Thanks Ray and yes I am sure it looks terrific. A well set up system certain can look great. The other good thing about is humans is that we are very happy until we see something to compare against. So my advice to you is enjoy what you have . Sounds like a great system well done 👍

Fair point, always strive for better but for us ordinary folk, compromises have to be made. I had the good fortune of seeing all the major projectors (JVC, Sony, BenQ, Epson) in action at a home cinema event just before the outbreak of the pandemic. In the JVC booth, the difference between the higher spec and lower spec models was obvious, but only because they were set up next to each other. It was also plain to see that JVC generally produced a better picture than Sony. However, the projector that blew me away was the Barco Bragi, easily outperforming the JVC NX9 with a panamorph lens. Barco is in a completely different league, IMHO. The people from Barco used Lawrence of Arabia projected onto a 150 inch cinemascope screen. Absolutely draw-jopping. The yardstick against which all other HT projectors should be judged. Surely, it does not get any better than that?

Thats great and its what suits you. We just prefer our hollywood blockbusters to be bigger and better than a toothpaste commercial. Its nice to see movies the way most of them were created.

So true. Just the other day I was told by some 'gurus' on here that cinemascope was 'a dinosaur', and that 16:9 was how everything should be presented, including IMAX - while not understanding that IMAX is both wider and taller than 1.85, and only taller than scope. 16:9 is just big tv and a lazy way to do things. Even THX recommend a 50 degree horizontal viewing angle for scope, and 40 degrees for 16:9/1.85 (so less wide), and IMAX advertise a 70 degree HVA (back row there is around 60 as I recall), so three different formats and three different viewing angles, but in a properly designed theatre, you can actually do all of those and from a single seat without having to move to a different seat.

@@garyl5128 unfortunately our industry is full of "gurus"...many of whom sell Home Cinemas...or Home Cinema products. Too many will talk you out if something as they either don't understand it, don't have access to the tech (there is a reason they don't btw...) or just want fo sell something regardless.

@@dreamav8161 Agreed. Selling a 'big tv' set up with a projector and 16:9 screen is just point and shoot and easy to do. Most customers will be wowed and happy with that, especially if their own cinema experiences are just 16:9 multiplexes, so they have no idea what a proper cinema should be like. It's very sad, but a lot of money to be made off of unsuspecting customers no doubt.

Thanks we put a fair bit of thought into the end result. We also ask peers to review and comment as well before publishing and mostly we rely on our training from HAA ISF PVA THX among other things. Glad you appreciate it.

@@HomeTheatreEngineering very much so. Your passion for a good quality experience shines through. It’s clearly not about “buy this one because it’s got a good profit margin”, it’s clearly about making the best cinema experience within your customers’ budget. Love watching that sort of passion in your content. Keep it up, guys. 🤩❤️🤩

Hi. First of all thanks for your comment. You don’t actually say what advice you want ??? We are always happy to help but we are a consultancy and we charge for our time. That’s why we publish what we can on KZfaq to provide advice to those who are on a budget or choose to DIY.

Hi. You are correct to a degree. You cant get more resolution than is encoded BUT it does mean you are not utilising all of the pixels on the chipset so yes it upscales to fit the chip so you are utilising all available pixels but YES if you zoom you do still definitely lose light output. The zoomed are that is off screen is an area of the chip that is “sent to black” and converted to heat in the projector. So more resolution no, all available pixels yes (over zoom which is not) and more light output.

Thanks for your feedback and yes great question. I need to look a bit more into some Kaleidescape content but yes you are right. I think the issue here is how complex or convoluted the distortion or scaling or stretching is. A straight upscale is probably better than stretching up only and digitally and the stretching optically but I can’t be certain of that. The pixel structure of the projector really starts to matter too. I think the thing I like is that with the barcos the pixel structure/ resolution of the projector is at least fixed (but even the. Technically e-shifted ! So yes it’s a rabbit hole subject !! As to what we will get in the future it probably comes down to profit !

Have you given any thought to using a HTPC with a high-grade GPU? Madvr is easy to install and is free. Paired with a media player it would give you a lot of the benefits at a fraction of the cost. Since I started using my custom-built HTPC which cost me under $400, I have seen a vast improvement in PQ.

@@michaeldee3380 under $400 with a high grade gpu?

@@martinbailey3408 Hi, indeed, I build my own PCs, generally with a basic rig purchased 2nd hand which I then upgrade with extra RAM and a Nvidia GTX1650ti for which I paid less than US $ 200. Works really well and the experience has been transformative. I use MCP HC from which I play 4k UHD discs. Madvr is easy to install but the drawback is that tweaking it for optimum results is very time-consuming.

@@michaeldee3380 oh i see, i assumed you were meaning a 3060 or better.

@@martinbailey3408 I have no idea which GPU the Madvr processing unit uses. It would be a good idea to check this out. I am certain it is not one of the flagship GPUs.

That’s correct so you are not using over 30% of your pixels and light output in this case

We fully get that. Good way to manage it considering the options just a shame about some of the losses but many don’t really notice..

That is the thing with technology. Barco is a focussed company which produces visual imaging products for commercial, medical, simulation, pro AV and premium residential. The are a bespoke company, the others are consumer electronics. Further than that, many consumer electronics companies produce so many different products...TVs, Soundbars, fridges, washing machines, printers etc. so R&D is spread out over so many types of products. Barco is (pardon the pun), more focused. Like all brands that delve deep into the tech in a more specific category, they get the best out of it. They don't think that good enough will do...ever... Besides, what do you define as leading brands? Barco Residential is a leading brand in Home Cinema as they produce the best of the best when it comes to image performance. It's no different to cars, brands like BMW, Mercedes, Audi...they are leading brands. Hyundai, Kia...they are emulating them. Hyundai and Kia may sell more cars, so if you define a leading brand by numbers sold...but I see a leading brand as the one setting the standards that others try to follow. This is why brands like Barco Residential offer such unique performance elements. Yes, they aren't the cheapest...they are the Mercedes, Ferraris, Rolls Royce and F1 cars... Regarding cinemascope, its not just the native element that's most important. If you have this... great (mind you only Barco Residential currently does), but it means little if your optical block, lens, processing etc. is not up to scratch. This costs a lot to perfect and costs a lot to produce. A native scope projector with a balanced high performance full imaging system is the best solution for a Home Cinema unless you are looking at true DCI compliant projectors for residential, which Barco Residential have...different story however. The next best is an anamorphic lens on a 16:9 unit of quality...however, with a lens you lose light output, create distortion (you need a curved screen to counteract) and can create other image artefacts. Many lenses are also perspex, not glass... The least desirable is the "overshoot" on lower quality units. They just don't have the performance capabilities like the true DCI Compliant units have to cope with this properly. I would go with a decent 16:9 image from a quality projector over an overshoot on a lower end projector. The issue again comes to those selling the Home Cinema and truly understanding products and principles of implementation...which H.T.E have in abundance...vs selling a kit / box...

They did. Phillips made one in 2.35:1 but it never caught on....

@@HomeTheatreEngineering I also have an Epson LS10000 that has reached it's 17,000 hours and an Epson 3800 to fill the gap until something better comes along throwing onto a 174" Center Stage Scope Curved AT Screen with a Panamorph Anamorphic Lens. The custom Lens memory for 2.35:1 was a very handy option, one that will be in my next projector for sure. Thanks for the video, I get people that come over and don't know what the Anamorphic Lens and sled is for :)

Its hard to make recommendations to others when it comes to budget but that aside Yes if you can get a MadVR at a price that works for you then I would say go for it. We have been incredibly impressed with what they can do. In fairness I have not played with their capability I believe they can work well with 16:9 screens but do your homework first :-)

Keep an eye out on ebay for used Panamorph UH380 or 480 lenses which can be found well under $1000. Some ISCO IIIs are going for around the $1000 mark - I believe there's one on there right now.

@@garyl5128 Thanks for the tip. But since I made this comment I moved my projector back and went to a 115" 2.35:1 scope screen and it worked out perfectly!

In what respect. Can you clarify your question?

Nice comment and yes we agree!

Thanks for the feedback. Yep we share your pain :-)

Its a nice theory and I wish it were the case. but anamorphic lenses are not easy to make and do not have the production numbers that normal optical lenses have. But I agree that they are overpriced. Also cinemas have “flat” screens as all cinema projectors are DCI compliant and their default mode is “flat”. This is quite a topic actually !!

Hi. First of all its not a "Craze" it is the way most hollywood movies were and are created. Secondly a large 16:9 screen needs ceiling height which brings into play other issues, distance from ceiling and floor and light reflection.Thirdly this means for example your evening news and ads are using the full screen in 16:9 while your blockbuster movie is using 66% of your screen (and projector chip therefore less pixels as well) and finally "extremely bright projectors" that produce a quality BT2020 image are very expensive and we are not fans of high gain screens (which "hotspot") or high contrast ALR screens as we know how they impact the image quality plus our rooms don't need to deal with ambient light. This is not about complaining about the "black bars" its about maximising the content the way it was created. Yes IMAX does throw a spanner in the works but this content is at the moment in the very small minority. At the end of the day the choice is yours.. it is not up to us to tell people what to do but at least to inform them of their options. We are committed to building dedicated cinemas in home so maybe our focus is different to others. We give our clients all options not just one and the room can also dictate what is possible.