u-stu

I've seen some DVD projectors in person and they've blown me away. These aren't the crappy "all lights out" slide projectors you would expect. Since the quality of these have gone way up it's worth asking, does it matter if a title is anamorphic or not if you use a projector? Can't you just resize the image or do anamorphic releases somehow have a better quality?

Mao

u-stu,

Good question!

I'm planning on giving up all things boxy and tangible once my current displays go bye-bye...and going total projection.

I have a 16X9 native Optoma projector that I use in my backyard theater and the difference between anamorphic titles vs. non-anamorphic is still quite noticeable.

Sex Fiend

Actually, you can re-size a non-anamorphic transfer on a regular old monitor, too. And that is exactly where the problem with a non-anamorphic transfer, with its lower resolution, occurs. At its native display aspect, you won't see the same lack of detail and artifacting that occurs when you re-size the display.

So to answer your question, if you re-size a non-anamorphic transfer on a projector, you are going to see the same relative lack of resolution that you would see on a monitor when doing the same thing. In fact, it would probably be more noticeable with the larger display, although being able to sit further away may mitigate the effect a bit.

Really, the only advantage of a projector with non-anamorphic disks is that you shouldn't need to re-size the aspect since you are getting a much larger picture display anyway, even in the native display ratio. Unless you are just that sensitive about black bars, even on a (relatively) huge screen.

bsmith

It is actually the reverse. The bigger the screen the more important it is to have an anamorphic transfer. It is all about resolution/detail in the image. With non-anamorphic releases you lose detail due to the extra bars. The bigger the screen the more important it is to have as much detail as possible.

toddly6666

Are these projectors in which a dvd player is included or are these projectors in which you can attach a dvd player?

I'm curious because what about the difference of a projected anamorphic DVD versus a projected Blu Ray?

u-stu

My theory wasn't due to the bigger screen but the lack of boundaries. TVs are either 4:3 or 16:9 while aspect ratios vary on titles. With a projector you can adjust it so you don't have to see the black bars. I prefer the black bars no matter what. It's more cinematic in my opinion.

sremick

Can't say I've seen a projector with a built-in DVD player. They've all been attached to DVD players or usually an AV receiver.

Depends on the projector (16:9 or 4:3? How many lines of resolution?). An anamorphic standard-def DVD has 480 lines of resolution. A Blu-Ray disc has 1080 lines of resolution. If you have a native widescreen (16:9) projector and you show a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD on it, you will be losing 25% (360 lines displayed), 28% (345 lines displayed), or 43% 272 lines displayed) of the image depending on the aspect ratio. Zooming in on a lower-resolution image to fill the frame does not magically re-create this lost potential detail and quality.

Even with a 720-line widescreen projector, with a Blu-Ray disc you're losing out on at least 33% of the image quality, and potentially to 50%. And even with a 1080-line 16:9 projector, you can still miss out on 4% or 24% if the Blu-Ray movie's aspect ratio is not 16:9. The only way to squeeze out the full resolution there is to use an anamorphic lens add-on while projecting an image stretched vertically... and there things get complicated.

Non-anamorphic DVDs are an abomination that needs to die. It's criminal that the Criterion release of Armageddon is non-anamorphic.

u-stu

That's a little extreme. Also, the projector I had in mind does have a built in DVD player as do many projectors. Apparently you haven't looked into projectors in a while (1980?).

sremick

Ok, so what's your justification for the continued production of lower-quality non-anamorphic widescreen movies shown on a fixed 4:3 display frame, when anamorphic is so much better and more and more people are getting widescreen displays?

"Many"? Examples please.

"1980"? That's a little extreme. I just bought a Mitsubishi HC1500 this year, thanks. And I can assure you, I've been looking into projectors for a long, long while.

For example, of the thousands of projectors in the ProjectorCentral "complete database of nearly every digital projector in the market that is announced, currently on the market, or out of production", only a whopping five have built-in DVD players. These are:

• 3M Digital Media System 710
• Epson EMP-DM1
• Epson MovieMate 50
• Epson MovieMate 72
• Optoma MovieTime DV11

Not only would no movie enthusiast seriously settle for the low-quality DVD playback built into a projector, but the normal living room layout would not make it practical. Especially considering most projectors are mounted way up high, close or on the ceiling.

bsmith

In comparison to the number of HT projectors that are available, not many have built in DVD players. I've seen a few listed that were primarily for ease of use when traveling. For that use and as a secondary approach it is probably fine but not really a good call as a primary unit.

You lose too much flexibility combining the two. What if one part dies or you want to upgrade? It is better to just get them separate so you can match up the best projector and best player for your particular situation.

As for the "extreme" comment. Not really. Since the early days of DVDs in my collection I have been slowly getting rid of all non-anamorphic disks for the better anamorphic versions. For a short period of time there was an excuse for them in that it was possible that they might look better output on a 4:3 device since the image would be displayed exactly as put on the disk (no artifical bars added by the player). However, with a 16:9 output device you definitely lose detail that scaling and upconverting cannot bring back. The bigger the output the more obvious the lack of detail when scaling up.

Edited: sremick beat me to the reply but I agree with everything stated.

u-stu

First of all I'm not justifying it I prefer anamorphic but saying non-anamorphic is an "abomination that needs to die" is a little much. Most people won't even notice the difference even DVD collectors like myself since I still have a "normal" TV. Most people don't have HDTVs or even flat panel TVs. Also, it's hard to justify re-buying something you already own JUST for anamorphic. I understand going from full screen to widescreen but even if your arguement is quality you'll just have to buy it again in Blu-Ray soon.

Second, don't try to be a smart alec.

Third, you just said you didn't know of any projectors with built in DVD players and then minutes later you know of five. That's a lot of research you've done.

Third, a "whopping five have built in DVD players", again don't try to be a smart alec.

sremick

Exactly the reason they should only be (and should only HAVE been for a while now) in anamorphic. So you are already all-set once you go widescreen.

However, as an owner of a large widescreen display, I can tell you that I upgraded a number of my non-anamorphic discs to anamorphic in order to get the huge jump in quality. The fact that I have to buy the Canadian version of Good Will Hunting just to get anamorphic (the USA one is 4:3 letterboxed widescreen) is inexcusable.

Actually, I didn't. I said: "Can't say I've seen a projector with a built-in DVD player." Which is true. I have never seen one either in-person or online, and at that time I didn't know of a single specific model.

Not really. Let me demonstrate my massive research since you're quick to assume:

Go to: http://www.projectorcentral.com/projectors.cfm
Select "DVD Player" from "Special Features"
Click [Search]

I could certainly handle "a lot of reasearch" like that in order to prove my point in this thread.

bsmith

You admit to having a "normal" type TV and question us on how much of an issue it is when viewing on a large screen projector that we obvioulsy have and you don't. You might want to wait to see how big of a deal it is when you are in our situation before assuming a response.

The reality is that anamorphic DVDs cause no issue to "normal" TV viewing but do to large screen projector viewing, so there really is no reason for them to exist. I and many others with projection systems have EASILY been justifying the rebuying of anamorphic DVD's for years. I only have a few left to replace that I am just waiting for new transfers to be released.

Also, calling someone else a smart alec when you responded with:

"Apparently you haven't looked into projectors in a while (1980?). "

is kind of hypocritical, don't you think.

From your responses you don't have a large screen projector yet. I've had my HT setup going on 5 years now and if you hung around the HT forums for any period of time you would know by now the general consensus by projector owners of anamorphic and wouldn't be asking this question or debating our responses or experiences.

Spiky

100% agree with both these guys. I've had a projector for a few years now. The best idea with non-anamorphic discs is to replace them. Much cheaper than attempting to get better equipment in the hopes of improving them. And projectors do not tend towards including great video processing, which you might think to be a logical course.

u-stu

I never once said anamorphic was bad I actually said I prefer it. What I did say is that it's ridiculous to say that non-anamorphic is an "abomination that needs to die". Just because you are part of the small percentage of people that have HDTVs or projectors doesn't mean studios should either pay to be able to release anamorphic or to not release it at all. Don't be so whiny.

And since when is searching for something for 15 minutes research?

"...anamorphic DVDs cause no issue to "normal" TV viewing but do to large screen projector viewing, so there really is no reason for them to exist."
- So non-anamorphic shouldn't exist just because you can afford a TV that makes the quality look worse than a cheaper TV? I don't see the logic in that. Probably cause there isn't any. I guess since HDTVs and Blu-Ray are available we should all boycott DVDs because they're an abomination that needs to die.

sremick

You talk as if anamorphic doesn't work on 4:3 TVs. They do. You talk like it's that much effort to master the DVD as anamorphic. It isn't. If a studio is going to release a DVD, by making it anamorphic they cover both 4:3 and widescreen displays in one fell swoop.

So what's the problem?

You tell me. You're the one who made a big deal of me finding those 5 projectors and called it "a lot of research". Unless you were being sarcastic, but then it sort of defeats the point you were trying to make. I assumed you were being serious since that's the only way you maintained your already-weak argument.

Your analogy doesn't work. Blu-Ray discs don't play on regular DVD players. But anamorphic discs play fine on 4:3 displays.

The only proper analogy would be: "If Blu-Ray discs all had a standard-def DVD-compatible layer on them and could play in regular DVD drives, and were sold at the same price as DVDs, then DVD should die and all discs should be this Blu-Ray/DVD hybrid" then I'd say absolutely.

That is comparable to what we're talking about here. There's no place for non-anamorphic letterboxed DVDs. Anamorphic doesn't cost more to make nor do the sell for more. Anamorphic DVDs play fine on 4:3 displays "letterboxed" automatically. It's just some studios were lazy to begin with and are still too lazy to re-release a disc as anamorphic.

klemsaba

2.35:1 anamorphic would be nice on Blu-ray so those of us using 2.35:1 screens wouldn't have to process the image for our lenses. It allows all the pixels on the 16x9 panel to be used instead of wasting valuable pixels to create 'black bars'. It is the same reason why anamorphic was nice for 16x9 displays back in the 4x3 days.

Many projectors cannot do the necessary vertical stretch to remove the letter boxing so our anamorphic lenses can work properly. Luckily, my Sanyo Z4 does so and I use my lens to fit the image to my 2.35 screen. I could just 'zoom' it out but the lens setup is easier to use and reduces the light spill on the wall caused by zooming the image out.

bsmith

It's quite simple really, they should not exist because they provide no inherent value over anamorphic DVDs. Studios made them early on because they didn't know any better. Now they do and we are just waiting for new releases of old DVDs to fix the problem.

You continue to argue for something you know little about. You call us whinny when you haven't experienced the difference because of your setup. You seem to want a better setup because to asked the question and now because you don't like the response you try to dispute are experience.

Most that collect DVDs are hoping to have them for a very long time. If not big screens now many will have them in a few years or a decade, and when they do and they play one of their old favorites in non-anamorphic format and the quality is not as could as it could be they will be whinning too.

Why don't you just get your projector and experience it for yourself for awhile and then get back to us about it. At least then your argument can have merit because we will be comparing apples to apples instead of the apples to oranges comparison now.

Believe me, I'm not an elitist. I will always argue for content over quality. I watch many films some say they can't watch at all becasue of the quality of the transfer. However, when the quality could be there just as easily as not then I would like it there.

u-stu

I have experienced the difference. Just because I don't own it doesn't mean I don't have real friends in real life unlike you fucking losers who rant online all day.

I was just starting a conversation and everyone has to be a smart ass. Delete my posts, ban me, I don't give a fuck about losers who have nothing to do but put people down online. No one can ask a serious question without a hundred twelve year olds trying to outdo each other. Fucking retards.

bsmith

You asked a simple question and we gave you a simple answer. From our experience it makes a difference.

If you can't take it then your right you probably shouldn't converse on a forum. The only one that lost their cool here was you. Too bad because these forums have a lot to offer if you would just drop the attitude and accept a valid response.

bfrank

[mod] out of line![/mod]

toddly6666

SREMICK,

Hi, I've been researching cheap quality projectors. I didn't realize the cons of the Moviemate or Optomas due to the built-in DVD player. Can you recommend me a quality Projector (less than $1000) without the DVD player, in which I can attach my multi-region DVD player to?

I'm also curious about mounting. Is there any efficient way of having a projector without having to attach it to a ceiling? If it's on the floor, how is it set-up so that people's heads aren't in front of it. If it has to be on the floor, is it better placed behind people sitting or is it better placed in front of people?

bsmith

Your best bet is to hit AVSForum.com and check out the section devoted to projectors. They have separate areas for low and high end projectors.

While many will hang the projector I've seen others locate it in a bookshelf area behind the viewers or in a table in the front. Projectors vary in their constraints on placement so you just have to research and determine what type of flexibility you have. Also, you have to keep in mind the cabling requirements between the projector and your DVD players.

That forum also has a section on building a room and many posts with pictures of their setups. Just asks questions and you will get responses from those that were in similar situations.

sremick

As of a few months ago, the Mitsubishi HC1500 was the best sub-$1K projector. I know Mitsubishi has replaced the model with the HC1600 but in some ways this isn't a better projector. I would not hesitate to pick up an HC1500 still, especially if you can get it on a deal now it's discontinued.

Note that the HC1500 is 720p, not 1080p. You won't get a 1080p projector for under $2,500.

The fact that your DVD player is multi-region has no bearing, so don't worry about that.

Depends on the throw angle of the projector, and whether it has lens shift. On mine, the projector has a pretty sharp throw angle, so it either needs to be mounted very low, or very high (and upside down). You could presumably built a square that the projector mounted inside of (upside down) but then could rest on a shelf, but in my room that shelf would have to stand out in a walkway path so I had no choice but to ceiling mount.

It really wasn't too hard, after I measured 1000 times to be sure where the studs were.

It'd have to sit in front of the viewers, which would reduce your image size. Further back you put it, the bigger your image.

ProjectorCentral has a calculator to figure these things for most every projector. Some manufacturers supply their own (Mitsubishi does) but the PC one is very good.

Spiky

Also, for what reason I can't imagine, LCD projectors tend to have great placement options both for zoom and offset. DLP tend not to. At least in this price range.