can maximize this room for movies than 16:9 content.
 
I don't want to talk you out of something, but I do think it's good to understand the various compromises. If you will mostly watch 2.35/2.40 content in the theater and you have an alternative for 16:9 stuff, then an anamorphic lens and wide screen could be a great choice. It does have the advantage of brightness for those wide-screen formats.

In my case, my 1.78 screen is as wide as I would have made a 2.40 screen, and the intention was to zoom down smaller aspect ratios so that they wouldn't fill the full width or height of the screen, except in the case of IMAX. I pay a penalty in brightness for this, but with my screen size and projector combination, I have enough light.
 
Hey [mention]House72 [/mention], I’m not the expert [mention]MikeKobb [/mention]is but wanted to chime in with my experience in case it provides some insight.

There is limited width in my space (139”) and I ultimately chose to maximize 16:9 content with a fixed-width Seymour AV screen (these guys are beyond awesome BTW). I struggled going back and forth with choosing a fixed-height screen for a bit (like an unhealthy bit) but the decision came down to recognizing the space was going to be used more for the whole family streaming Roku and Apple TV, and playing video games (PS5, xBox) and we wanted the biggest image for these sources. When my K system loads and the Cinemascape UI appears and the masking “shrinks” the screen (top and bottom), there are certainly times I wish I’d gone with a fixed-height screen (to make the movie experience that much more grand)… but ultimately, the decision came down to the majority use of the space which aside from my K moving watching was streaming and video games.

In the end, I would undoubtedly have been happy with either choice, but maybe this opens some thoughts into your decision.

Andy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks everyone. I am making some compromises by not getting the room painted too dark as none of us feel like getting in to a room like that. I will think through this.
 
I don't want to talk you out of something, but I do think it's good to understand the various compromises. If you will mostly watch 2.35/2.40 content in the theater and you have an alternative for 16:9 stuff, then an anamorphic lens and wide screen could be a great choice. It does have the advantage of brightness for those wide-screen formats.

In my case, my 1.78 screen is as wide as I would have made a 2.40 screen, and the intention was to zoom down smaller aspect ratios so that they wouldn't fill the full width or height of the screen, except in the case of IMAX. I pay a penalty in brightness for this, but with my screen size and projector combination, I have enough light.

I made the same latter choice in my first build with a 1.78 screen. Basically I went as wide as I could go with it and could still make the screen 1.78 so that made sense.

In my rebuild, I could go wider. But at the new wider width, I couldn't do a 1.78 that size. So I ended up with a scope screen that fits about the same 1.78 I had before inside of it, but now with the advantage of the extra width too.

Projector lens memory makes it all work, but I presume a lens and video processor will sit in the rack some day.
 
My first screen was already wall to wall so I went 16:9 for max impact. Ended up permanently adding to the bottom frame to make it 2:1, which was a great compromise. I sacrificed a few pixels too and bottom on some content but most of what I view is 2:1 or wider so it minimized letterboxing. Really liked that choice.

Now I am still wall to wall but using a much larger 2.4:1 screen with motorized masking on the sides. I fully subscribe to the CIH belief that scope films are meant to be bigger, not shorter.

My screen: SeymourAV Proscenium Motorized Masking Screen Review
 
I am making some compromises by not getting the room painted too dark as none of us feel like getting in to a room like that.
Unless you have a fully dedicated theater, doing a very dark room or a dark front 1/3 "chasm" could be pretty oppressive. I was in the same boat. I ended up spending a completely ridiculous amount of time selecting fabrics for my walls based in part on how much light they would reflect back onto the screen (which washes out image quality), and how much "shine" would be visible from the seating location. I eventually found a fabric that satisfied that requirement, was the right color, and also satisfied Keith Yates's audio criteria. The end result is a room that feels comfortable when the lights are on, but where there aren't distracting reflections when the lights are off.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7731.jpeg
    IMG_7731.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 63
  • IMG_7725.jpeg
    IMG_7725.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 60
I agree. I would like the room to be used rather than just the place where I alone will spend time.
 
Back
Top