# Cylindrical A-Lens Owner's Thread



## coolrda

It's time to start a thread that encompasses all of these type of lenses. Though there have been threads in the past that have been devoted to the Isco 3L or Schneider 1.33 lenses, I think now is the time to start a new expanded thread to include all commercially available Cylindrical Anamorphic Lenses. Hopefully this can be a source of reference to all present and future owner's of these lens.


At the present time these are the lenses available and that make up this group.

Cavx MK4, MK5(Xeitoptics CM-5E), Isco 3s, Isco 3L, Prismasonic HD6000, 1.33X, Schneider 1.33X M, Schneider 1.33X XL. The Isco 3s/Schneider 1.33X M and Isco 3L/Schneider 1.33X XL are identical except for the body. Prismasonic HD-6000. Panamorph has the projector specific DCR-S1, S2 and J1 and well as the flagship Paladin DCR’s for 16x9 and 17x9 projectors.


The current mounts for the Isco lenses are the Tech Ht mounts which include the Cineslide/MultiStand 2 automated lens sled/lens mount system. A Tabletop mount/MultiStand 2 is also available for stationary lens mounting. These work for the Schneider lenses as well. Schneider also has their own lens mount systems available from their dealer network. Currently they have the Kino-Linear slide system, which is being discontinued, and the Kino-Torsion swing system. All of these systems have pitch, yaw and roll adjustments for precise lens alignment. The Cavx Mk4 comes with a stationary mount but should be able to be mounted to a Cineslide or Panamorph sled system.


The advantage of the cylindrical lens is that it works like a traditional camera lens. With the adjustable focus element, you have the ability to have perfect focus from edge to edge, top to bottom, side to side. Artifacts such as Astigmatism and Chromatic Aberration are a non-issue with these type of lenses. Essentially the image enters and leaves untouched with the exception of two things, it's horizontally expanded by 33% and there is a very slight amount of pincushion. Light loss from the lens is small and alleviated by the corresponding gain due to the increased pixel count of 33%.


Unfortunately, these lenses aren't readily available for viewing. Not to many dealers have these or any A-Lens available to demo. Hopefully this will be a place for those contemplating a purchase can go for reference, to ask questions or to be reassured as these lenses are very expensive, though worth every penny, in my opinion.


----------



## coolrda

AussieBob’s Anamorphic Lens Setup Guide


----------



## rboster

I think this is a great idea for a thread topic.



What would *not* be appropriate for this thread is a debate on A-lens vs no lens or vs zooming etc. *That type of discussion should be considered off topic.*


----------



## coolrda

I've had a few people point out to me that my lens cost substantially more than my projector, so I thought I would address this. I bought my first FP in the summer of 2004, a Infocus X-1. In learned of the 4805 coming out the next month so made a switch. Fall of 2006 I stepped up to an Optoma HD72. Then my present FP, the Benq W5000, June of 2008. My point is I change FP's about every two years. The only component I change more is my DVD players. I've upgraded receivers along the way as new features were necessary and finally to a pre/pro. There are a few components that stay around a lot longer in my system, such as speakers. Now there are always exception but typically people hang on to that part of their systems more than players and such. My point is I'll spend a lot more on this than I would disc players because of this. I get more value out of it.


My first lens, the "classic' Panamorph P752 was purchased in 9/2004 and has served me well ever since. If I get that out of my new lens I will be satisfied. I expect this lens to last a lifetime worth of FP changeouts. So to answer the questions if I spent too much on the lens in relation to my current FP the answer is NO. Knowing and seeing what I have now, this lens will work with any price range of projector from $1500 and up. I realize budget wise these lens aren't for everyone. But those that have $2K or more to spend should seriously look into moving up to this type of lens, whether buying new or used. Its as close to future proof as there is.


Another thing. I heard people trying to quantifying the use of these lens with different types and resolutions of FP's. These len's will look the same regardless of spec's. You will get the same level of improvement whether you have a 720P, 1080P or a 2160P/4K FP. I've seen it first hand with all of the above and in each case it was the best solution. And this was the case _*regardless of source resolution*_.


----------



## HDGTX

Great info & photos ! Thanks for posting this info.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea for a thread topic.
> 
> 
> What would not be appropriate for this thread is a debate on A-lens vs no lens or vs zooming etc. That type of discussion should be considered off topic.



Agree!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've had a few people point out to me that my lens cost substantially more than my projector,



Yeah I'm in that boat with my Lens and sled worth more than my projector. But it's worth it.


Excellent thread coolrda


----------



## coolrda

Thank you. I measured pincushion at the top and bottom at 6 pixels from center to edge. My TR is about 2.2. Will take some ANSI contrast readings with and without lens for comparison.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you. I measured pincushion at the top and bottom at 6 pixels from center to edge. My TR is about 2.2. Will take some ANSI contrast readings with and without lens for comparison.



I've never checked mine but it's very little also I will have a look tonight


----------



## Widlarizer

Would it be ok to include the Isco 2 (although it's not a "pure" cylindrical design at all)?


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Widlarizer* /forum/post/18904524
> 
> 
> Would it be ok to include the Isco 2 (although it's not a "pure" cylindrical design at all)?



I hope so, ich bin ein Isco II'er.







I recently discovered that some pincusion I was noticing was actually caused by my projector not being perfectly square to my screen. As I'm in a very long throw setup I'm maximising the image quality from my 'II, so every little tweak helps.


I haven't got a sled as I tend to fit my lens if I know the film is 2.35/2.40:1 AR and I just switch to 16:9 using my Edge VP for trailers and menus. If I know the film is 1.85:1 then I don't fit my lens and just adjust the projector zoom slightly (the Isco II slightly increases the whole image, not just widthways).


I'm afraid my stand isn't very glamourous as it was intended to be a temporary test piece, but I put it away when I'm not using the projector, so it doesn't really matter too much.


----------



## CRGINC

Maybe we could include any A-Lens to expand this thread? I have both a Schneider X1.33 and a Prismasonic H-FE1500M. The mounting plate was designed to hold the lens and a Sony Pearl projector. Later I modified it for the Schneider lens. My throw is 2.22:1 into a 108' wide 2.37:1 screen. What I have learned is how critical the alignment is to get good results. The Schneider was easier to align than the Prismasonic but it took some time.


----------



## GetGray

I think the thread ought to stick to ground glass lens types, not Prisim based lenses.


Kelvin your Isco II stand is Isco's original "Iscostat 9"


Here's a bunch of photos of folks Isco installations:

http://www.techht.com/Photos.html


----------



## GetGray

One more shared with me recently...











Mark, let me know if that one's not OK to post and I'll remove it..


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18912192
> 
> 
> I think the thread ought to stick to ground glass lens types, not Prisim based lenses.
> 
> 
> Kelvin your Isco II stand is Isco's original "Iscostat 9"
> 
> 
> Here's a bunch of photos of folks Isco installations:
> 
> http://www.techht.com/Photos.html



I think a prism lens is a ground lens? At least the high quality lenses are. Maybe not DIY lenses but I would consider the Primasonic lens a quality lens. My reasoning is after a week there have not been that many replies so why not widen the scope of the thread to get more comments?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/18905832
> 
> 
> I recently discovered that some pincusion I was noticing was actually caused by my projector not being perfectly square to my screen. As I'm in a very long throw setup I'm maximising the image quality from my 'II, so every little tweak helps.



When I had both my ISCO III and Panamorph UH480 and was swapping them back and forth in front of a BenQ W20000, one of the major things that I found was that alignment is highly important to minimizing geometric distortion. The first step is to make sure that the projector is as perfectly normal to the screen as possible - any sort of keystoning will cause the pincushion to be lopsided in at least one axis. After that, aligning the lens so that it is completely parallel to the light path is just as critical. Taking the extra time to do this produced some really stunning pictures with almost no pincushion.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/18912730
> 
> 
> When I had both my ISCO III and Panamorph UH480 and was swapping them back and forth in front of a BenQ W20000, one of the major things that I found was that alignment is highly important to minimizing geometric distortion. The first step is to make sure that the projector is as perfectly normal to the screen as possible - any sort of keystoning will cause the pincushion to be lopsided in at least one axis. After that, aligning the lens so that it is completely parallel to the light path is just as critical. Taking the extra time to do this produced some really stunning pictures with almost no pincushion.



It's funny you should mention that most basic of steps. After aligning everything to the nth degree, to the millimeter I had that very thing on the right side of my picture. After 3 hrs of triple checking everything I checked and keystone was set at 1. There's a lost movie I'll never get back. Sound advice HP. Take the time to line everything up and double check all menu's and it will save you alot on the back end


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18912225
> 
> 
> Mark, let me know if that one's not OK to post and I'll remove it..



It is all good with me


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/18912664
> 
> 
> I think a prism lens is a ground lens? At least the high quality lenses are. Maybe not DIY lenses but I would consider the Primasonic lens a quality lens. My reasoning is after a week there have not been that many replies so why not widen the scope of the thread to get more comments?



What GetGray means is cylindrical optics Vs prisms. Yes both are "ground" glass and both can be spec'd to give the same S/D figures and even use the same optic coatings. The difference is the shape of the optics and the in-ability of a prisms lens to be "focused". Prism lenses rely on their "astigmatism" or "focal" correctors to allow corner to corner focus of the image. The current range of "correctors" on the market are also single glass lenses, so the optics are therefore fixed and not adjustable. It is the ability to adjust the optics that set cylindrical anamorphic lenses apart from prisms anamorphic adapters.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18912192
> 
> 
> I think the thread ought to stick to ground glass lens types, not Prisim based lenses.
> 
> 
> Kelvin your Isco II stand is Isco's original "Iscostat 9"
> 
> 
> Here's a bunch of photos of folks Isco installations:
> 
> http://www.techht.com/Photos.html



I wish there was a 'thanks' button on this forum, to save adding another post. Anyway, thanks for the information and the installation pictures. It seems my 'II looks different to the one in the comparison picture (though mine clearly says '16:9 Video Attachment II' on the front, so I don't think I got a 'III by mistake.







I'm looking forward to the 'scope next film I watch since I discovered my alignment issue, but I'll also need to recheck the Isco adjustments as well. I might have to buy myself a cheap pair of binoculars so I can adjust the lens and view the crosshatches more closely.


----------



## RapalloAV

Well after years of ZOOMING Ive finally joined the camp and NEVER to return!

Only the guys that take the plunge know and understand why


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well after years of ZOOMING Ive finally joined the camp and NEVER to return!
> 
> Only the guys that take the plunge know and understand why



Glad to have you on board


----------



## coolrda

Last night I spent some taking some light readings for comparison. I ran several readings at various bulb settings, iris settings and with and without the lens. Theoretically there should be a 33% gain of light with the lens in compared to using the zoom method. I took multiple readings with both lux and fc and came up with 304 w/lens and 294 lumens w/o lens. The small difference is probably because of the differences of 2.35/2.37. There's no measurable light loss with this lens. What this means is that the difference between not using a lens and using one is the same as going from a 92" screen to a 106" and having the same light level. This of course is a huge benefit when counting lumens for large screens.


Over the course of taking these measurement I came up with a couple formulas for figuring light needed for certain size screens. I know that question is asked frequently. The few givens are that your using a 2.35 screen with one of these lenses. I didn't add in for screen loss or gain. These are for 1.0 neutral gain screens but it's easy to figure in for screen loss or gain. These will hopefully make quick work of matching projectors and screens. Target flts(footLamberts) is typically 12-16. You can use 12 as a baseline. That's bright in a light controlled room. These were done in short time so there could be room for improvement. I actually used to be quite handy figuring load calc's as I have a C20/C38. But working for the world's largest telecom for the last eleven years has fried my brain.


To match your projector to a screen:

Lumens/target ftls*3.855= Diag 2.35 screen

Diag size/1.087= 2.35 screen width

Screen width*1.087= 2.35 diag size


To match your screen to a projector:

Screen Diag/3.855*ftls= Lumens


Remember to double lumens on bulb-type projectors to take in to consideration aging loss.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18917258
> 
> 
> Well after years of ZOOMING Ive finally joined the camp and NEVER to return!
> 
> Only the guys that take the plunge know and understand why



Very nice, sweet setup with the Kino-Linear and Mirage surrounds I believe.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18918020
> 
> 
> Very nice, sweet setup with the Kino-Linear and Mirage surrounds I believe.



Im using a Kino-Torsion with my Schneider Cine-Digitar Anamorphic 1.33x M Lens, and yes they are Mirage surrounds as part of my 7.1.


I use two motorised screens, 16x9 in front is 120" and rolls over the back of the roller.

2.35 Scope screen 140" dia. 3250mm wide and rolls over the front of the roller.


I change ratios and stretch with an iScan Duo which I think is the best thing ever!


----------



## Alan Gouger

Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. Will be able to share details soon.

Top performance. Should put a dent in the market.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/18919288
> 
> 
> Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. Will be able to share details soon.
> 
> Top performance. Should put a dent in the market.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18879688
> 
> 
> It's time to start a thread that encompasses all of these type of lenses. Though there have been threads in the past that have been devoted to the Isco 3L or Schneider 1.33 lenses, I think now is the time to start a new expanded thread to include all commercially available Cylindrical Anamorphic Lenses. Hopefully this can be a source of reference to all present and future owner's of these lens.
> 
> 
> At the present time these are the lenses available and that make up this group.
> 
> Cavx MK4, Isco 3s, Isco 3L, Schneider 1.33X, Schneider 1.33X M, Schneider 1.33X XL. The Isco 3s/Schneider 1.33X M and Isco 3L/Schneider 1.33X XL are identical except for the body.
> 
> 
> The current mounts for the Isco lenses are the Tech Ht mounts which include the Cineslide/MultiStand 2 automated lens sled/lens mount system. A Tabletop mount/MultiStand 2 is also available for stationary lens mounting. These work for the Schneider lenses as well. Schneider also has their own lens mount systems available from their dealer network. Currently they have the Kino-Linear slide system, which is being discontinued, and the Kino-Torsion swing system. All of these systems have pitch, yaw and roll adjustments for precise lens alignment. The Cavx Mk4 comes with a stationary mount but should be able to be mounted to a Cineslide or Panamorph sled system.
> 
> 
> The advantage of the cylindrical lens is that it works like a traditional camera lens. With the adjustable focus element, you have the ability to have perfect focus from edge to edge, top to bottom, side to side. Artifacts such as Astigmatism and Chromatic Aberration are a non-issue with these type of lenses. Essentially the image enters and leaves untouched with the exception of two things, it's horizontally expanded by 33% and there is a very slight amount of pincushion. Light loss from the lens is small and alleviated by the corresponding gain due to the increased pixel count of 33%.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, these lenses aren't readily available for viewing. Not to many dealers have these or any A-Lens available to demo. Hopefully this will be a place for those contemplating a purchase can go for reference, to ask questions or to be reassured as these lenses are very expensive, though worth every penny, in my opinion.



Great idea.

I think my lense has actually gone UP in value.

A rarity for anything in consumer electronics.


Here is my setup:
*Link* 


JVC RS20 + CineSlide CSII Anamorphic Lens Transport + ISCOIIIL a-lens


w/ install help from funlvr1965


Mike


----------



## RapalloAV

A new Scnheider CDA 1.33x EL lens will be available some time in the 4th Quarter.


You can see it on this brochure.

 

SK_Home_Cinema Brochure.pdf 257.3681640625k . file


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/18919288
> 
> 
> Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. Will be able to share details soon.
> 
> Top performance. Should put a dent in the market.



My Crystal Ball says...._CAVX_


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> When I had both my ISCO III and Panamorph UH480 and was swapping them back and forth in front of a BenQ W20000, one of the major things that I found was that alignment is highly important to minimizing geometric distortion.



Should read "alignment is highly important to *equalizing pincushion top and bottom of screen*". Pincushion with cylindricals is about the same as with prism lenses. Pincushion improvements require much more complex optics than just using a couple of cylindrical lenses.



> Quote:
> The first step is to make sure that the projector is as perfectly normal to the screen as possible - any sort of keystoning will cause the pincushion to be lopsided in at least one axis.



Correct.



> Quote:
> After that, aligning the lens so that it is completely parallel to the light path is just as critical. Taking the extra time to do this produced some really stunning pictures with almost no pincushion.



Should read "aligning the lens so that its optical axis is *completely normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the light path and centered on the beam* is just as critical *for some lenses*."


The more elements in the design that are in the light path, the less critical this alignment (especially horizontal alignment) is. This is because the distribution of curvatures is spread over more glass surfaces.


For example a lens with 4 glass-air surfaces (i.e. not counting cemented surfaces) will have more flexibility in alignment if all four surfaces are curved.


A 4 glass-air surface lens with two flat surfaces will only have the possibility of 2 curved surfaces. These curvatures must, of necessity, be quite steep (as the other two of the four are flat), and alignment problems can ensue with them.


A lens with, say, 6 glass-air surfaces has even more degrees of freedom, and thus more flexibility in alignment.



> Quote:
> Theoretically there should be a 33% gain of light with the lens in. I took multiple readings with both lux and fc and came up with 304 w/lens and 294 lumens w/o lens. The small difference is probably because of the differences of 2.35/2.37. There's no measurable light loss with this lens. What this means is that the difference between not using a lens and using one is the same as going from a 92" screen to a 106" and having the same light level. This of course is a huge benefit when counting lumens for large screens.



Wrongly put. Using a lens should "theoretically" be 33% brighter *than zooming*


There will always be a light *loss* with an A-lens. You are expanding the image in the horizontal direction by one-third. There's 33.3% light loss straight away. Then there's loss through the lens (due to internal reflection and absorption by the glass surfaces).


On the other hand, with zooming you're expanding the image bioth vertically and hosizontally by one third. The Zoom Method arithmetic is 4/3 x 4/3 = a 16/9 increase in image area. Inverting this number you get the relative zoomed brightness (compared to pre-zoomed brightness): 9/16 (56.25% of the pre-zoomed brightness). However you're also enlarging the image which, with projector zoom lenses, makes the aperture of the lens effectively larger (relative to the shorter focal length of a wide angle zoomed lens). This is equivalent to reducing the f/number, so there less loss than you might think... the f/number of an optical system is the focal length (shorter when zoomed) divided by the (fixed) physical aperture.


Compare this greater light transmission efficiency of a zoomed lens with the light loss from using an anamorphic lens and the final 'scope brightnesses are closer than you might think. An A-lens should still deliver greater bruightness than a zoomed lens, but not by 33.3%... more like 15%-20% (and sometimes they're about line-ball, depending on the projector, throw ratio etc. used). On the other hand, an A-lens will most likely never be _dimmer_ thanthe Zoom Method...



> Quote:
> Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. Will be able to share details soon.
> 
> Top performance. Should put a dent in the market.



Make that "another *two*" lenses to be available soon.










I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I think a prism lens is a ground lens? At least the high quality lenses are. Maybe not DIY lenses but I would consider the Primasonic lens a quality lens. My reasoning is after a week there have not been that many replies so why not widen the scope of the thread to get more comments?



A prism lens is not regarded as a "ground" lens, even though it needs to be technically ground and polished.


The most perfectly machined and polished prism lens can never achieve the sophistication and flexibility of a cylindrically curved lens built to the same specifications.


A prism is essentially a series of flat surfaces, a "one-dimensional solution" if you like.


By contrast cylindrical lenses have the extra degrees of freedom, the "extra dimension" that curvature provides. The more curved surfaces, the better to "massage" the beam and minimize aberrations. Cylindrically curved lenses can be designed to be virtually any shape or form: bi-convex, bi-concave, plano-convex or concave, meniscus form etc. - or any combination of these (and more).


The focal length of a meniscus lens, for example, can be the same as a plano-concave, but the performance characteristics - in the context of the entire design - can be radically different. You probably wouldn't be able to substitute one for the other, even though the have the same theoretical focal length.


On the other hand a pair of prisms involves tilted, but completely flat surfaces. Not much to work with there. Prism lenses are also quite heavy compared to equivalent cylindrical lenses, as a rule.


Prism lenses (even the very highest quality ones) have severe astigmatism problems, especially at short throws and/or short throw ratios. To fix this astigmatism you need a corrector lens, which is in fact a cylindrical element with very weak power.


In short, on a thread about the virtues and various performance characteristics of cylindrical lenses, discussion of prisms is out of place, except for comparison's sake, but not as part of the main thread discussion.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> 
> Make that "another *two*" lenses to be available soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs.



Sounds like something on the "horizon" to look forward to...


----------



## Franin

Interested to see it in action aussiebob.


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18921969
> 
> 
> Sounds like something on the "horizon" to look forward to...



Mark,


What type of improvement are you talking about? So some company has come up with a lens with more elements but what is the purpose of these extra elements or group? Your the expert. Let us know what is going to be the improvement.


Charles


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/18923064
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> What type of improvement are you talking about? So some company has come up with a lens with more elements but what is the purpose of these extra elements or group? Your the expert. Let us know what is going to be the improvement.
> 
> 
> Charles



It was actually AB that mentioned the possible improvement using this extra lens, then again, it might even come down to your screen choice - flat or curved.


So without saying too much, when I got to experience the prototype Horizon lens in June 2008, it had an unusual front lens like nothing I'd seen before on any of the commercial anamorphic lenses available at the time.


Whilst I could add a similar lens to my "4 element/2 group" (same as ISCO/Schneider) design, I don't believe I actually need this extra lens for use on a curved screen such as my own. As it turns out, the curved screen which was originally employed for pincushion correction also (by default) corrects this other aberration. The point is, even on a flat screen, this other aberration is not really noticed and I even watched Star Wars films (R2D2's dome head) looking for it. It doesn't bother the owner of the lens I used for this testing, even at his extremely short throw of just 1.4:1 onto a screen some 3.4m wide.


The point being, if you look long and hard enough, you'll find faults in everything, eventually.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> What type of improvement are you talking about? So some company has come up with a lens with more elements but what is the purpose of these extra elements or group? Your the expert. Let us know what is going to be the improvement.



Generally speaking, the more surfaces in a lens, the better the performance potential, given a good design to start with. Of course, on the other hand, you can have a crappy design with 20 surfaces that doesn't perform as well as a great design with only 6 surfaces. Over-engineering is always something that needs to be kept in mind as a pitfall.


This "other" lens (as I understand it) has an optimization that favours flatter, hence cheaper screens. Geometric distortion is reduced, but not to such an extent that it adversely affects curved screen performance either (if that's the way the user wants to go... _more_ money!). What this reduction in geometric distortion means is that grid squares are more evenly sized right across the screen. Traditional 4-element designs tend to have side-to-center distortions upwards of 5%. The shorter the TR the bigger the distortion. In this, the simpler 4-element designs are similar in distortion metrics to prism lenses. Both of these types of designs go back to the 1920s when, during design, every ray had to be traced through them by hand (and log tables). Today, using modern software, you can trace 10,000 rays a second, automatically, so you can be a little bit more adventurous with a design, making it more complex.


Simpler designs are more suited to larger TRs (3.0+), where they perform OK. Most (not all though) commercial cinemas have these long TRs, so the limitations of the simpler designs aren't apparent until you use them with the short TRs typical of Home Theater.


Additionally, the more surfaces you have available for curving the more you can "condition" or "massage" the beam as it passes through the lens. Take a simple convex lens. You can use it as a projector lens - it inverts and focuses at a distant point - but you'll have astigmatism, color aberration, possible coma and so on. So you add elements (extra surfaces) that get rid of these aberrations. If you look at a projector lens it contains many such elements, each one gradually adding its own little piece of quality to the overall image, making sure the beam isn't too "bent" in any one place along the light path.


Now consider an anamorphic design. If designed as an add-on adapter, especially in Home Theater usage, the diameters of the lenses have to be huge. This makes them very heavy and very expensive to fabricate to exacting standards. So you can't use too many or else you might end up with a great image at a prohibitive cost to the customer. There has to be a compromise position somewhere. Add some surfaces, but not so many that the design prices itself out of the market.


Benefits of added surfaces are that you can tweak the image to be better over a wider range of applications.


For example, a 4-element design that has only 4 outer (glass-air) surfaces (two per individual element in the lens) might have a couple of them flat (plano) to aid in manufacture and assembly. But this leaves only two surfaces that can be curved, necesitating extra-steep curvature on those remaining available surfaces to achieve the desired anamorphic effect.


By contrast, if all _four_ surfaces were curved then the light wouldn't have to be bent as much on each curved surface as it passes through the lens. Having more curved surfaces allows each of them to "share the load" of conditioning the beam. _Reducing_ the number of curved surfaces in a lens (consequently "crowding" the light-bending potential of the lens into less surfaces) makes it more susceptible to aberrations at the margins. It requires more exact placement of the lens in the light path, down to a millimetre or so. Outside these boundaries, lens performance can suffer at the edges.


Lenses with reduced numbers of curved surfaces tend to work well only within a more limited throw range, and throw ratio range. For example, they might be superbly sharp and contrasty at TRs of 2 and up, at throws of 4 to 8 metres, but outside that envelope they tend to lose performance edge. To work outside the envelope you require a new design, optimized for that new envelope.


Now, a design with more surfaces can still use a couple of plano surfaces for ease of manufacture, but can _also_ have a significant number of curved surfaces to do the optical work, simply because there is a greater degree of freedom in the design, due to the extra surfaces. With more surfaces, the designer (and the customer) can have his cake and eat it too.


For example, a 6-element design with two plano surfaces still has 4 surfaces that can be curved. It can have the manufacturing flexibility of plano surfaces, and the optical flexibility of the remaining surfaces being eligible to be curved.


Other advantages of lenses with lots of curved surfaces could be in areas such as ghost imaging. "Ghost" images are the result of reflective interactions of the anamorphic adapter both with the projector lens and with its own internal elements. AR coating is important. There are cheap single AR coatings and more expnsive "multi-coatings". These serve to reduce internal reflection and increase transmission, paying off in brightness and contrast performance. Occasionally, despite AR coating, reflections will conspire to present a focused (or somewhat focused) "ghost" image right onto the screen, particularly during end credits and dark scenes with bright highlights, where contrast is usally at its highest (white characters, fires, flames, torchlights, city lights etc. on a black background). Intuitively you might think that the more surfaces in the lens the more potential for stray reflections, but this is not necessarilty the case. If the designer is careful, by using more curved surfaces he can _reduce_ the chance of ghost images by interfering with the reflection potential inside the lens, presenting too many surfaces for a patent image to escape and form on the screen, making the chances of ghosts actually _less_ than with simpler designs.


In summary, it's simple: the more surfaces you have, given a decent design, the more you can do good things with the light that passes through them.


P.S. This other news lens is not called "Horizon" and bears only a faint similarity to that design.


----------



## coolrda

Wrongly put. Using a lens should "theoretically" be 33% brighter *than zooming*


Noted and corrected. Bad habit. I assume everyone can read my mind an knew I was comparing to zooming.


----------



## coolrda

Does this lens have correction for focus in relation to T.R.? With pincushion being the only major aberration that I would like corrected I assume that both issue could be handle with curving the screen at the right radius. As I have no experience in using curved screens, doesn't use of a curved screen help light uniformity across the screen?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs.



Aussie Bob, this indeed sounds like a World First for the home theatre market.


From what I have learned from both your posts and my own R&D is that the current crop of 4E cylindrical lenses have been more or less offered with 'oh it's good enough' attitude. Even when knowing the design is not as good as it could be, yet they have continued to charge insane prices for something that is really a flawed design. Plus the fact that it's design has been around since the 1920's or thereabouts and nobody has been eager enough to make the changes required to improve it's design.


5 elements is certainly a step up in performance from what I understand.


Is that a fair statement?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18924521
> 
> 
> Does this lens have correction for focus in relation to T.R.?



All the current cylindrical lenses have adjustable optics so you can get the image sharp corner to corner.



> Quote:
> With pincushion being the only major aberration that I would like corrected I assume that both issue could be handle with curving the screen at the right radius. As I have no experience in using curved screens, doesn't use of a curved screen help light uniformity across the screen?



To correct pincushion "optically" for use on a flat screen would require a special lens that progressively magnifies to the centre of the image to counter the effects of progressive optical magnification at the edges. Whilst I am sure this can be done, I think that you would find that the lens needed for such a correction would be "throw precise" and not a lens that could be used on many throws. So now, not only would TR be of concern, the actual distance from screen to projector would also come in to play.


The curved screen does this by bringing the edges of the screen closer to the projector. Take any movable surface and project onto that. As you move it closer to the projector, the image size reduces. The curve works in much the same way, except that because the edges are closer than the centre, only the edges are reduced.


So where pincushion expands towards the ends of the screen, the curve now forces the image to be reduced towards the edges. If the curve if correct, two equal but opposite attributes now cancel and you have an image with straight lines.


Does that make sense?


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Does this lens have correction for focus in relation to T.R.?



No. It has focus correction for absolute throw distance. TR is relatively immaterial, once the focus for throw is set. Focus for a new TR (with the same throw) might change a bit, a fraction of a mm, but not so you'd bother.



> Quote:
> All the current cylindrical lenses have adjustable optics so you can get the image sharp corner to corner.



Not quite correct. This should read "sharp*er* corner to corner". No simple design can achieve complete astigmatism elimination in all circumstances. Take a look at a projector lens. They use a lot of elements to achieve edge-to-edge focus, many more than a typical anamorphic lens does.


However, the _projector_ lens might have to be re-focused if TR (zoom ratio) is changed. This is pretty standard procedure across the range of even expensive projectors. Once the projector is re-focused, then you'll find the anamorphic has remained focused _without_ extra adjustment required. You focus the anamorphic once for throw and then vary the projector's focus with changing zoom ratios.


Having said that, the more elements and curved surfaces in play, the better the improvement in anamorphic lens astigmatism performance from edge-to-edge - across the full color spectrum from 400um to 700um - should be.


What you will find with 4-element/4-surface designs is that _some_ parts of the spectrum will be sharp, but at the cost of color aberration. In other words, you can get individual colors sharp, but not so that they register precisely with each other (i.e. one color aligned on top of the others). This is especially true at wide TRs.


My observation (admittedly with a practised, critical eye) of even the hallowed Isco (which does have all 4 air-glass surfaces curved, no plano surface at all) has found this to be exactly the case.



> Quote:
> ...this indeed sounds like a World First for the home theatre market.



Probably so. Fair statement.


----------



## coolrda

Good input Bob and Mark. I would think that the improvement would be very small. I'd guess smaller than the difference between prism-based and circ-lenses. Now if that was available at the same price as the 3L then it's relevant. Even spending $3K is pushing it for most people. And let's face it, the lack of competition has allow Schneider to corner the market and sells product at what I suspect is a nice margin. And I assume any price-breaks are absorbed at the distributor level. Why should Schneider/Isco budge in this esoteric playground. Now maybe this glass warrants that price, i dont know. What i do know is You can get a very nice telescope for the price of a 3L.


Bob, if I understand you correctly, what your describing is color delay due to optics as opposed to electronics causing this in a projector?


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Good input Bob and Mark. I would think that the improvement would be very small. I'd guess smaller than the difference between prism-based and circ-lenses. Now if that was available at the same price as the 3L then it's relevant.



The improvement is not small at all. It is quite significant.


As for price, think: "a fraction of the price of a 3L".



> Quote:
> What i do know is You can get a very nice telescope for the price of a 3L.



Yeah, but you can't use a telescope to project widescreen movies


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18929568
> 
> 
> As for price, think: "a fraction of the price of a 3L".



You know I'm looking forward to seeing it, but to be fair, the Isco IIIS is a "fraction of the cost of the IIIL" too. The IIIL is a LOT larger. Maybe not as much of an issue for longer throws or smaller beam sizes. Now if these 3 new lens options that are starting to appear are a "fraction of the price of the (more comparable IMO) IIIS", now that will be good news for many














. Especially for the popular JVC's with their small beams.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

My curiosity is piqued by these two new lenses. I know about Mark's new lens but where can I learn about the one you're speaking of Aussie Bob?


----------



## Franin

I'm interested to see what the AVS group is coming out with also. The more people that get into CIH the better I say.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18929568
> 
> 
> The improvement is not small at all. It is quite significant.
> 
> 
> As for price, think: "a fraction of the price of a 3L".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you can't use a telescope to project widescreen movies



Wow. If that comes to fruition, I am very interested in seeing this lens.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> The IIIL is a LOT larger. Maybe not as much of an issue for longer throws or smaller beam sizes.



Smaller beam sizes are the future. The whole history of semi-conductor design has been to get real estate to a minimum. Larger chip sizes mean larger focal lengths and bigger lenses. Bigger lenses mean more expense and inflated margins.


Smaller chip sizes mean smaller beams, smaller projectors, and smaller anamorphic lenses required to do the same job.


GetGray and I have had this argument for a long time. He reckons that unless a lens can accommodate a 1.3 TR with a 14 foot screen size in a room the size of a broom closet, it isn't serious (well, I'm exaggerating a little, perhaps a lot, but it's the thought that counts).


My point is that anyone - the vast majority - that does not have this setup is paying for the small minority that do have it. Every time you see your beam occupying a small percentage of real estate in the centre of a huge, heavy, over-priced piece of German (or other) glass, you're paying for something you don't need to pay for: size over quality. You're effectively subsidizing the users who think that bigger is always better, and will - can - pay anything for it.


The concept of quality has been abandoned in favour of lens manufacturers trying to cater for the wishes of the spoilt few, who believe bigger and more expensive MUST be better, making the regular, sensible HT enthusiasts pay for the privilege. Because glass is so costly at the manufacturing level, the manufacturers have to simplify their designs (palming off century-old technology as "future proof") to allow huge size. They provide no guidelines or specifications for use, and trust that price alone will make their product look good. Then there are the dealers, and dealers upon dealers, who all get their pound of flesh out of the hapless end-user. It all adds up to inflated prices for 1920's technology.


No-one who spends X-thousand dollars on a dinosaur is going to admit that they spent too much.


----------



## CRGINC

Aussie Bob,


I am in agreement with you. First I want the projector behind me so I favor longer throws. Better optics are achievable with smaller lenses. However it is hard to find medium priced projectors with long throws. The newer Sonys have a shorter max throw than the earlier models. Granted a larger zoom range is somewhat detrimental to prime lens performance but none of the medium priced projectors have throws much greater than 2.2:1 with exception of the JVC and very few if any medium priced projectors have replaceable prime lenses to select the throw range.


----------



## GetGray

The nice thing about the IIIL is it is future PJ proof. If you get a JVC this year, and in 2 you get a Sim2 C4X, you can expect that it will "fit". Unfortunately, some of the heavy metal companies like Sim2 and DPI either have larger beam sizes, recessed lenses, or both. For those, the IIIL is the ticket.


But for the masses that have the JVC's, the IIIS or it's possible contenders should work fine...


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> If you get a JVC this year, and in 2 you get a Sim2 C4X, you can expect that it will "fit". Unfortunately, some of the heavy metal companies like Sim2 and DPI either have larger beam sizes, recessed lenses, or both. For those, the IIIL is the ticket.



Agreed. But how many people are really going to make that jump? A few, granted, but enough to justify forcing the common herd to effectively subsidize them?


I'm just wondering how long the big monsters will be around?


I'm not trying to get into the D-ILA v. DLP sh-tfight too deeply, but from what I've seen the news small-chip JVCs are pretty spectacular, inexpensive (relatively) and getting better with each new model.


----------



## CAVX

This thread was supposed to be a place that those with a cylindrical anamorphic lens could post their impressions and experiences, yet (and this could be just me) it seems to have become a Lens size pissing competition.


On the topic of chip size, the latest DLP offerings are also small at just 0.65". A considerable reduction to the previous 0.9" chips.


----------



## GetGray

AFAIK, only the "budget" DLPs are getting the smaller DC3 chip, the larger DC4 chip is still in the more expensive lines i.e. Lumis, Titans, Christie, etc.. The MTF has been measured better on the larger DC4 chip as I recall. But you are right, let's not turn this into a PJ tech thread. Back to round A lenses I mean cylindricals







.


Many will be tickled to have a less expensive alternative to a high end German lens. Particularly those wth more modest budgets and projectors. I'm looking forward to having the time to put them through the paces.


Scott


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18932887
> 
> 
> The nice thing about the IIIL is it is future PJ proof. If you get a JVC this year, and in 2 you get a Sim2 C4X, you can expect that it will "fit". Unfortunately, some of the heavy metal companies like Sim2 and DPI either have larger beam sizes, recessed lenses, or both. For those, the IIIL is the ticket.
> 
> 
> But for the masses that have the JVC's, the IIIS or it's possible contenders should work fine...



Very important point and the reason I decided on the 3L after originally settling on the 3S. For the small difference in price I have major piece of mind and better resale down the road. The 70mm opening would have probably worked for me but not knowing which future projector I'll be moving to or for that matter screen size was the reason for moving to the L. I will soon be moving from an 8ft wide to an 11-12ft wide screen. The new room is twice as wide but only a foot deeper so obviously my throw will change. I'm looking into a curved screen for the first time.


Being in Sacramento for training this week and seeing Inception on the 80ft Imax from 40ft back was eye opening. First, when viewing DMR content you really appreciate how good Imax filmed product is (70mm film or a 2K+ digital scan ala RED, etc should be the minimum). The second thing I took away from the experience is how good my picture is with my 3L. Even when viewing from as close as 6ft from my screen. Even if a product comes along that trumps my lens, I'm gonna be very happy for a very long time, especially if I ever have a Vango or comparable LED/DLP behind it. I must say I've enjoyed the posts here so far.


Lastly, has anyone tested or have come across resources/numbers concerning ANSI contrast with these lenses?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> Should read "alignment is highly important to *equalizing pincushion top and bottom of screen*". Pincushion with cylindricals is about the same as with prism lenses. Pincushion improvements require much more complex optics than just using a couple of cylindrical lenses.



Ah, but I wasn't talking about just pincushion, I was talking about geometric distortion overall. Specifically, failing to align the lens caused the image to become mildly trapezoidal and accentuated the pincushion. Proper alignment assures that the image is symmetrical along both axes, and also helps to minimize pincushion.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> Should read "aligning the lens so that its optical axis is *completely normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the light path and centered on the beam* is just as critical *for some lenses*.]"
> 
> 
> The more elements in the design that are in the light path, the less critical this alignment (especially horizontal alignment) is. This is because the distribution of curvatures is spread over more glass surfaces.
> 
> 
> For example a lens with 4 glass-air surfaces (i.e. not counting cemented surfaces) will have more flexibility in alignment if all four surfaces are curved.
> 
> 
> A 4 glass-air surface lens with two flat surfaces will only have the possibility of 2 curved surfaces. These curvatures must, of necessity, be quite steep (as the other two of the four are flat), and alignment problems can ensue with them.
> 
> 
> A lens with, say, 6 glass-air surfaces has even more degrees of freedom, and thus more flexibility in alignment.



With respect to the alignment, I probably could have done a better job wording things. When I said parallel, I meant parallel to the central axis of the lens. This could also be expressed as normal to the face of the lens, as you said.


And at the time of my writing, I wasn't aware of any commercially available lenses that were more complex than the ISCOIII, so my statement about alignment being critical was valid for what one could buy. Maybe that will change with this new 5-element lens, but my knowledge of that lens is limited to what's been posted here.


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18935085
> 
> 
> Agreed. But how many people are really going to make that jump? A few, granted, but enough to justify forcing the common herd to effectively subsidize them?



The current JVCs have recessed lenses that require the use of the bigger lenses, especially at shorter throws. Do you know/expect that this new cylindrical lens will accomodate the JVCs at shorter throws?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/18947347
> 
> 
> The current JVCs have recessed lenses that require the use of the bigger lenses, especially at shorter throws. Do you know/expect that this new cylindrical lens will accomodate the JVCs at shorter throws?



Please define shorter throws?


----------



## DLopatin

I am looking at building a small theater with only 1 row of seating which is approx 10'. If I want to go with a larger screen (say 126") & go with CIH, will I be able to use one of the lenses? I am showing the TR is not large enough on most projectors to handle this (such as the JVC15u).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DLopatin* /forum/post/18951315
> 
> 
> I am looking at building a small theater with only 1 row of seating which is approx 10'. If I want to go with a larger screen (say 126") & go with CIH, will I be able to use one of the lenses? I am showing the TR is not large enough on most projectors to handle this (such as the JVC15u).



The TR number I am referring to is found by dividing the distance between the screen and the projector's lens by the native 16:9 image width.


How deep is the room?


----------



## DLopatin

Unfortunately only 11'. Just wanted to see if this was an option. Room is probably too small...


----------



## Lawguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18950753
> 
> 
> Please define shorter throws?



Around 1.4. From what I have seen, with the JVCs, you would need the big ISCO. I wonder if this new design will accomodate the JVC at short throws.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18935088
> 
> 
> This thread was supposed to be a place that those with a cylindrical anamorphic lens could post their impressions and experiences, yet (and this could be just me) it seems to have become a Lens size pissing competition.
> 
> 
> On the topic of chip size, the latest DLP offerings are also small at just 0.65". A considerable reduction to the previous 0.9" chips.



Going OT again do you think thats where its heading Mark, smaller chip sizes? Smaller Proj?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18920530
> 
> 
> My Crystal Ball says...._CAVX_



No, I cant say to much just yet but hope to be able to very soon.

It is from a reliable vendor, top performance with nice features.

Ill ask for an update and pass it along once I get a reply. All of us would prefer a cylinder design and AVS members are price/performance conscience and Ive been waiting for someone to deliver something a little more affordable then whats currently available with no luck. I think this will hit the mark.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> No, I cant say to much just yet but hope to be able to very soon.
> 
> It is from a reliable vendor, top performance with nice features.
> 
> Ill ask for an update and pass it along once I get a reply. All of us would prefer a cylinder design and AVS members are price/performance conscience and Ive been waiting for someone to deliver something a little more affordable then whats currently available with no luck. I think this will hit the mark.



Aussie Bob's??


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lawguy* /forum/post/18952105
> 
> 
> Around 1.4. From what I have seen, with the JVCs, you would need the big ISCO. I wonder if this new design will accomodate the JVC at short throws.



I'd be looking to reduce the screen size. If you work off the THX "36 degree" rule, then you would have to divide the room length by 3.68 to find the image height and then times that by 2.37 to find the screen width.


11 / (10 x 0.75) = TR of 1.46:1


It would be do-able, however your close to 2x the image height which whist good for HD, may not be so good for SD.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18952285
> 
> 
> Going OT again do you think thats where its heading Mark, smaller chip sizes? Smaller Proj?



Everything electronic is going smaller (except displays and that weird I-Pad thing), so yes I think once LED light engines are the norm, fans are no linger required, we will see some much smaller devices in the projector market.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything electronic is going smaller (except displays and that weird I-Pad thing), so yes I think once LED light engines are the norm, fans are no linger required, we will see some much smaller devices in the projector market.



That would be chassis and lens size?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18954670
> 
> 
> That would be chassis and lens size?



Chassis size. Chip sets and lenses are as small as they can be for now. Take my BenQW5000. It is 500mm wide. If it ran off LED and not a UHP lamp (with fan), I guess the unit could be half the size. The large chassis were employed to allow quieter operation of the cooling system. Take away the need for a cooling system, and you don't need the size anymore.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18954748
> 
> 
> Chassis size. Chip sets and lenses are as small as they can be for now. Take my BenQW5000. It is 500mm wide. If it ran off LED and not a UHP lamp (with fan), I guess the unit could be half the size. The large chassis were employed to allow quieter operation of the cooling system. Take away the need for a cooling system, and you don't need the size anymore.



I think LED lamps are not as cool running as we would like, seems like the few LED projectors out now are larger due to the additional cooling requirements.


If size reduction is a must an outboard lamp module, light tranmitted via fiber optics will keep the main projector size down, but I think manufacturers will keep the projectors of a particular size so they can charge accordingly due to the 'size' value factor.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18954781
> 
> 
> I think LED lamps are not as cool running as we would like, seems like the few LED projectors out now are larger due to the additional cooling requirements.
> 
> 
> If size reduction is a must an outboard lamp module, light tranmitted via fiber optics will keep the main projector size down, but I think manufacturers will keep the projectors of a particular size so they can charge accordingly due to the 'size' value factor.



I was sent a link with a projector using an external light source. It looked like a neat idea. The light house was about the size (footprint) of an A4 piece of paper and the projector was about half the size. it apparently used optic fibre to send light.


Last year I got to meet a guy at SMPTE that claimed that he was a part of the "LED design committee" (if such a thing exists). He described the (at the time) current gen of of LED as arrays (say 20 Red, Green, Blue, Yellow and Magenta - he didn't mention Cyan per array) of LEDs where each LED could turn on/off independently. The arrays worked with a single DLP imaging chip. By the way he described it, it would explain to the size required for the chassis to physically contain these units.


I don't think LEDs generate heat as such. JVC gave me a single, very bright LED light for my keys. This is very bright, yet is cold to touch, unlike a traditional element lamp that produces heat and light. I still would like to see UHP lamp replacements made using these. If one LED is this bright, imagine 16 or so with a reflector behind them.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18952285
> 
> 
> Going OT again do you think thats where its heading Mark, smaller chip sizes? Smaller Proj?



Maybe for projector under $5K, but .95 chips are superior and are used on the higher end units. Its been proven sharpness is better with the .95's. The .65 chips certainly help with lens shift and have continued to improve with the passing generations of projector. Its just makes sense that the two will co-exist with upper and lower price regardless of light engine used.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/18953075
> 
> 
> No, I cant say to much just yet but hope to be able to very soon.
> 
> It is from a reliable vendor, top performance with nice features.
> 
> Ill ask for an update and pass it along once I get a reply. All of us would prefer a cylinder design and AVS members are price/performance conscience and Ive been waiting for someone to deliver something a little more affordable then whats currently available with no luck. I think this will hit the mark.



Intriguing. I would think CAVX would be more inline with the cost of current lenses, but you never know. No one has mentioned Panamorph and its been awhile since we had a new design or model from them. Prismasonic and AVS could be a possibility. We'll see. I think the Isco will hold its own, though. I must say, the Vango is getting more tempting by the minute.


----------



## CAVX

Given we are back on topic, I thought I might post a screen cap (Arts fave) from Serenity.


Projector : BenQW5000

A-Lens : CAVX Aussiemorphic MK4

Screen : OzTS Acoustic Vison


----------



## coolrda

Here's a paper with list of projector compatibility.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/proje...hrowratios.pdf


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's a paper with list of projector compatibility.
> http://www.schneideroptics.com/proje...hrowratios.pdf



Thanks coolrda


----------



## dneilan1

I seem to recall some time ago someone posted a useful installation guide for the Isco III on these forums. I haven't been able to find it, and would love it if someone could point me in the right direction. I recently purchased the used IIIL advertised on the forums to replace my UH480 I had paired to my RS20, and after some concern over finances, have decided to go ahead and keep it. I did the UH480 install myself, so I'm sure I can figure it out, but I know this is a more complicated install and would love to benefit from those that have gone before me. Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## CAVX

I know of the post your referring to as I could not find it either.


If you can connect a PC to your projector, make yourself a single pixel line pattern using paint (set the pixel count to 1920 x 1080) and display it 1:1 on your projector. You can add as many focus and geometry points as you like. The key thing being that when the astigmatism adjustment is correct, both the horizontal and vertical lines will be the same intensity and sharpness and your image will as sharp corner to corner.


Once your lens is mounted correctly:


1. Start with the lens out of the light path, and focus the image as good as the projector's optics will allow.


2. Move the lens into the light path and observe any changes (apart from width) the lens has made.


3. Rock the front portion of the lens (rubber rings) to bring both the H and V lines into focus at the same time. There is no right or wrong final position here as this is based on TR and how the optics focus at the specific distance your projector/lens is away from the screen.


I seem to remember something in the post about "rocking the projector's focus" during this adjustment. I'm sure the original poster stated their reason for this, however I don't do this when aligning my lens. Simply put, if you follow the 3 steps above, the image is sharp with out the lens, so making the astigmatism adjustment should only be used to bring the image back to corner to corner focus as adding the anamorphic lens to the light path is the only change you have made. If you move the lens out of the light path (as many do for 16:9), then you don't want to have to touch the focus of the projector once everything is dialed in.


Hope that helps.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Wasn't the original post by Noah Katz or maybe Getgrey?


Gary


----------



## CRGINC

Mark, I have a simple question. On the ISCO lens there seems to be three rings. I have never seen one up close but you mention they are rubber. Do these need replacement? I would think after some time whether it is rubber or some synthetic material it would deteriorate with time and require replacement.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/18965715
> 
> 
> Mark, I have a simple question. On the ISCO lens there seems to be three rings. I have never seen one up close but you mention they are rubber. Do these need replacement? I would think after some time whether it is rubber or some synthetic material it would deteriorate with time and require replacement.



Let me jump in if I may. They are similar to O-rings. My guess is a synthetic rubber, used for gripping focus ring. I don't think replacement will ever be an issue.


----------



## coolrda

Here how I setup mine. After projector is aligned and focused, I slid lens into place, set parallel to projector lens and tightened table mount. Next I displayed crosshatch and adjusted lens clockwise/counterclockwise in mount then tightened allen set screw. Next I turned the focus ring to set the proper aspect. As I adjust the focus the sides of the picture decrease towards the center without the overall picture height changing. At first I was adjusting to have the corners meet. After some time passed I realized that if you focus the four edges at the middle of each edge you will have the correct AR. These points are not effected by the pincushion distortion.


----------



## CAVX

Don't be just relying on your Screen's AR for this adjustment as at a really short TR, the AR of the final projected image would probably be wider then the screen. You want to ensure that the vertical lines are as sharp (why people like Vern Dias came up with using single 1080 rez display lines) as the horizontals. The H lines should not change due to the nature of the cylindrical optics, just the width of the V lines may be fatter than they should be if the focus adjustment is out.


----------



## coolrda

I was doing some reading in an old thread and Alan stated he had a friend over, if I remember correctly, that was able to make a difference refocusing his 3L. Maybe Alan can give us more info concerning that process.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18967673
> 
> 
> Don't be just relying on your Screen's AR for this adjustment as at a really short TR, the AR of the final projected image would probably be wider then the screen. You want to ensure that the vertical lines are as sharp (why people like Vern Dias came up with using single 1080 rez display lines) as the horizontals. The H lines should not change due to the nature of the cylindrical optics, just the width of the V lines may be fatter than they should be if the focus adjustment is out.



Ok. Though I did use a crosshatch pattern, It wasn't single pixel. Will look through my test disc as well as looking at pixel geometry. Looks like another adjusting session waits.


----------



## CAVX

Use a PC and create your own. It is remarkable how much more of a difference displaying single lines make verses doubles like on the JPK disc.


----------



## GetGray

The setup instructions mentioned previously are in the back of our CineSlide's manual.

www.techht.com , downloads link, CineSlide manual link....


----------



## GetGray

The rubber rings on the end of the IIIL are just there for gripping the lens. It has a firm focus mechanism, which is preferable as one doesn't want it moving on it's own from vibraions encountered in a HT setup. The Isco and Schneider lenses are also assembled in a high end clean room as one would expect, and their internals are sealed so no dust will ever get inside. we've sold a lot of them, I've ever encountered one whoes internal seal rings have failed. They are lubricated at assembly and anyway, it's not like a camera lens, you don't go fiddling with it. Once set it may never move again in it's lifetime.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Use a PC and create your own. It is remarkable how much more of a difference displaying single lines make verses doubles like on the JPK disc.



I have to say Mark the one I used is superb better than JPK.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> . Once set it may never move again in it's lifetime.



Unless you change projectors.


----------



## dneilan1

Thanks for all the help guys. I must say, I haven't posted much in my 5 years here but when I do, I always get great response. I will probably be tackling this this weekend. I'll let you know how it goes.


----------



## coolrda

Thanks Scott. Used the S&M disc's sharpness pattern and readjusted for astigmatism. The picture is surprisingly much sharper. The horizontal lines weren't in focus. Now the horizontal line is the same as the vertical. It a noticeable difference, even with movies. It gives the appearance of having better ANSI contrast and increased depth of picture.


----------



## Pete

Does anyone know what price range the new Schneider 1.33xLE falls into? And what does "LE" stand for?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18970715
> 
> 
> Does anyone know what price range the new Schneider 1.33xLE falls into? And what does "LE" stand for?



I don't have pricing yet. It is about the size of the M lens but it's elements are a plastic material. It was shown at CEDIA last year nameless IIRC. My guess is LE is Light Edition. I understand it was meant to be competitive with the lower priced lens options. I would not get your hopes too high that it will be "cheap" though. I expect the other possibilities hitting the virtual shelves earlier or about the same time to be competitive with it. Quality wise, I'm sure it will have their professional lens mechanics, as for optical performance, we'll just have to see how it compares.


----------



## GetGray

Someone picked up a IIIL off Ebay this week for under $3k. I was watching it but the guy changed it to a "buy it now" and poof it went before I saw it change. I don't think he knew what it was (worth) now. Someone got a *really* good deal on that puppy. It's the only IIIL I've ever seen hit ebay I think. Very rare in any case.


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18971468
> 
> 
> I don't have pricing yet. It is about the size of the M lens but it's elements are a plastic material. It was shown at CEDIA last year nameless IIRC. My guess is LE is Light Edition. I understand it was meant to be competitive with the lower priced lens options. I would not get your hopes too high that it will be "cheap" though. I expect the other possibilities hitting the virtual shelves earlier or about the same time to be competitive with it. Quality wise, I'm sure it will have their professional lens mechanics, as for optical performance, we'll just have to see how it compares.



I did a little digging and it apparently will come packaged with a motorized Kino-Torsion for around $4.5K. The Kino-Torsion alone for the 1.33M has an MSRP of $2350, so the difference of $2150 would make for a pretty hot price on the lens. Then again, the lens by itself might go for more.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/18971666
> 
> 
> I did a little digging and it apparently will come packaged with a motorized Kino-Torsion for around $4.5K. The Kino-Torsion alone for the 1.33M has an MSRP of $2350, so the difference of $2150 would make for a pretty hot price on the lens. Then again, the lens by itself might go for more.



4.5k is apparently correct, with torsion.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I did a little digging and it apparently will come packaged with a motorized Kino-Torsion for around $4.5K. The Kino-Torsion alone for the 1.33M has an MSRP of $2350, so the difference of $2150 would make for a pretty hot price on the lens. Then again, the lens by itself might go for more.



That is a good price


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Someone picked up a IIIL off Ebay this week for under $3k. I was watching it but the guy changed it to a "buy it now" and poof it went before I saw it change. I don't think he knew what it was (worth) now. Someone got a *really* good deal on that puppy. It's the only IIIL I've ever seen hit ebay I think. Very rare in any case.



Very hard to find those types of lenses on eBay.


----------



## Andreas21

Very hard to find those lenses used anywhere, I Was lucky and found one a couple of years ago and payed 3000$. And I will never sell it!


----------



## rboster

I am hoping for a new level of pricing (around 2K+) for future products. What Alan mentioned earlier seems promising and the thought of a new Schneider lens at a lower price point would be great. If either option pans out, I'll be selling my trusty Panamorph 480 and sled.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/18980913
> 
> 
> I am hoping for a new level of pricing (around 2K+) for future products. What Alan mentioned earlier seems promising and the thought of a new Schneider lens at a lower price point would be great. If either option pans out, I'll be selling my trusty Panamorph 480 and sled.



Im hoping many more jump aboard the CIH route.It will be good to see many more members onboard. Once you get the taste of CIH you do not want to go back.


----------



## dneilan1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18967992
> 
> 
> The setup instructions mentioned previously are in the back of our CineSlide's manual.
> 
> www.techht.com , downloads link, CineSlide manual link....



This is exactly what I was looking for. Going back over my projector install using plumb bobs to perfect alignment, I realized I am good in almost every way except somehow about an inch off horizontal center!










If I remember correctly (it's been a while since i set up my UH480), it is not advisable to use the projector's horizontal lens shift for alignment, meaning I need to manually move my projector in order to dial in alignment horizontally, correct?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dneilan1* /forum/post/18986603
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I was looking for. Going back over my projector install using plumb bobs to perfect alignment, I realized I am good in almost every way except somehow about an inch off horizontal center!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly (it's been a while since i set up my UH480), it is not advisable to use the projector's horizontal lens shift for alignment, meaning I need to manually move my projector in order to dial in alignment horizontally, correct?



Yes I went through the article to on the Isco setup, its very good, Ive never seen this before.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dneilan1* /forum/post/18986603
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly (it's been a while since i set up my UH480), it is not advisable to use the projector's horizontal lens shift for alignment, meaning I need to manually move my projector in order to dial in alignment horizontally, correct?



Being perfectly aligned is a proper goal, but if the PJ is already mounted, and has horizontal shift available, I wouldn't go ripping down a PJ instalaltion over an inch, unless it was causing a problem.


----------



## GetGray

I should update those instrucitons. I have some improvements on the method, just havent had time to do the editing...


----------



## Andreas21




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18986711
> 
> 
> I should update those instrucitons. I have some improvements on the method, just havent had time to do the editing...



Please do that and let us know in this tread when you do...


----------



## GetGray

OK. Registered owners first


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18986805
> 
> 
> OK. Registered owners first



I'm holding you to it.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18988276
> 
> 
> I'm holding you to it.



I meant registered *CineSlide* owners














. We need to upgrade you.


----------



## CAVX

Cooldra,


How did you go with re-adjustment of the astigmatism correction on your ISCO III?


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18974340
> 
> 
> That is a good price



It sure is Frank but by time it reaches our shores through a local distributor it will no doubt cost a whole heap more than exchange rate would dictate. Be nice if it was made here.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/18995212
> 
> 
> It sure is Frank but by time it reaches our shores through a local distributor it will no doubt cost a whole heap more than exchange rate would dictate. Be nice if it was made here.



I guess its the case of not going through the local distrubutors. There is a place us Australians can get them.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18994608
> 
> 
> Cooldra,
> 
> 
> How did you go with re-adjustment of the astigmatism correction on your ISCO III?



Yes. I did refocus. Removed lens and refocused projector. Had my son at the projector while I stood at the screen. Did the same after lens was mounted. I used the S&M test disc. The difference was considerable. My original adjustment was nice and sharp in the vertical plane, not with the horizontal. Soon as they were both dialed in the image just popped off the screen. Huge improvement. Only problem now is I desperately want a new projector. I will wait to CEDIA announcements then decide on my next unit.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18996357
> 
> 
> Only problem now is I desperately want a new projector. I will wait to CEDIA announcements then decide on my next unit.



Sounds like we're in the same boat as I currently own a BenQW5000 too and like you have found with the ISCO III, the anamorphic lens has way better optics than the projector


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18996383
> 
> 
> Sounds like we're in the same boat as I currently own a BenQW5000 too and like you have found with the ISCO III, the anamorphic lens has way better optics than the projector



Whats a list in order of projectors with the best optics and is there a visible difference when you use one?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18996383
> 
> 
> Sounds like we're in the same boat as I currently own a BenQW5000 too and like you have found with the ISCO III, the anamorphic lens has way better optics than the projector



Im on that boat too Mark Im looking for another projector. At the moment Im looking at the JVC 950 but Ive just noticed there is also the 990. There is still plenty good projectors out there


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18996392
> 
> 
> Whats a list in order of projectors with the best optics and is there a visible difference when you use one?



I guess it also depends on the price range. I was looking at the Marantz and was told not to bother with it as its not good as the JVC. The Marantz has awesome optics from what ive read.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18996392
> 
> 
> Whats a list in order of projectors with the best optics and is there a visible difference when you use one?



All I will say on that is that my next 1080 will have to out perform the current unit I have or I will move to another technology even though I do like DLP.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18996474
> 
> 
> All I will say on that is that my next 1080 will have to out perform the current unit I have or I will move to another technology even though I do like DLP.



A 3 chip DLP Mark?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18996514
> 
> 
> A 3 chip DLP Mark?



I'd actually like one of those single chip LED models.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18996635
> 
> 
> I'd actually like one of those single chip LED models.



You will never have to worry about changing projectors for a very long time


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18996649
> 
> 
> You will never have to worry about changing projectors for a very long time










and never have to worry about changing lamps again










The Vango's price was mentioned on another forum and (assuming it was correct) when I did the math for obtaining the said 50,000 hours, it worked out I would need to spend as much on UHP lamps (based on retail pricing) as the Vango costs anyway


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18996406
> 
> 
> I guess it also depends on the price range. I was looking at the Marantz and was told not to bother with it as its not good as the JVC. The Marantz has awesome optics from what ive read.



I've seen these both and the Marantz is the better projector. It's the best dlp under $20k no question. I would already have a 11s2 or 15s1 at home but they are lumens starved. Their black level is better than the numbers show and they have better pop and sharpness than any DLP I've seen. But I don't believe in HP screens and the Marantz require one. JVC has a great picture but not better then the Marantz. Having said that, that's the predicament I'm in right now. I really want the Vango but don't want to be a $10k test subject. So do I wait and buy a Vivitek 5080 for the next year(no menu accessible greyscale settings at this time). Or I could buy a RS25-35 or LS-5 and wait till LED is in 2nd-3rd gen.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18999738
> 
> 
> I've seen these both and the Marantz is the better projector. It's the best dlp under $20k no question. I would already have a 11s2 or 15s1 at home but they are lumens starved. Their black level is better than the numbers show and they have better pop and sharpness than any DLP I've seen. But I don't believe in HP screens and the Marantz require one. JVC has a great picture but not better then the Marantz. Having said that, that's the predicament I'm in right now. I really want the Vango but don't want to be a $10k test subject. So do I wait and buy a Vivitek 5080 for the next year(no menu accessible greyscale settings at this time). Or I could buy a RS25-35 or LS-5 and wait till LED is in 2nd-3rd gen.



Are these models not considered a bit old now 2007/2008 first shipped?


----------



## GetGray

Well this thread went off the rails.....


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18996406
> 
> 
> I guess it also depends on the price range. I was looking at the Marantz and was told not to bother with it as its not good as the JVC. The Marantz has awesome optics from what ive read.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18999821
> 
> 
> Are these models not considered a bit old now 2007/2008 first shipped?



Well, certainly they are pre-dynamic iris. But the Minolta lens is phenomenal and is a big part of these projectors overall picture

quality advantage. Newer tech doesn't necessarily mean better. My background with Marantz is that a friend in the business worked for a well known AV company. Though they were cutting edge HT 20 years ago, the store was mismanaged into closing. My aquintence whom my family members had bought from for 3 generations started his own company and built it up slowly. As a Marantz dealer, he always had the latest new gear. I got to see all the 12s 720p through the years. Then on to the 1080p. I would come, go to the room and watch complete movies in awe. One of the most incredible demo I've had to date was demoing a clients 10S1 720p FP. To this day I've yet to see a better picture. 400watt bulb was so bright and dark that it far exceeded the 3700:1 CR. We clamped the static iris to 15% and it was still a beast. Till this day I haven't seen it's equal. Just $37,000 worth of perfection. I would take this over any of today's 1080p. The Marantz FP's are classics that are still relevant today though 2-5 years old. IMO, dlp went down the wrong road when they introduced DI. If they would have exploitated better bulb driven light sources and dual static irises like the Sharp 20k and the Marantz, great projectors that


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19000060
> 
> 
> Well this thread went off the rails.....



Yes true, I hope we all didn't run out of "A" chat


----------



## coolrda

Do to posting using a iPhone I got cutoff mid sentence. Just as well. These lenses are so good that they exploit every weakness in the chain which in my case is my FP now. Then this leads to the inevitable talk about projectors. Back on track.........for now.


----------



## coolrda

Now that I've decided that I will be sitting inside two picture heights with my next system, it may be time to pull out the old Cygnus Imaging IMX lens. Thats a rather large hunk of glass in its own right. That would be quite a sight snuggled between the projector and the 3L.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19006061
> 
> 
> Now that I've decided that I will be sitting inside two picture heights with my next system, it may be time to pull out the old Cygnus Imaging IMX lens.



Why would you want/need to sit that close? My front row is just outside the 2x image height and I quite like it for HD and would rather sit in the back row for SD.


My experience with the Cygnus Imaging IMX is limited, however, I am not sure I would want one in my system with a 1080.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19006182
> 
> 
> Why would you want/need to sit that close? My front row is just outside the 2x image height and I quite like it for HD and would rather sit in the back row for SD.
> 
> 
> My experience with the Cygnus Imaging IMX is limited, however, I am not sure I would want one in my system with a 1080.



While it works well with any resolution, you really don't need it unless you sit inside 1.5 PH. Being at 2 PH gives me the immersive picture I want while being on the edge of screendoor being an issue. At 2PH, 1080 is fully resolved. I have been experimenting with screen size lately and find I like 1.8-2.2 PH, which will be 8-10ft from my 4.5ft PH screen. In every room I've ever had the optimum seat has been the front row. This time it will be the rear at a max of 2.2PH. Just my preference using the 3L(slid that tie-in in to stay on topic).


----------



## GetGray

Interesting. Art Sonneborn's front row is a little close for my tastes, I think it might be 2h. I detected SD just a few times when viewing there and preferred just a hair farther back. As for the IMX, I'd worry about what it does scatter-wise before the beam hit's the Isco's glass. The more incident and pristine the beam going in, the better it will come out. I'm not entirely sure what the IMX does to cause it's "blur". I suppose, if it was the solution, it woudl be better on the exit beam. But that would require a bigger one. Since you already noted the increase in quality from fine tuning the astigmatisim, I'm a little surprised you'd want to have anything defocus it. Then again, perhaps it's the quality of the Isco lens that has brought out the artifact that's offending you (SD). Maybe defocus? Or heaven forbid trade in for a P brand


----------



## Highjinx

Me thinks, MTF and ANSI will be heavily affected......this need for big glass ain't compensating for somthin' else is it?







....kiddin'


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19008836
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what the IMX does to cause it's "blur".



From what I could tell, it is two lenses that act similar to polarizing filters for 3D. One is aligned horizontally and the other vertically. You then turn one or both lenses which obscures the clarity of SDE. Over all image quality did appear "more film like", however the projector it was used on was NOT a 1080 DLP, rather an older 16:9 LCD from SONY (back when they had 768 vertical pixels, so around a 2000 model like the old HT10).


Knowing how sharp the image can be with a 1080 DLP and cylindrical anamorphic lens, I'd be very reluctant to do anything that detracts from the image quality.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19009026
> 
> 
> Me thinks, MTF and ANSI will be heavily affected



I agree as that is (from what I understand of the IMX Image Processor) its purpose.


----------



## GetGray

Meridian sells a decent 4k unit that will resolve (no pun intended) your SDE and let you sit close. Comes with a decent slide already attched


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19009629
> 
> 
> Meridian sells a decent 4k unit that will resolve (no pun intended) your SDE and let you sit close. Comes with a decent slide already attched



That was my next thought. After seeing lots of 4K gear in the form of one or two FP's and tons of LCD panels, it's clear to me that's the next step. I think when these prototypes started making the CE show rounds three years ago, it was considered the next step to drive sales. And now we have two more steps too the equation with the coming out of 3D and LED/Laser light engines. The CE giants must be besides themselves with three simultaneous upgrade paths to drive sales. This is a decades worth of potential that has fell into their laps at a very opportune time, with the economy the way it is. All the more reason for me to enjoy my ISCO for years and multiple FP changeouts to come.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I always thought that the IMX did something similar to Panasonic's smoothscreen but I could be completely wrong. Either way, it seems a waste to use a IIIL if you are using something that will blur the image.


Where's the news on these new cylindrical lenses? Any updates?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/19012616
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the news on these new cylindrical lenses? Any updates?



Well apart from my MK4, I also have something new in the pipe line. I'm just not going to disclose anything about it at this time


----------



## rboster

Mark: I sincerely appreciate the fact you contribute to AVS with your knowledge and aren't here to market...I've learned a ton from you expertise and experience...that being said.


Do you have a time frame for your next product and what market you are trying to reach?


Ron


----------



## GetGray

?







___________________________________________


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Well apart from my MK4, I also have something new in the pipe line. I'm just not going to disclose anything about it at this time



Looks like it's going to be very interesting soon. With everyone having something new it's going to be very busy on the 2:35:1 thread.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19008836
> 
> 
> Interesting. Art Sonneborn's front row is a little close for my tastes, I think it might be 2h. I detected SD just a few times when viewing there and preferred just a hair farther back. As for the IMX, I'd worry about what it does scatter-wise before the beam hit's the Isco's glass. The more incident and pristine the beam going in, the better it will come out. I'm not entirely sure what the IMX does to cause it's "blur". I suppose, if it was the solution, it woudl be better on the exit beam. But that would require a bigger one. Since you already noted the increase in quality from fine tuning the astigmatisim, I'm a little surprised you'd want to have anything defocus it. Then again, perhaps it's the quality of the Isco lens that has brought out the artifact that's offending you (SD). Maybe defocus? Or heaven forbid trade in for a P brand



I'm all talk. No way I disrupt the picture I have now. Did get a price on a Runco LS5 and JVC RS35 today. If nothing ground breaking at CEDIA, then I'll settle on one of these.


Yes, at two PH, I'm right on the cusp of seeing SD on very bright scenes.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/19013685
> 
> 
> Mark: I sincerely appreciate the fact you contribute to AVS with your knowledge and aren't here to market...I've learned a ton from you expertise and experience...that being said.



I second that. Thanks to GetGray and CAVX the resident experts.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all talk. No way I disrupt the picture I have now. Did get a price on a Runco LS5 and JVC RS35 today. If nothing ground breaking at CEDIA, then I'll settle on one of these.
> 
> 
> Yes, at two PH, I'm right on the cusp of seeing SD on very bright scenes.



I was looking at the Runco LS5 also. Been told they have a great lens on them.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18999220
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and never have to worry about changing lamps again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vango's price was mentioned on another forum and (assuming it was correct) when I did the math for obtaining the said 50,000 hours, it worked out I would need to spend as much on UHP lamps (based on retail pricing) as the Vango costs anyway



Beautiful machine. I'm sure that introductory price is below cost. Monday It'll probably be $6-7K more. Actually my biggest fear with that projector isn't unknown performance, but rather the possibility of seeing it or a newer model sell for $7K in Feb 2011.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19015528
> 
> 
> Beautiful machine. I'm sure that introductory price is below cost. Monday It'll probably be $6-7K more. Actually my biggest fear with that projector isn't unknown performance, but rather the possibility of seeing it or a newer model sell for $7K in Feb 2011.



The price one pays for being an early adopter I guess







No different to what happened with the JVC RS1, then RS2?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Beautiful machine. I'm sure that introductory price is below cost. Monday It'll probably be $6-7K more. Actually my biggest fear with that projector isn't unknown performance, but rather the possibility of seeing it or a newer model sell for $7K in Feb 2011.



Coolrda have you looked at the runco quantum colour q750i?


I'm working trying to persuade my wife that I need it. It's a much harder job than I expected










I'm training the kids to tell there mum that daddy needs a Runco for Fathers Day


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19018687
> 
> 
> Coolrda have you looked at the runco quantum colour q750i?
> 
> 
> I'm working trying to persuade my wife that I need it. It's a much harder job than I expected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm training the kids to tell there mum that daddy needs a Runco for Fathers Day



LOL. Excellent. Yes kids, pets and every other angle imaginable. I'm still hearing the "you paid that for a piece of glass" when I bring up the projector needs replacement. Nah, right now I my own worst enemy. There's just too much new tech right. 3D, LED and Laservue, possible 4K chips and .65 3-chippers. After CEDIA and/or CES, I think we will have a better view of the landscape. The only thing saving me is construction of the new room. That should keep me busy for the next couple months. Then it'll be time for the next step in this never ending game. Now where'd those kids go.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19018849
> 
> 
> LOL. Excellent. Yes kids, pets and every other angle imaginable. I'm still hearing the "you paid that for a piece of glass" when I bring up the projector needs replacement. Nah, right now I my own worst enemy. There's just too much new tech right. 3D, LED and Laservue, possible 4K chips and .65 3-chippers. After CEDIA and/or CES, I think we will have a better view of the landscape. The only thing saving me is construction of the new room. That should keep me busy for the next couple months. Then it'll be time for the next step in this never ending game. Now where'd those kids go.



The women do not understand mens priorities.


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18999220
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and never have to worry about changing lamps again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vango's price was mentioned on another forum and (assuming it was correct) when I did the math for obtaining the said 50,000 hours, it worked out I would need to spend as much on UHP lamps (based on retail pricing) as the Vango costs anyway



Mark, I wonder how real the 50K hours are? I have seen a lot of low power LEDs fail long before 10K hours. Maybe the LED life is inflated as much as the projector bulb life? I suspect the replacement cost is such a large percentage of the projector, if a LED does fail you have a throw away unit.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mark, I wonder how real the 50K hours are? I have seen a lot of low power LEDs fail long before 10K hours. Maybe the LED life is inflated as much as the projector bulb life? I suspect the replacement cost is such a large percentage of the projector, if a LED does fail you have a throw away unit.



You could be right there, spoke to a gentlemen on the phone last night who deals with projectors and he said the same thing. Too early for know wait a few years.


I think I'll wait know!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/19020365
> 
> 
> Mark, I wonder how real the 50K hours are? I have seen a lot of low power LEDs fail long before 10K hours. Maybe the LED life is inflated as much as the projector bulb life? I suspect the replacement cost is such a large percentage of the projector, if a LED does fail you have a throw away unit.



Even if the unit lasts 20 000 hours, I'd say still way better than the 2000 hours we currently get. Disposable units are certainly the direction I see LED technology heading. I am guessing no filters to replace either.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I wonder how real the 50K hours are?



They'll be UNreal of course. Projector manufacturers' ratings always are. I'm surprised anyone takes them seriously.


50K hours is 5.7 _years_ of _continuous_ viewing.


There'll be enough upgrades and enhancements in that time to make sure users continue upgrading.


LED projectors are just too dim at the moment. When they get brighter (presumably before the mythical "50K" hours come up) the new model will be the latest craze.


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/19020365
> 
> 
> Mark, I wonder how real the 50K hours are? I have seen a lot of low power LEDs fail long before 10K hours. Maybe the LED life is inflated as much as the projector bulb life?



You'll need to ask Mr. Svante Arrhenius if you can find him.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/19020365
> 
> 
> Maybe the LED life is inflated as much as the projector bulb life?



Except I've seen many UHP lamps lasting as long as their specified hour rating - and some even longer. Of course I've seen many that don't.


----------



## coolrda

I hope I'm assuming correctly that my lens will be compatible with a 3D projector as is. I don't see why it wouldn't.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19037407
> 
> 
> I hope I'm assuming correctly that my lens will be compatible with a 3D projector as is. I don't see why it wouldn't.



It should do!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19037407
> 
> 
> I hope I'm assuming correctly that my lens will be compatible with a 3D projector as is. I don't see why it wouldn't.



The question is - do projectors like the Vango Scale for CIH. Other than that, single lens projector, yes it will work.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19037465
> 
> 
> The question is - do projectors like the Vango Scale for CIH. Other than that, single lens projector, yes it will work.



Yes it does


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19042195
> 
> 
> Yes it does



NICE!!! Thank you Alan


----------



## Vlubbers

This may not be the ideal thread. Nevertheless---


What would happen if a manufacturer using 16x9 native panels decided to use an anamorphic lens (let's say it expanded horizontally) as the spec lens. Not a second lens, the prime lens. Then used some software that could feed what we usually term 'squeezed' frames to the lens to send 2.35 to a CIH screen. Then, when the native material was 16x9, a graphics processor could output a correctly proportioned image on the same 2.35 CIH screen. Yes, you would have unused bars to the sides. Not a bad compromise for me.


Basically, even though the panel is 16x9, the default optimization would be for 2.35. The firmware could be the same as long as there is some way to instruct the projector as to what aspect you desire. A projector could be ordered optimized for either format. But not both.


Not as good as native 2.35 panels, but fairly easy perhaps. Some software and tell the lens maker a different set of specs. The size of the lens might be an issue, but it has a distinct advantage by being close to the imager.


Or maybe this is just nonsense. Just a what-if. It is quiet around here lately.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/19046312
> 
> 
> This may not be the ideal thread. Nevertheless---
> 
> 
> What would happen if a manufacturer using 16x9 native panels decided to use an anamorphic lens (let's say it expanded horizontally) as the spec lens. Not a second lens, the prime lens.



Cost, size and weight of the projector would go way up.



> Quote:
> Basically, even though the panel is 16x9, the default optimization would be for 2.35. The firmware could be the same as long as there is some way to instruct the projector as to what aspect you desire. A projector could be ordered optimized for either format. But not both.



And right now, with a 16:9 projector, anamorphic lens and a slide, (separately they are probably cheaper than a one unit solution too) allows optimization of both 16:9 and Scope.



> Quote:
> Not as good as native 2.35 panels, but fairly easy perhaps. Some software and tell the lens maker a different set of specs. The size of the lens might be an issue, but it has a distinct advantage by being close to the imager.
> 
> 
> Or maybe this is just nonsense. Just a what-if. It is quiet around here lately.



This approach is no different to what many of use are doing now anyway (myself included) and that is to leave the lens in place and Scale for CIH.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/19046312
> 
> 
> 
> Not as good as native 2.35 panels, but fairly easy perhaps. Some software and tell the lens maker a different set of specs. The size of the lens might be an issue, but it has a distinct advantage by being close to the imager.
> 
> 
> Or maybe this is just nonsense. Just a what-if. It is quiet around here lately.



As CAVX said, a few people already do that, and Runco had a projector that had a fixed prism lens (in front of the prime) which wasn't designed to be removed. I can't remember the model number right now but shows at least one manufacturer had moved in that direction, albeit with a fixed secondary lens rather than a single lens solution.


Gary


----------



## Vlubbers

CAVX


I used an ISCO II mounted behind float glass in a hush box for some years with the JVC G15 and processed with Vigatec. If you look at net effect I must agree with you. Nevertheless, there are other aspects clearly. Elegant simplicity is sacrificed IMHO. Having said that, I don't expect this to happen. I had forgotten about the Runco. Good point.


Ciao,


Vince


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/19047818
> 
> 
> CAVX
> 
> 
> I used an ISCO II mounted behind float glass in a hush box for some years with the JVC G15 and processed with Vigatec.



As you have to with this lens due to the fact that it magnifies the height slightly.



> Quote:
> If you look at net effect I must agree with you. Nevertheless, there are other aspects clearly.
> 
> 
> Elegant simplicity is sacrificed IMHO. Having said that, I don't expect this to happen. I had forgotten about the Runco. Good point.
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> 
> Vince



I am not 100% sure if I am understanding this part of your post. By "elegant simplicity", are you referring to the alignment of the A-Lens?


Runco's Cinewide is an excellent example of the "all in one package".


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19051170
> 
> 
> 
> Runco's Cinewide is an excellent example of the "all in one package".



Have to agree with that.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19051170
> 
> 
> Runco's Cinewide is an excellent example of the "all in one package".



It's looks like a clean package, though the Whitney lens, thats riveted on, is a prism I believe. Like Runco, Marantz has/had several A-lens options, up to and including the Isco as their top option with a motorized slide.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> What would happen if a manufacturer using 16x9 native panels decided to use an anamorphic lens (let's say it expanded horizontally) as the spec lens. Not a second lens, the prime lens. Then used some software that could feed what we usually term 'squeezed' frames to the lens to send 2.35 to a CIH screen. Then, when the native material was 16x9, a graphics processor could output a correctly proportioned image on the same 2.35 CIH screen. Yes, you would have unused bars to the sides.



The prime anamorphic lens would be a little bigger than the spherical prinme lens would be, but not by a great deal.


The anamorphic elements would be placed early in the chain, mostly near to the back of the lens and thus wouldn't need to be big at all. This is done routinely with camera anamorphics and commercial cinema anamorphic projection lenses and works fairly well.


The elements after the anamorphic elements perform some correction for aberrations arising from the anamorphic elements, especially geometric ones like pincushion. There is a pincushion improvement but not necessarily elimination. Usually there is a sweet spot - an ideal throw and throw ratio - where everything comes together, but outside that range you see some fall-off which, is why companies like Schneider make a range of these types of anamorphic primes.


The following link contains a list of 22 such lenses made by Schneider

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pr...anamorphic.htm 


Schneider patents describe a lens system where the spherical component of the lens deliberately aberrates the beam in one "direction" so that unavoidable aberration by the anamorphic component in the other "direction" is balanced. If either section is used on its own the picture looks terrible, but together they work to produce a clean image.


----------



## Vlubbers

Aussie Bob,


In this line


"The prime anamorphic lens would be a little bigger than the spherical anamorphic would be, but not by a great deal."


Should it be spherical non-anamorphic? Or perhaps I am not following. It happens.


The Hubble fix was a classic example of off-setting imperfections. Chillingly good actually.


Vince


Edit: Hubble, while yielding a good result, does not follow the logic properly. To that extent it is not a good example. Both aberrations were NOT intentional.


----------



## CAVX

I think it would still attract negativity due to the fact that the full panel (1920 x 1080) was not being used for HDTV etc.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I think it would still attract negativity due to the fact that the full panel (1920 x 1080) was not being used for HDTV etc.



So it seems you've retracted your advocacy for leaving the lens in place all the time?



> Quote:
> In this line
> 
> 
> "The prime anamorphic lens would be a little bigger than the spherical anamorphic would be, but not by a great deal."
> 
> 
> Should it be spherical non-anamorphic?



Yes, of course. forgive the typo. Fixed in post.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19065108
> 
> 
> So it seems you've retracted your advocacy for leaving the lens in place all the time?



Not at all. Whilst my lens is mounted on a slide, it never gets shifted from the light path unless I am demonstrating the "scaling+optics" principals for a client.


I'm simply speaking on behalf of all those that do believe in having HDTV displayed at 1920 x 1080 and why I don't think an anamorphic lens built into the projector would work as mass produced product.


----------



## coolrda

Here's another way to look at it. Those of us that have these top shelf A-lenses, certainly have considered the longevity of the use as an important factor in the purchase. This same basic lens has been around for decades. And could remain the standard for along time. However projector have a tendency to have a shelf life of about 20 seconds. Do you really want a non upgradeable component buried in a projector that could be obsolete in a few years or less. I group this type of A-lens in the same category as power amps. You buy a good one you like and it will outlast a dozen preamp/receivers which seem to change yearly, with new must have options. I know guys that have been waiting years to update the expensive pre/pros to HDMI (even Parasound cancelled their new one in April due to HDMI issues) and now we are moving to 1.4. As long as we have 16x9 projectors(no matter the resolution) and 2.35/2.40 content my A-lens is gold. There's components that are replaced every one or two years and then there's components that remain for ten or twenty years. I'm hoping mine's in the latter.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19070121
> 
> 
> There's components that are replaced every one or two years and then there's components that remain for ten or twenty years. I'm hoping mine's in the latter.



Well said


----------



## Vern Dias

I have had my anamorphic lens for about 6 years now. I will never need to upgrade or replace it. However, I am on my third projector, not counting 4 previous CRT projectors.


Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/19072592
> 
> 
> I have had my anamorphic lens for about 6 years now. I will never need to upgrade or replace it. However, I am on my third projector, not counting 4 previous CRT projectors.
> 
> 
> Vern



Can you share some details about your lens and maybe post a photo?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/19072592
> 
> 
> I have had my anamorphic lens for about 6 years now. I will never need to upgrade or replace it. However, I am on my third projector, not counting 4 previous CRT projectors.
> 
> 
> Vern



Exactly. I've heard JVC has promised 3 new 3D projector(RS20,30,40?) along with the Sony VW90 and Panasonic AE5000 in October. All 3D. I, for one am looking forward to stereoscopic video to match the discrete 360 degree audio we enjoy. I think after viewing 3D content for sometime it will become second nature. I have a feeling it will be around awhile and will lead to the next step. I'm also looking forward to the better light engine. And I really think I'll still have my lens five to ten years from now with a 4k res/led driven/3D/1,000,000:1CR/3000lumen/convection cooled/wifi enabled and connected/self calibrating(ala Audissey for Video that calibrates for screen and room) projector. And, again, using my same old lens.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19092862
> 
> 
> And, again, using my same old lens.



LOL, mabye you need to refer to that 'ol lens, not old lens


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19092879
> 
> 
> LOL, mabye you need to refer to that 'ol lens, not old lens



Hehehe. Your right, ol' more like it. I've had mine what, 3+ months. But, come on Mark, you know 3 months is the half-life of electronics. Especially gotta love projectors, with their Fedex Obsolencence. LED's units will be half off next month, right.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19092912
> 
> 
> Hehehe. Your right, ol' more like it. I've had mine what, 3+ months. But, come on Mark, you know 3 months is the half-life of electronics.



A state of the art optical device like an ISCO III (or even my own MK4) is hardly "electronic", so does not have a "3 month half life". These anamorphic lenses are one off investments that won't ever need to be upgraded unless the required horizontal magnification changes from the current 1.33x.



> Quote:
> Especially gotta love projectors, with their Fedex Obsolencence. LED's units will be half off next month, right.



Bring 'em on. I am really looking to replace my BenQ W5000 with something LED that is 3D ready. I just don't feel like being an early adopter this time round


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19092947
> 
> 
> A state of the art optical device like an ISCO III (or even my own MK4) is hardly "electronic", so does not have a "3 month half life". These anamorphic lenses are one off investments that won't ever need to be upgraded unless the required horizontal magnification changes from the current 1.33x.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bring 'em on. I am really looking to replace my BenQ W5000 with something LED that is 3D ready. I just don't feel like being an early adopter this time round



My point exactly. A lifetime investment. As far as projectors go, my w5k's board is failing. So I'm afraid that a new purchase will be mandatory shortly.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19098124
> 
> 
> My point exactly. A lifetime investment. As far as projectors go, my w5k's board is failing. So I'm afraid that a new purchase will be mandatory shortly.



Really? What symptoms? Mine did an odd thing at just over 1000 hours. powered up, except no noise ((iris opening) and no light, well I got the BenQ logo, then it went dark. Immediately I though the lamp had failed and after two more failed attempts, I turned it off at the main power. I then powered it back up and it hasn't missed a beat since.


I want LED and a 3D machine would be nice too and why the Vango is looking quite appealing at this time


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19098137
> 
> 
> I want LED and a 3D machine would be nice too and why the Vango is looking quite appealing at this time



I will make sure I give you my impressions.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19098137
> 
> 
> 
> I want LED and a 3D machine would be nice too and why the Vango is looking quite appealing at this time



You should get one Mark


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/19098155
> 
> 
> I will make sure I give you my impressions.



Will be waiting. Oh and pics too please with the lens in front(This is a cylindrical thread







)


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19098137
> 
> 
> Really? What symptoms? Mine did an odd thing at just over 1000 hours. powered up, except no noise ((iris opening) and no light, well I got the BenQ logo, then it went dark. Immediately I though the lamp had failed and after two more failed attempts, I turned it off at the main power. I then powered it back up and it hasn't missed a beat since.
> 
> 
> I want LED and a 3D machine would be nice too and why the Vango is looking quite appealing at this time



I've had the Dark Start problem several times. No big deal, just restart. No, the problem I'm having is after 1-2 hours of it being on the picture vignettes and you have a striped picture. To illustrate, imagine cut the pic into 5 vertical stripes and then arrange them out of order. The remedy is to shutdown and restart. Several owners have this problem show up at about 1200-1500 hours. I'm at 1700+ and have had the FP for 26 months. The DMD board replacement is $550-$600, plus I need a new lamp so needless to say I'll run till she blows then trash it. Unacceptable life span, if you ask me.


----------



## CAVX

WOW and not cool. I've not seen any of the other faults you've said, just that one time.


----------



## Franin

I was lucky enough for my wife to give me the OK in putting the projector in the other room where my gear is in also took some time but I got the OK at the end.


But what I want to know the further back I go is it better especially when your doing anamorphic? The projector will be in the room behind me with the lens coming out through the wall quite a bit like Art has it( Sorry Art I liked your idea had to borrow it







). The room is not big at all.


The screen is 117" 2:37:1

The room length is 5.07m

I just want to know before I start cutting a hole in the wall.


Cheers


----------



## CAVX

Same projector? Yes as a rule of thumb, the further back you can get the projector, the better the end result. I too "borrowed" Arts "booth" idea and I would never go back to a traditional ceiling mount.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19099993
> 
> 
> I've had the Dark Start problem several times. No big deal, just restart. No, the problem I'm having is after 1-2 hours of it being on the picture vignettes and you have a striped picture. To illustrate, imagine cut the pic into 5 vertical stripes and then arrange them out of order. The remedy is to shutdown and restart. Several owners have this problem show up at about 1200-1500 hours. I'm at 1700+ and have had the FP for 26 months. The DMD board replacement is $550-$600, plus I need a new lamp so needless to say I'll run till she blows then trash it. Unacceptable life span, if you ask me.



You're not alone mate, I've had 3 customers to date with exact same problem. Nobody saw this coming, just hope the W6000 doesn't do the same!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Same projector? Yes as a rule of thumb, the further back you can get the projector, the better the end result. I too "borrowed" Arts "booth" idea and I would never go back to a traditional ceiling mount.



Same projector just going back. But looking at the list I got from schneiders website it's definitely a good idea I go back. But also looks much tidier


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19103490
> 
> 
> Same projector just going back. But looking at the list I got from schneiders website it's definitely a good idea I go back. But also looks much tidier



I think the (booth) rear wall and port is the one thing that differentiates home cinema from a home theatre


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I think the (booth) rear wall and port is the one thing that differentiates home cinema from a home theatre



Well hopefully next week or the week after.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19103519
> 
> 
> Well hopefully next week or the week after.



Very cool, so a full wall or part wall? Mine is really a false part wall, however it certainly does the job it was meant to do.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19103601
> 
> 
> Very cool, so a full wall or part wall? Mine is really a false part wall, however it certainly does the job it was meant to do.



It will be a rectangle peice cut off. I think if I remember 200mm in height and 300mm in length.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I like the idea of an AT screen with no speakers on view and a pj in a projection 'booth' so the room has a very clean look to it. With the pj further back you generally get better on/off contrast performance and less pin cushion (compared to closer with the same screen), so if lumens aren't an issue, you definitely benefit. Plus of course, the noise and heat generated by the pj don't end up in the room with you.


Gary


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19103433
> 
> 
> Same projector? Yes as a rule of thumb, the further back you can get the projector, the better the end result. I too "borrowed" Arts "booth" idea and I would never go back to a traditional ceiling mount.



Where do we see Arts booth?

I would like to do this for my new house, finally a dedicated HT room.

Would be nice to have a thread with just pix of this type of setup, anyone want to start?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19103506
> 
> 
> I think the (booth) rear wall and port is the one thing that differentiates home cinema from a home theatre



Mark, I'm curious as to why? what if the projector cannot be back far enough because of the throw to screen size? So anyone with a 'booth'.... has a real 'theatre' whereas everyone else who uses a ceiling mount (98% of people) only has a 'home cinema'? Which, by your comment seems to suggest it's not as good or inferior..?? Or did you mean something else by that?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19104847
> 
> 
> I like the idea of an AT screen with no speakers on view and a pj in a projection 'booth' so the room has a very clean look to it. With the pj further back you generally get better on/off contrast performance and less pin cushion (compared to closer with the same screen), so if lumens aren't an issue, you definitely benefit. Plus of course, the noise and heat generated by the pj don't end up in the room with you.
> 
> 
> Gary



Unless your room is really cold and you want to use the PJ as a heater


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19106499
> 
> 
> Unless your room is really cold and you want to use the PJ as a heater



Sounds like a plan - ducting maybe?










My last theatre was a loft, and in the winter I used to put a heater on before we went up there, so the pj would be quite useful in that respect, but in the summer it had the opposite effect. I was thinking of doing something about that but then I moved..


Hopefully things will be different when I get round to the next one.


Gary


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19103442
> 
> 
> You're not alone mate, I've had 3 customers to date with exact same problem. Nobody saw this coming, just hope the W6000 doesn't do the same!



That's terrible. I'm not saying I'll never buy their product again but if this was a car/truck there would be a recall. After all the problems with firmware during the first year they should fix it out of warranty.


----------



## coolrda

If I wasn't so close to upgrading, I'd have a big problem with it.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19106487
> 
> 
> Mark, I'm curious as to why? what if the projector cannot be back far enough because of the throw to screen size? So anyone with a 'booth'.... has a real 'theatre' whereas everyone else who uses a ceiling mount (98% of people) only has a 'home cinema'? Which, by your comment seems to suggest it's not as good or inferior..?? Or did you mean something else by that?



What I said was


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19103506
> 
> 
> I think the (booth) rear wall and port is the one thing that differentiates home cinema from a home theatre



There are MANY things that differentiate a home cinema from a home theatre. A room that comes to mind is one I got to work in on the Gold Coast (back in 2002) that sported over $200,000 of gear. This room in my honest opinion was poorly designed given the budget. There was no room treatments (odd given the main L and R speakers cost $40,000 on their own), light control was poor and so that room will only ever be a "home theatre" at best. To be a little course, it is a glorified surround set up.


The booth's main purpose (apart from a "cool look") is about keeping noise from mechanical devices like projector fans and PC servers out of the room. Ideally, the port would also have iron free glass fitted as well.


If you look at what THX stipulates in a room design to get their certification for Home Cinema, every room should have an AT screen as well as full room treatments.


So given more people have flat panels than have front projection, my comment, whilst seemingly discriminatory, is actually correct.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Where do we see Arts booth?
> 
> I would like to do this for my new house, finally a dedicated HT room.
> 
> Would be nice to have a thread with just pix of this type of setup, anyone want to start?



I think ART has a link to his signature.


----------



## Franin

If I had to change projector will I still benefit being further back? What do I have to take into consideration eg lumens


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I like the idea of an AT screen with no speakers on view and a pj in a projection 'booth' so the room has a very clean look to it. With the pj further back you generally get better on/off contrast performance and less pin cushion (compared to closer with the same screen), so if lumens aren't an issue, you definitely benefit. Plus of course, the noise and heat generated by the pj don't end up in the room with you.
> 
> 
> Gary



Same Gary but I built my house 10 years ago before HT was a popular thing among many householders in Western Australia. I had a dedicated room but I was lucky I built a storage room right behind it. Who knew that would come in handy.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107339
> 
> 
> If I had to change projector will I still benefit being further back? What do I have to take into consideration eg lumens



Will you be going to a larger screen? If not, I would suggest that you will still have a sufficiently bright image.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Will you be going to a larger screen? If not, I would suggest that you will still have a sufficiently bright image.



Same size screen


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107330
> 
> 
> I think ART has a link to his signature.



Now how do I find threads by "Art" dont find them in here?


I want to see pix of booths


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do I find threads by "Art" dont find them in here?
> 
> 
> I want to see pix of booths



He's around in different threads.


Btw I'm interested to know does he move his lens when watching 16x9 or does he keep it in place?


GetGray might know that one.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107856
> 
> 
> He's around in different threads.
> 
> 
> Btw I'm interested to know does he move his lens when watching 16x9 or does he keep it in place?
> 
> 
> GetGray might know that one.



From the video and shots he's posted, yes he moves the lens for 16:9/4 x 3.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107476
> 
> 
> Same size screen



So how far back is the projector going to be from the current position?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107856
> 
> 
> He's around in different threads.
> 
> 
> Btw I'm interested to know does he move his lens when watching 16x9 or does he keep it in place?
> 
> 
> GetGray might know that one.



My thoughts on lens in/lens out; I would move the lens (and I do) simply because you're losing a hell of a lot of pixels by squeezing the image using the 4:3 mode and leaving it in place. I tell my customers they can do this but there is a downside. You are really sacrificing image clarity by leaving the lens in place. Lens out is superior for 16:9 viewing.


On the horizontal plane, you're making your pixels one third wider if leaving lens in place, which is much like zooming for scope anyway. (not sure on the exact maths Aussie bob will know I'm sure) So leaving lens in place, creates black bars, which are active pixels outside the 16:9 image area - these are YOUR pixels pulled out and pushed aside from your NATIVE 16:9 resolution... Perhaps it's worse than zooming because when you zoom you don't lose any resolution, you keep all the native resolution from the scope dvd. (Sure when you use a lens you gain brightness and extra pixels, yes I know they're not pixels that were encoded into the movie to begin with)


This is one reason I like 'booths' and tower mounted systems or shelves etc. One can get to the projector and lens to move in or out. Better still if you have a Cineslide, you can mount wherever you like. I'm sure Scott from Cineslide agrees 100%.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/19107733
> 
> 
> Now how do I find threads by "Art" dont find them in here?
> 
> 
> I want to see pix of booths



Hi Murray, in the meantime, you might see some here;

http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=e...=&oq=&gs_rfai=


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> From the video and shots he's posted, yes he moves the lens for 16:9/4 x 3.



1.5m back. Spoke to Paul from Schneider he says it's definitely the best way to go.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19108359
> 
> 
> 1.5m back. Spoke to Paul from Schneider he says it's definitely the best way to go.



And I agree










Looking forward to the photos.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/19107733
> 
> 
> Now how do I find threads by "Art" dont find them in here?
> 
> 
> I want to see pix of booths



This might work better for you - Art's Home Page


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19107856
> 
> 
> He's around in different threads.
> 
> 
> Btw I'm interested to know does he move his lens when watching 16x9 or does he keep it in place?
> 
> 
> GetGray might know that one.



Of course Art does, his is a very high end theater







. Here is a photo of his CineSlide in his projection booth with his Sim2 HT5000:
http://www.techht.com/photos/Sonneborn-w-HT5K.jpg 









He was an early adopter and his lens still used Isco's original Iscostat 9 lens mount (evident from the square aluminum posts). All current units use the Multistand II (II was my revision to their original):

http://www.techht.com/photos/MS-II-CSc.jpg 










on a PJ:


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking forward to the photos.



Will do!! I hope it turns out well


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Of course Art does, his is a very high end theater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Here is a photo of his CineSlide in his projection booth with his Sim2 HT5000:
> http://www.techht.com/photos/Sonneborn-w-HT5K.jpg
> 
> 
> He was an early adopter and his lens still used Isco's original Iscostat 9 lens mount (evident from the square aluminum posts). All current units use the Multistand II (II was my revision to their original):
> 
> http://www.techht.com/photos/MS-II-CSc.jpg
> 
> 
> on a PJ:



Thanks!


----------



## Oggythemoggy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19103506
> 
> 
> I think the (booth) rear wall and port is the one thing that differentiates home cinema from a home theatre



I can put up with reading this mutual back slapping, but that differentiation is full of it, wink or no wink.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oggythemoggy* /forum/post/19112868
> 
> 
> I can put up with reading this mutual back slapping, but that differentiation is full of it, wink or no wink.


----------



## coolrda

The increase in lumens has more to do with the "lens out 16x9 picture looking better" then the added resolution. To me it's not a big deal either way. Darker pillarboxing would be my incentive as I don't mask. I guess I have lower standards than you elitist videophiles.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19115028
> 
> 
> The increase in lumens has more to do with the "lens out 16x9 picture looking better" then the added resolution. To me it's not a big deal either way. Darker pillarboxing would be my incentive as I don't mask. I guess I have lower standards than you elitist videophiles.



By keeping the A-lens in place for 16:9 material one is throwing away not just pixels but 25% true available detail from the source material.


By contrast by using an A-Lens for 2.35:1 material like BluRay, that's not anamorphically encoded, one is gaining no additional detail at all.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19115120
> 
> 
> By keeping the A-lens in place for 16:9 material one is throwing away not just pixels but 25% true available detail from the source material.
> 
> 
> By contrast by using an A-Lens for 2.35:1 material like BluRay, that's not anamorphically encoded, one is gaining no additional detail at all.



Your preaching to the choir. I was JKing with my fellow 2.35 friends. Believe me, I know everything there is to know about A-lenses, all the pros and cons. For me to say there's no difference would make me the biggest of hypocrites, as I use this very argument to justify my proponency/advocacy of A-lens use. Suffice it to say, I'm lazy and I'm content with my quick aspect changes. For now.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19115120
> 
> 
> By keeping the A-lens in place for 16:9 material one is throwing away not just pixels but 25% true available detail from the source material.
> 
> 
> By contrast by using an A-Lens for 2.35:1 material like BluRay, that's not anamorphically encoded, one is gaining no additional detail at all.



Just to add, I'm not losing any resolution. Only rescaling the 1080x1920 content to 1080x1440. It's been proven that were more sensitive to horizontal resolution than vertical. And since were not zooming only compressing a stretch picture it's less objectionable than using the zooming method of CIH. And believe me I'm not one of those guys to dismiss something because of preconception. I spent over 3 months using the zoom method for CIH, before dumping a good sum on my A-lens. In the end, ofcourse moving the lens is superior to leaving the lens in for 16x9. However, putting specs aside, I see a ten percent improvement and not the thirty three percent I see with the using the A lens with 2.35. Now when I get a better projector, that 10% may be more and I will atleast tryout using a sled. Like I've stated before my biggest plus for using a sled was black pillarbars.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19115445
> 
> 
> Just to add, I'm not losing any resolution. Only rescaling the 1080x1920 content to 1080x1440. It's been proven that were more sensitive to horizontal resolution than vertical. And since were not zooming only compressing a stretch picture it's less objectionable than using the zooming method of CIH. And believe me I'm not one of those guys to dismiss something because of preconception. I spent over 3 months using the zoom method for CIH, before dumping a good sum on my A-lens. In the end, ofcourse moving the lens is superior to leaving the lens in for 16x9. However, putting specs aside, I see a ten percent improvement and not the thirty three percent I see with the using the A lens with 2.35. Now when I get a better projector, that 10% may be more and I will atleast tryout using a sled. Like I've stated before my biggest plus for using a sled was black pillarbars.



I must admit that is a good argument right there. I myself move the lens out of the way because it's also convenient to do so (tower mounted so easy to move it) But I do tell people you can leave it in place for convenience etc, you do lose this and that, but it's up to you in the end how you do it. The are pros and cons with all these setups, just find what works for you I guess..


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> This is exactly what I was looking for. Going back over my projector install using plumb bobs to perfect alignment, I realized I am good in almost every way except somehow about an inch off horizontal center!



Really, if you're stressing over an inch off center, you're worrying about nothing. Any lens worth its salt will cope with _feet_ off centre. If it doesn't, then its design is severely limited.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19106873
> 
> 
> What I said was



I don't mind what my room is called, theatre, cinema, movie room, in fact I've never even thought about this once. *All* that matters, and I'm sure I speak for everyone who love watching movies, is that we're happy with the gear we have for the money spent and are able to watch movies on the big screen regardless of weather we have a 'cool looking booth with an iron free glass door' or not.


----------



## CAVX

Just an FYI - the iron free glass doesn't go on the door. It is used for the window you project through.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19118210
> 
> 
> Just an FYI - the iron free glass doesn't go on the door. It is used for the window you project through.



Cool. Was actually wondering what you meant there. I thought you might have meant that iron free glass was used so remotes worked better through the glass, that's all. Thanks for the info.


----------



## CAVX

The main purpose of the window is to control noise from HVAC and projectors in the Cinema booth. Shutters can be used to control excess light.


From what limited info I have been able to find, iron free glass is supposed to prevent a tinting of the projected image.


I also found a supplier. It is not cheap as they wanted $400 for a 250mm (10") square at just 3mm thick.



> Quote:
> Low iron glass is a clear transparent soda-lime-based glass that is almost tint-free, resulting from its being produced from higher quality grades of silica sand that are almost totally free of iron oxides. 1/8” thick low iron glass transmits approximately 2 to 3% more light than regular soda-lime glass, making it a perfect solution for applications requiring maximum visible light transmission and little to no color distortion


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Low iron glass is a clear transparent soda-lime-based glass that is almost tint-free, resulting from its being produced from higher quality grades of silica sand that are almost totally free of iron oxides. 1/8” thick low iron glass transmits approximately 2 to 3% more light than regular soda-lime glass, making it a perfect solution for applications requiring maximum visible light transmission and little to no color distortion



It would need to be AR coated both sides or else a goodly proportion of your light is going to disappear up against the projection booth ceiling and/or ghost images will appear on the screen, particularly during end credits. Add more $$$ for the coating.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19119399
> 
> 
> It would need to be AR coated both sides or else a goodly proportion of your light is going to disappear up against the projection booth ceiling and/or ghost images will appear on the screen, particularly during end credits. Add more $$$ for the coating.



I agree. However the suppliers response seemed to suggest that there is no coatings on the glass. Also Film Australia (Sydney) don't even use this glass, rather Perspex. Again no coatings and no iron either


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Believe me, I know everything there is to know about A-lenses, all the pros and cons.





> Quote:
> Just to add, I'm not losing any resolution. Only rescaling the 1080x1920 content to 1080x1440. It's been proven that were more sensitive to horizontal resolution than vertical.



I see a mild conflict between the two statements above.


By down scaling one is loosing both detail and pixels (25%) and available brightness goes down too, not only by using less of the panel but losses from the lens. However since the image is smaller the brightness per unit area will be around the same as the wider 2.35:1 image.


I have heard the horizontal vs vertical detail dialogue, but I am yet to see any scientific published data. I put this in the same 'truism' catagory as one must drink 8 glasses of water a day myth!


I say move that A-Lens out of the way for 16:9...viva CineSlide!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19119611
> 
> 
> 
> By down scaling one is loosing both detail and pixels (25%) and available brightness goes down too, not only by using less of the panel but losses from the lens. However since the image is smaller the brightness per unit area will be around the same as the wider 2.35:1 image.



I'd say that per square unit if screen area, the brightness when leaving the lens in place does not change as many Scope films don't always have the full frame lit either. The pixels have been optically expanded and therefore are (those being used) outputting the same light as when the full panels is used.



> Quote:
> I have heard the horizontal vs vertical detail dialogue, but I am yet to see any scientific published data. I put this in the same 'truism' catagory as one must drink 8 glasses of water a day myth!
> 
> 
> I say move that A-Lens out of the way for 16:9...viva CineSlide!



The point being made is that all images retain the full 1080 pixel count and this happens regardless if the lens is moved or not. When moving the lens, you do get a higher H rez count for 16:9 however having done both, I (at this time) prefer to leave the lens in place on my curved screen. If I had a flat screen, then no doubt I'd move the lens for 16:9. For me, a huge part of the overall PQ is framing, and that just can not be maintained if moving the lens.


----------



## GetGray

I was thrilled to finally get to purchase Casablanca on blue ray. No way in hell was I going to take that transfer and downscale it tossing 25% of the resolution, and take the frame by frame equivalent re-encoding hit required, to watch that favorite. I would want every pixel, perfect. The same goes for any other 4:3 material. Think about how that 4:3 image looks natively. Now, squeeze it up to the resulting narrow vertical stripe of a picture you'd have with the horizontal squeeze required to leave the lens in place







That's the relatively small stripe of information you get on 4:3 material when leaving the lens in place.


Well, it's the same on 16:9. Only you are getting 4:3 worth of resolution for your 16:9 material. Not me. Get a drawer slide boys, or better, buy some used linear bearings if you are doing it on the cheap. Or call me







.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was thrilled to finally get to purchase Casablanca on blue ray. No way in hell was I going to take that transfer and downscale it tossing 25% of the resolution, and take the frame by frame equivalent re-encoding hit required, to watch that favorite. I would want every pixel, perfect. The same goes for any other 4:3 material. Think about how that 4:3 image looks natively. Now, squeeze it up to the resulting narrow vertical stripe of a picture you'd have with the horizontal squeeze required to leave the lens in place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the relatively small stripe of information you get on 4:3 material when leaving the lens in place.
> 
> 
> Well, it's the same on 16:9. Only you are getting 4:3 worth of resolution for your 16:9 material. Not me. Get a drawer slide boys, or better, buy some used linear bearings if you are doing it on the cheap. Or call me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I have to agree moving the lens is the better option for 16x9 and 4:3 especially on a flat screen.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19120113
> 
> 
> I was thrilled to finally get to purchase Casablanca on blue ray.



Is it 1.33:1 or 1.37:1?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19122607
> 
> 
> Is it 1.33:1 or 1.37:1?



Don't remember. What's your point? That the .04 difference is of consequence?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19118502
> 
> 
> The main purpose of the window is to control noise from HVAC and projectors in the Cinema booth. Shutters can be used to control excess light.
> 
> 
> From what limited info I have been able to find, iron free glass is supposed to prevent a tinting of the projected image.
> 
> 
> I also found a supplier. It is not cheap as they wanted $400 for a 250mm (10") square at just 3mm thick.



So the use of this glass is extremely uncommon then.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19122726
> 
> 
> Don't remember. What's your point? That the .04 difference is of consequence?



A big part of BD hype was about providing OAR. For DVD, the title would have just been panned and scanned back to 1.33:1 and as you have said, the 0.4 difference is not going to upset too many. Given BD is 16:9, it would be nice if all the classic films are presented as 1.37:1 because they have 33% extra width available on the format to do so.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19122801
> 
> 
> So the use of this glass is extremely uncommon then.



I think you'd find that the larger cinema chains like BCC do use it.


----------



## Aussie Bob

A loss of 25% horizontal resolution is a big loss. Trying to justify it by reference to a curved screen doesn't lessen the loss. It only makes the problem one of balancing rez loss against a barrel distorted picture.


I've long been an advocate for "personal preference". For example I like to watch quite a few 16:9 productions in 'scope. I balance the loss of cutting off someone at the knees v. cutting them off at the shins. _Band Of Brothers_ is my favourite for this treatment. But not all films can take it: _Elizabeth_ can be easily 'scoped out, while _Elizabeth: The Golden Age_ suffers mightily from any cropping at all. This is all on a flat, pull-down screen that leaves me with a fully functional living room after the movie's finished. They say a plumber's plumbing is always dreadful. So is a lens designer's HT.


"Auteur" theorists agonize here over recovering the last pixel "that the director intended" and will obsess endlessly about their 'scope masking ("Is it 2.35, 2.37, 2.39 or 2.40... or is it 2.2, 2.21?" etc. etc.) when what the director intended was to make a living out of shooting the film and bedamned to how it's shown, or what the exact aspect ratio is after masking... within limits, of course. My predeliction for cropping 16:9 to 'scope AR in certain cases garners viable criticism from the purists. "Viable", but I don't care anyway.


Deliberately losing 25% of the image's detail seems like a sin to me - personally, I'd never do it just to accommodate a curved screen fetish - but if you don't like barrel distortion it's "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition". Cropping 16:9 to 'scope loses the same amount of information, so... go figure. I can't defend my own quirky film-watching habits and condemn others'. You paid for it, you have to live with it. But please let's not get into the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about how our eye is better in the vertical direction than in the horizontal, to justify saving the cost of a sled.


In the end it's a matter of just sitting back and enjoying your _personal_ choice. If the movie's any good then you won't give a toss anyway.


P.S. I have the HD-DVD version of _Casablanca_. It's really superb to watch, but let me say that for some reason the standard DVD version isn't far behind it in _apparent_ resolution. I guess once I get into the movie (which I watch several times per year, preferably with an audience of people selected for never having heard of Humphrey Bogart, but who _are_ familiar with some of the classic lines, like "Round up the usual suspects"), I don't really care. I have a DVD quality "roadshow" disk of _Casablanca_ (the restored version) that I've added old trailers to, plus a couple of Warner Bros cartoons, and then comes the movie itself. It's always a hit if you can get your audience around to forgetting it's not in color (a hard ask with some of the young whippersnappers you get to meet nowadays).


----------



## Aussie Bob

On projector room glass...


You're going to get a largish light loss, even if the uncoated glass is at a normal to the beam axis. Ordinary BK7 loses 4% to 8% from 0 to 25 degrees angle of incidence respectively, at each air-glass interface. Then there is internal reflection within the pane of glass itself, which will deliver subtle but measurable ghost reflections on the screen.


I'm surprised to hear that professional cinemas don't coat their bio-box glass window surfaces. In fact I stand gob-smacked that they don't. It seems so obvious a thing to do to maintain quality. Perhaps whoever told the poster above that they don't coat their glass didn't know what he was talking about?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19122810
> 
> 
> I think you'd find that the larger cinema chains like BCC do use it.



Ok but we're talking about home theatres not commercial theatres..


On commercial theatre complexes.... The quality of the image in commercial theatres is now being eclipsed by home theatres all over the place. The image clarity, colour temperature, sharpness and precision masking is better, hey even sound is better than what I've witnessed in both NSW and Qld over the years.


Still today I leave the cinema many times with a sour taste, either the sound was terrible and or nowhere near loud enough, the screen was dirty (teenagers having food fights) or people were arrogant and talked right thru the film (normally kids do this) not to mention that damn exit sign under the screen or to the left or right, or both!


Just the other month I saw a scope film, for the first 10 mins they had not opened up the curtains, so we had an awfully cropped scope image with about 4 damn feet of overscan on each side. I had to go downstairs and tell them to open the curtains... whatever.... Cinema complexes are being run by kids these days.


I'll take a Home Theatre any day of the week, booth or no booth!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19123643
> 
> 
> Perhaps whoever told the poster above that they don't coat their glass didn't know what he was talking about?



Just going by what the guy on the other end of the phone said and maybe he doesn't know everything about his products. Because I know that full windows can be anti-reflective coated, so I was very surprised to hear that too. The part he stressed that made this glass special was it was iron free and would not tint the colour.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19123643
> 
> 
> On projector room glass...
> 
> 
> You're going to get a largish light loss, even if the uncoated glass is at a normal to the beam axis. Ordinary BK7 loses 4% to 8% from 0 to 25 degrees angle of incidence respectively, at each air-glass interface. Then there is internal reflection within the pane of glass itself, which will deliver subtle but measurable ghost reflections on the screen.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised to hear that professional cinemas don't coat their bio-box glass window surfaces. In fact I stand gob-smacked that they don't. It seems so obvious a thing to do to maintain quality. Perhaps whoever told the poster above that they don't coat their glass didn't know what he was talking about?



I was a cinema projectionist for over 35+ years in Sydney and Auckland. I fought the likes of Village, Greater Union, Kerridge Odeon, Amalgamated Theatres for years to buy a better port glass, all they would install was plate glass. I said OK lets get something better for just the 35MM projection ports, the answer again was no! Some glass you could see all the distortion in the image as you removed it as the film way running it was truly shocking. All I could do was find the best glass out of all the "other" ports and at least use that one for the main projectors, Im sure its still the same today.










Its easy to see why Home Cinema easy beats the commercial cinemas!


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19119611
> 
> 
> I see a mild conflict between the two statements above.
> 
> 
> By down scaling one is loosing both detail and pixels (25%) and available brightness goes down too, not only by using less of the panel but losses from the lens. However since the image is smaller the brightness per unit area will be around the same as the wider 2.35:1 image.
> 
> 
> I have heard the horizontal vs vertical detail dialogue, but I am yet to see any scientific published data. I put this in the same 'truism' catagory as one must drink 8 glasses of water a day myth!
> 
> 
> I say move that A-Lens out of the way for 16:9...viva CineSlide!



Mildly conflicting? Thats what my psychiatrist used to say so I fired him but often wonder if I did the right thing. Anyway I meant to say Vertical resolution, not Horizontal.


Touche on the CineSlide.


Your right. The brightness will be exactly the same. between the 2.35 and 1.78 image. Maybe I just wanna use my lens al the time. And it probably has a lot to do with my small screen. I sit 3-4+ PH from the screen. When I change my viewing distance or move to a larger screen I will revisit using a sled. Maybe it will become an issue. Maybe not. At 10 screen widths, you probably can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P.


I do consider myself a picky and demanding videophile, and have viewed every sort of projector (hundreds) over the last 24 years. I know want I like and base my purchases on this and not what's popular or base it on a review or on someone else's opinion. Sometimes I'm in the minority, sometimes the majority. Sometimes I'm ridiculed, sometimes others completely agree. Regardless of all that, it doesn't change what I purchase or how I use what I have. I really don't care how all the guys with mega home theaters do it. My situation is different and to me I'm doing it the right way. Who's to say you wouldn't agree with me if you came over. Having said that, I have an open mind and will revisit this method when I move to my new room and try it with extended viewing to determine what I like and what method I'll use.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19123583
> 
> 
> But please let's not get into the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about how our eye is better in the vertical direction than in the horizontal, to justify saving the cost of a sled.



Suffice it to say, justifying saving the cost of the sled is not the issue to me. I don't see a difference otherwise I would have it. It's as simple as that. I bought my Isco 3L from Scott and will likewise purchase said CineSlide when I see fit. See post above.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/19107733
> 
> 
> 
> I want to see pix of booths



And here is a couple with a cylindrical lens too










[back wall with projection port and back surrounds]










[close up of lens]


----------



## oztheatre

Lookin good Mark, you're not going to spray the rail black?


So this is a home cinema because of the booth? I see the benefit for mounting the rears on that panel, not sure there would be less noise though as the W5000 has intake and exhaust at the front.


The only issues I see with a booth is getting remotes to work from your seating positiion, (unless you use one of those IR sensors under your screen), space and cost. Otherwise it's a neat way of doing things.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19127989
> 
> 
> Lookin good Mark, you're not going to spray the rail black?



Thanks. I'd like to get that anodized to match the lens. The sled is a rough prototype to test the idea and it works well. I just chose not to use it for moving the lens out of the light path unless I want to focus the projector or need to demo Scaling for a client. It was installed so that if I moved the lens, I could get it back into the same position every time.



> Quote:
> So this is a home cinema because of the booth? I see the benefit for mounting the rears on that panel, not sure there would be less noise though as the W5000 has intake and exhaust at the front.



The top mount in the EQ rack does reduce some noise, not all. To make this into a "hush box" would require some lining of the inside (maybe foam) and the glass on the front.


The idea of the "false" back wall was to create an environment that more closely resembled a real cinema. Therefore the EQ rack should not be visible in the room. Things like eye lines to the screen were all worked out before any construction took place. I was lucky because I had the gear set up in another location, I could "experiment" there and not have to risk getting it wrong in the room. All 4 surrounds are just over seated ear height based on the rear row of seating. Their diffuse radiation pattern (combined with THX Cinema 2 processing) makes the sound field very enveloping.


When I designed the room, I worked the layout as the "actual room" (back wall to screen) plus extra depth for stage/screen (being AT) and the EQ Rack behind the back wall.


THX's 36 degree rule in a cinema is from screen edge to edge back to the centre seat of the back row. And they now have 45 degrees being their preferred seating distance. As it turns out, the BenQW5000's optics cause placement of the projector to be about 3.7x the image height, so when using the anamorphic lens, it works out about the same 36 degrees.


I elected to use two rows of seats where the front row is just past 2x the image height and the rear row is about 3.2x the image height. The room has reasonably good sound absorption (I think it needs some diffusion) and total light control. The room is also "decoupled" from the rest of the house and was constructed using rubberized adhesives - so it doesn't rattle - and doesn't leak sound as bad as it would if it were physically attached to the house.


Because I already had the screen, I designed the room around that so that it would deliver maximum impact and it sure does being wall to wall. If I was to build another room from scratch, I'd do the same, just on a larger scale.



> Quote:
> The only issues I see with a booth is getting remotes to work from your seating position, (unless you use one of those IR sensors under your screen), space and cost. Otherwise it's a neat way of doing things.



IR Repeaters can work well. The only thing is sometimes I'd like to be able to see the screen on the AVR as my Pioneer does not display on screen like some Onkyo units can, so maybe that's my next brand of AVR.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19124595
> 
> 
> And here is a couple with a cylindrical lens too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [back wall with projection port and back surrounds]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [close up of lens]



Very clean and symmetrical. Excellent.


----------



## CAVX

Thanks Cooldra







Very dark too when the lights are out. I just love the fact that I can turn it up to 00dB (I usually watch about -15dB) with no rattles and know that I am not annoying the neighbors.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19124379
> 
> 
> Mildly conflicting? Thats what my psychiatrist used to say so I fired him but often wonder if I did the right thing. Anyway I meant to say Vertical resolution, not Horizontal.
> 
> 
> Touche on the CineSlide.
> 
> 
> Your right. The brightness will be exactly the same. between the 2.35 and 1.78 image. Maybe I just wanna use my lens al the time. And it probably has a lot to do with my small screen. I sit 3-4+ PH from the screen. When I change my viewing distance or move to a larger screen I will revisit using a sled. Maybe it will become an issue. Maybe not. At 10 screen widths, you probably can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P.
> 
> 
> I do consider myself a picky and demanding videophile, and have viewed every sort of projector (hundreds) over the last 24 years. I know want I like and base my purchases on this and not what's popular or base it on a review or on someone else's opinion. Sometimes I'm in the minority, sometimes the majority. Sometimes I'm ridiculed, sometimes others completely agree. Regardless of all that, it doesn't change what I purchase or how I use what I have. I really don't care how all the guys with mega home theaters do it. My situation is different and to me I'm doing it the right way. Who's to say you wouldn't agree with me if you came over. Having said that, I have an open mind and will revisit this method when I move to my new room and try it with extended viewing to determine what I like and what method I'll use.



Agree wholeheartedly that how one wishes to view the image is a personal matter.


Objective PQ determination is another...........


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19134554
> 
> 
> Agree wholeheartedly that how one wishes to view the image is a personal matter.
> 
> 
> Objective PQ determination is another...........



Hey HJ, there is another GTG in Melbourne soon where I will be giving a talk on CIH and demoing the benefits of cylindrical lenses with adjustable astigmatism correction. Will I see you there?


----------



## Franin

Hi all Ive finally got the job finished. I would like to thank Phil from 1300 stereo and Mike from connect AV, both great guys and they done a job well done.


This is from the front looking back(but I guess you would no that







) The paint is slight wet but I will put the proper photo on my Home theatre thread.



















Photo without the lens











Photo with the lens


----------



## CAVX

Very cool Franin







Now it looks like a true CINEMA










EDIT: How serviceable is that? The reason my port is so big is so I can get the projector out through the hole for air filter and lamp changes.


I have thought about adding a cover plate with a much smaller hole that can be removed prior to removing the projector.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19139263
> 
> 
> Very cool Franin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it looks like a true CINEMA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: How serviceable is that? The reason my port is so big is so I can get the projector out through the hole for air filter and lamp changes.
> 
> 
> I have thought about adding a cover plate with a much smaller hole that can be removed prior to removing the projector.



Thanks Mark! Well I can change the lamp in the other room and filter. Ill take a photo of that to give you an idea.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19139286
> 
> 
> Well I can change the lamp in the other room and filter. Ill take a photo of that to give you an idea.



Ok so you have access to the back. Cool







I've basically got to remove the A-Lens, then take the whole projection mount out to service my unit. Lucky it is not something that has to be done that often


----------



## Franin












Yep its another room behind which I have moved all my gear into. the only thing that is left in my HT is speakers. We had to a remove some bricks for this project.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19139306
> 
> 
> 
> Yep its another room behind which I have moved all my gear into. the only thing that is left in my HT is speakers. We had to a remove some bricks for this project.



WOW removing bricks! That sounds like serious renovation


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19139318
> 
> 
> WOW removing bricks! That sounds like serious renovation



yeah it was took a whole day to finish we don't have stud walls over here. Everything internal is Bricks!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19139325
> 
> 
> yeah it was took a whole day to finish we don't have stud walls over here. Everything internal is Bricks!!



WOW! Is that a standard building code for WA or did you elect to have solid core walls? Might be a PITA to retro fit, however it must be good for sound isolation though


----------



## cinema mad

WoW Franko Awesome set up mate, A true theatre setup the way you have

your projector placed in another room, zero noise from your projector...


Is that Special clear glass in front of your Schneider lens?..


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19139363
> 
> 
> WOW! Is that a standard building code for WA or did you elect to have solid core walls? Might be a PITA to retro fit, however it must be good for sound isolation though



We built the house 10 years ago, before HT was the norm at homes and everything was bricks internal, actually it still is here.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema mad* /forum/post/19139370
> 
> 
> WoW Franko Awesome set up mate, A true theatre setup the way you have
> 
> your projector placed in another room, zero noise from your projector...
> 
> 
> Is that Special clear glass in front of your Schneider lens?..



Thanks bud! There is no glass at all where the hole is. The room behind is quite big and lockable too.It stays mainly closed.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19139382
> 
> 
> Thanks bud! There is no glass at all where the hole is. The room behind is quite big and lockable too.It stays mainly closed.



It must be a join in the port material (MDF?) as I thought there was glass in there too.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> It must be a join in the port material (MDF?) as I thought there was glass in there too.



No I wouldn't put glass.


----------



## rboster

Frank: Looks like a terrific set up....thanks for sharing!


Ron


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/19140503
> 
> 
> Frank: Looks like a terrific set up....thanks for sharing!
> 
> 
> Ron



Thanks Ron


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19134554
> 
> 
> Agree wholeheartedly that how one wishes to view the image is a personal matter.
> 
> 
> Objective PQ determination is another...........



Just to reiterate for clarification. I never said that full panel/no lens was inferior to leaving the lens in place. Quite the opposite. However when I add all other aspects like setting up a sled, change in brightness between aspect changes and very small perceived gain in image quality, it makes the process of small importance on my long list of upgrades. I purchased a panamorph mounting plate a couple months back from AVS to modify and use with a Cineslide in the future. Since I've added so much equipment over the last year the temp in my room is uncomfortable in the summer. So the first thing on the list with the new room is installing a dedicated hvac system. In the past 80-90 percent of viewing was with 2.35 content. I haven't had any gaming or much tv watching in my previous room for years. I found that after having a dedicated home theater for years, I've changed. I prefer the Media Room where family and friends can relax and enjoy video gaming, watch sports, TV shows, home movies, listen to music (my fav), and still be set up for computers and the occasional card game or wine tasting. So while before I didn't see the point of bothering with a sled, at least now I'll be using it for a lot more 16X9 content. As I have stated before, I find the biggest benefit is the much darker pillarboxing even without masking. Having said that, I still may not bother. I find myself at home less and less. We vacation 5-6 times a year. My work is more demanding than ever, with my employer demanding 7/12 hr days a week. With everything else, like most people today, life gets in the way of my movie viewing. Believe me I'd love to watch movies everyday, 8 hrs a day. The reality is, too sled or not to sled, is a ways back of a very long line. Actually, I'm enjoying this room build very much. I have had the help of my good friend who has had some time off and he's been a big help. Things get done so much quicker. Anyway, this miserable rant is what happens when one works through a very hot and long, holiday weekend. LOL(loathing out loud).


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19139377
> 
> 
> We built the house 10 years ago, before HT was the norm at homes and everything was bricks internal, actually it still is here.



Like they say Frank, 'nobody builds homes like they do in WA'


So many double brick homes over there.


----------



## coolrda

Curiosity peaked by new Epson R4000 especially with 2.35 modes for lens users, with stellar blacks. Sim2 LED with 2.35 dmd to show at Cedia? Interesting month September should be.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19150958
> 
> 
> Curiosity peaked by new Epson R4000 especially with 2.35 modes for lens users, with stellar blacks. Sim2 LED with 2.35 dmd to show at Cedia? Interesting month September should be.



Yep, in Europe they had it on display with a CineSlide and IIIS. Interested to see if it's displayed as such at CEDIA, too.


re your Panamorph plate. Sell it if you can. If you get a CineSlde it we'll equip it with the proper legs and (IIRC) you already have enough on your ceiling to simply screw it in there. Attaching it to the PJ is not the best thing to do.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19150797
> 
> 
> Like they say Frank, 'nobody builds homes like they do in WA'
> 
> 
> So many double brick homes over there.



Touch wood there quite strong.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19151998
> 
> 
> Touch wood there quite strong.



You mean touch brick, in WA anyway


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19154924
> 
> 
> You mean touch brick, in WA anyway










true


----------



## MichaelCarey

Hi Everybody,


I've thought about moving my video projector/lens combo into the room (my office) at the rear of my home theatre... but I think it would create more problems than it solves.


I used to have a 16mm projector setup some time ago, aiming through a "window" in the wall. I made a frame to hold some 3mm plate glass with some grooves in the frame to hold some black card when I wanted to block it off.

This is the only picture I have of the 16mm projector in place, it's a bit small... but you will get the idea.











You can see the "window" from the HT side in these photos :-



















The hole in the wall WAS originally designed for a film projector back in the day when my parents owned the house and my HT was my fathers photographic studio. I can remember family film and slide nights being just like the local cinema... but with 8mm and 16mm home movies! Dad loved shooting medium format 120 slides on his Mamiya RB67 camera... but I digress...


Back in 1997 when I bought my VPL-W400Q projector, I tried placing it where the 16mm projector sat. The VPL-W400Q couldn't zoom small enough for my 110" home made screen for the throw distance of 24'/7400mm and didn't have any lens shift function.


I doubt if my current projector (Sony VPL-VW60) could zoom down enough either. Placing a projector in the room at the back would increase the throw by 3000mm over where it is now.


The lens shift function of the VPL-VW60 is not ideal either.

At the moment, my projector lens is around 200mm above the height of the top of the screen and there is a noticeable bowing on the bottom of the image caused by the lens shift.


If I was able to move the VPL-VW60 to the old 16mm projector position, it would place the lens around 200mm below the height of the top of the screen. I think the geometric distortion caused by the lens shift PLUS the decrease in picture brightness outweighs any benefit. Plus I would have to light proof the office to prevent day and artificial light from spilling through the projector port.


I don't mind having the projector where it is at the moment, it's fairly quiet and it's in an airconditioned room. The steel truss I mounted the projector on has proven to be a sturdy mounting location for both the projector and anamorphic lens.


I do dream of putting a DCI projector in the back room one day... maybe when I collect an inheritance from a long lost relative...

I'd also like to remove the walls of the office and incorporate the space into the HT proper. The office floor is some 320mm higher than the HT floor so I would have a purpose built riser PLUS then the room would almost be a golden rectangle 1:1.618.


Michael.


P.S. the prism lens will soon be replaced with an Aussiemorphic MkIV lens so I am sort of on topic for this thread... plus others were talking about projection booths...


----------



## coolrda

To Frank and Michael, nice rooms guys. Though this isn't the place for room builds, I don't see a problem with showing a couple of pics. I'd do it. Anyway, it's been brought up in the thread above that 2.35 projectors will be shown at Cedia. I remember talk of this in threads about 6 months ago. It will be interesting to see what's on display for eventual release.

I can see how this could be cause for concern with any of us that have spent a large sum of money on an A-lens. I'm not worried in the least as I stated earlier on this thread. There is a good chance that the 2538x1080 chip is actually a 2560 x 1080, which in turn could be a derivative of the current chips used in data grade dlp units. They have a resolution of 2560x1600 (16:10 ratio). If this is the case it's a trimmed or has all pixel outside the 1080 shutoff. Or the manufacturer could actually have a menu setting for 16x10, 16x9, and 2.35/2.40 aspect.


----------



## coolrda

With a 2560x1080 available, it's makes sense that a 2560x1440 16x9 could also be released(both based on 2560x1600 chip). At which point the Isco/Cavx would throw a superior picture using all 1440 lines. Don't forget 4K is around the corner. So while it is a step in the right direction, I believe the Lens won't be obsolete due to this. The main differences between this and the current zoom method is the whole panel is filled and lit with better light.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With a 2560x1080 available, it's makes sense that a 2560x1440 16x9 could also be released(both based on 2560x1600 chip). At which point the Isco/Cavx would throw a superior picture using all 1440 lines. Don't forget 4K is around the corner. So while it is a step in the right direction, I believe the Lens won't be obsolete due to this. The main differences between this and the current zoom method is the whole panel is filled and lit with better light.



Thanks for the info coolrda.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19169173
> 
> 
> The main differences between this and the current zoom method is the whole panel is filled and lit with better light.



And not only that, when someone watches 16:9 on this new projector, there will be side pillars of grey bars - areas of UNUSED pixels. This is no different to what I have by leaving my lens in place when I scale 16:9 down to 1440 x 1080.


----------



## Franin

Actually ever since Ive moved my projector back Im using very little zoom and have to admit the PQ is even better. Here im thinking I was having a great image when my projector was located in my room (Using quite a bit of zoom mind you) but going taking it back has improved it noticeably.


Looking at the release of the new 2:35:1 native projector I was thinking of going in that direction but as you just mentioned cooldra I think I will go your way.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19170903
> 
> 
> Looking at the release of the new 2:35:1 native projector I was thinking of going in that direction but as you just mentioned cooldra I think I will go your way.



So is that way involve keeping your cylindrical lens and just upgrading the projector when required?


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19170531
> 
> 
> And not only that, when someone watches 16:9 on this new projector, there will be side pillars of grey bars - areas of UNUSED pixels. This is no different to what I have by leaving my lens in place when I scale 16:9 down to 1440 x 1080.



The 16:9 image will be pixel mapped to the 1920 x 1080 portion of the panel.


Displaying 16:9 Bluray without any scaling.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19174914
> 
> 
> So is that way involve keeping your cylindrical lens and just upgrading the projector when required?



I did a pq comparison last night with a mate with the lens on and without and you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference. I'm sure there will be if you look hard enough but it was quite impressive. That confirmed it more for me to hang onto my lens.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19174958
> 
> 
> The 16:9 image will be pixel mapped to the 1920 x 1080 portion of the panel.
> 
> 
> Displaying 16:9 Bluray without any scaling.



1.78:1 BDs will be displayed without scaling. It is the pixels on the side that will still send light to the screen that I was referring to.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19174991
> 
> 
> 1.78:1 BDs will be displayed without scaling. It is the pixels on the side that will still send light to the screen that I was referring to.



I'm with ya......screen side masking will still be required or a 2 screen configuration 2.35:1 & 1.78:1/16:9


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19175224
> 
> 
> I'm with ya......screen side masking will still be required or a 2 screen configuration 2.35:1 & 1.78:1/16:9



And I need to take some action on the side masking thing in my theatre.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19177685
> 
> 
> And I need to take some action on the side masking thing in my theatre.



It can be quite expensive just to mask the two sides especially going automated.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19177934
> 
> 
> It can be quite expensive just to mask the two sides especially going automated.



I had manual masks on a previous system and given they were open more times than closed, another manual system will do fine


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I had manual masks on a previous system and given they were open more times than closed, another manual system will do fine



I was thinking of making to panels on either side and covering them with the appropriate material and attaching them to the frame but I was told it causes shadow? Is that true?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19178160
> 
> 
> I was thinking of making to panels on either side and covering them with the appropriate material and attaching them to the frame but I was told it causes shadow? Is that true?



Anything in the light path that is not touching the screen can cause a shadow, however I think you would find that from the typical seating distances of HT, you'd be hard pressed to see it.


In my case, my masks need to be AT as well. Even though my speakers are just inside the 16:9 area, I don't want to risk causing a possible audio change through reflection by adding a solid material that close the speakers.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19178160
> 
> 
> I was thinking of making to panels on either side and covering them with the appropriate material and attaching them to the frame but I was told it causes shadow? Is that true?



My DIY horizontal masking is 4"







away from the screen and no shadows can be seen from the viewing area, the image appears to float in the air.


The closer the masking to the screen the better. Chris(Prior's) from DTV's masking sits 3mm from the screen surface, doubt any shadows would be visible at all from that.


The other alternative is to get a motorised 16:9 that sits infront of the 2.35:1, which could give you greater flexibility in conjunction with the 2.35:1 screen...... CIH +


----------



## coolrda

Seeing the Meridian 810/Stewart Cinecurve/Isco III demo several years back was breathtaking. Perfection. I'llh take this picture over PD 2.35 projector any day, sight unseen. I would really love seeing anamorphic encoded BR's in the future, but as I stated before, I believe 16x9 is the standard indefinitely. Therefore, I'm keeping my lens. Doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out the benefit of pixel fill. 10megs crushes 2megs.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19178958
> 
> 
> Seeing the Meridian 810/Stewart Cinecurve/Isco III demo several years back was breathtaking. Perfection. I'llh take this picture over PD 2.35 projector any day, sight unseen. I would really love seeing anamorphic encoded BR's in the future, but as I stated before, I believe 16x9 is the standard indefinitely. Therefore, I'm keeping my lens. Doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out the benefit of pixel fill. 10megs crushes 2megs.



What would the result be if one took a capture of a 2meg image with a 10meg capture device......would the resulting image look better?










Joking aside, without the detail in the source...............


However I agree, if visible pixel gap is an issue, then either sit further back or use more pixels and upscale....but if one is hoping for additional detail....look for a higher source.


This thread is a classic....and the changing opinions/attidues over time:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795480


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> My DIY horizontal masking is 4"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> away from the screen and no shadows can be seen from the viewing area, the image appears to float in the air.
> 
> 
> The closer the masking to the screen the better. Chris(Prior's) from DTV's masking sits 3mm from the screen surface, doubt any shadows would be visible at all from that.
> 
> 
> The other alternative is to get a motorised 16:9 that sits infront of the 2.35:1, which could give you greater flexibility in conjunction with the 2.35:1 screen...... CIH +



I'm going to have to see which is the better alternative for me.


----------



## coolrda

At the last two CES they had a display set up to answer that very question. Overwhelmingly 1080 sources/2160 display was night and day difference over a pixel mapped 1080/1080. It goes beyond pixel fill and differences. Having viewed several 2160 displays, both 2160x3840'and 2160x4096, one thing stood. The complete transparency of the picture. The term organic is often used. The best analogy I can thing of is its like viewing a studio quality 16x20 photo, an absolute facsimile without playback degradation. Until you've experience this you have know idea. My point is simply this. Until a native 2.35 projector based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%, the lens will always be equal too or superior to a native 2.35.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19179858
> 
> 
> My point is simply this. Until a native 2.35 projector based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%, the lens will always be equal too or superior to a native 2.35.



I'm having trouble understanding your point. You say:


"Until (projector A), the lens will always be equal too (sic) or superior to (projector B)"


where


Projector A = "*native 2.35 projector* based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%"


Projector B = "*native 2.35*"


What's the difference between A and B?


Starting with a source of 1920x800 pixels, it sounds like you feel that a 2.35 image consisting of 1920x1080 rectangular pixels (vertically upscaled then optically stretched by a-lens) is superior to 2530x1080 square pixels (vertically and horizontally upscaled).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/19180998
> 
> 
> 
> Projector A = "*native 2.35 projector* based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%"
> 
> 
> Projector B = "*native 2.35*"
> 
> 
> What's the difference between A and B?
> 
> 
> Starting with a source of 1920x800 pixels, it sounds like you feel that a 2.35 image consisting of 1920x1080 rectangular pixels (vertically upscaled then optically stretched by a-lens) is superior to 2530x1080 square pixels (vertically and horizontally upscaled).



Projector A: Masked 1920 x 1080 panel down to 1920 x 810.


If your making down an existing 1920 x 1080 chip to 1920 x 810, then you still get the benifit of 1:1 pixel mapping for Scope, however your 16:9 image suffers with a re-scale by down rezing the 1080 back to 810 and down rezing the 1920 back to 1440.


Projector B: Native 2560 x 1080.


This projector will upscale both the H and V rez being currently 1920 x 810 to 2560 x 1080. The quality of the scaling remains to be seen.


This projector does however have the ability to map 16:9 program 1:1.


projector C: Native 1920 x 1080 + A-Lens


So at this stage, a 16:9 + A-Lens is still the best option because whilst it still scales Scope, it only does so in one direction leaving the 1920 pixels mapped 1:1, and if you move the lens you still get 1:1 mapping of 16:9.


In the cases like myself where I leave the lens in the light path, the only down rezing I have is for 16:9 where the 1920 is scaled back to 1440, however it retains the full 1080 rez so still has more pixels than the masked 16:9 chip.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/19180998
> 
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding your point. You say:
> 
> 
> "Until (projector A), the lens will always be equal too (sic) or superior to (projector B)"
> 
> 
> where
> 
> 
> Projector A = "*native 2.35 projector* based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%"
> 
> 
> Projector B = "*native 2.35*"
> 
> 
> What's the difference between A and B?
> 
> 
> Starting with a source of 1920x800 pixels, it sounds like you feel that a 2.35 image consisting of 1920x1080 rectangular pixels (vertically upscaled then optically stretched by a-lens) is superior to 2530x1080 square pixels (vertically and horizontally upscaled).



ilsui,


That post was another iPhone casualty. Let me expand my thought and explain it better. Mark kind of covered it in another thread. Unless I've misread it, at this time 2.35 ratio DLP projector's, such as PD new 2560x1080 unit are using a masked WQXGA chip(16x10), which has a native res equals 2560x1600. PD's own F35 is a WQXGA projector used in the commercial market, even post-production. My point was running an F35 in 16x9 mode would yield a res of 2560x1440. Using this with and A-Lens would give you a 33% gain in horizontal res over the 2560x1080. Actually we've come full circle and are back to the 800 lines zoomed vs. 1080 + A-lens. We've already answered that. By native 2.35 I mean just that. At this time all DMD's are 16x10, 16x9 and maybe a few 4x3's. If a 3840x1600/2.40 chip is made than there's no benefit to using a lens as the max res is 1600. That's funny as 3840 is the res of a 4K chip, 2160x3840. In that case, here again the lens wins out, as it's 16x9.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19179858
> 
> 
> At the last two CES they had a display set up to answer that very question. Overwhelmingly 1080 sources/2160 display was night and day difference over a pixel mapped 1080/1080. It goes beyond pixel fill and differences. Having viewed several 2160 displays, both 2160x3840'and 2160x4096, one thing stood. The complete transparency of the picture. The term organic is often used. The best analogy I can thing of is its like viewing a studio quality 16x20 photo, annabsolute facsimile without playback degradation. Until you've experience this you have know idea. My point is simply this. Until a native 2.35 projector based on masking the corresponding 16x9 chips horizontal resolution by 25%, the lens will always be equal too or superior to a native 2.35.



Sounds like a 'Monster Cable' type demo!!


I think we should agree to disagree.










There is no way image integrity can be maintained as image perfect as the original image displayed at it's original native capture ie 1920 x 1080 capture displayed at 1920 x 1080. Viewed at the appropriate distance for ones visual acuity.


I'm not saying that scaling cannot look good, it can, but it won't be as good as the original. Sure, if the resultant image is not large enough for the viewer and the size produced by zooming makes the pixel structure interfere with the desired quality of the projected image, scaling and using more pixels and an A-Lens will produce a better result under those circumstances.


But to say an A-Lens will under all circumstances produce a superior image is false, zooming at times can be superior to scaling and using an A-Lens and vise versa. Think MTF & ANSI etc. Think of UMR's observations.


If image size is not the deciding factor, viewed from the appropriate distance based on ones visual acuity, a masked 2.35:1 CIW will produce the best image quality, better than both zooming or scaling and using an A-Lens.


My next spend is to buy another motorised 16:9 screen, slightly larger than the current, mount it a bit closer to the viewing area, both screens will have horizontal masking, the larger screen masked to 2.35:1 will have the same area and vertical viewing angle as the non masked smaller screen(16:9), essentially will be a CIA, however as it's mounted closer, the setup will also be CVIA (Constant Vertical Image Angle) between both screens (larger screen masked to 2.35:1 and the smaller screen displaying 16:9). The plan is 17.5 degrees vertical for both.


The larger screen image will be dimmer, but that is a plus as it will reduce unwanted artifacts from being seen due to the image being bigger. If the encode is far from optimum, I can watch it on the smaller screen be it 16:9 or 2.35:1 masked...zero black bars on either screen, irrespective of the AR, 1.78:1 or larger that is.


Should be interesting.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/18879754
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea for a thread topic.
> 
> 
> 
> What would *not* be appropriate for this thread is a debate on A-lens vs no lens or vs zooming etc. *That type of discussion should be considered off topic.*


----------



## coolrda

HighJinx,

Monster Cable Demo. Hardly. What struck me with all the 4k projector and panels I've viewed is the crossover to reality or the "Looking through the Window" look of the source material when compared to the same material on a 1080 display. It's clear to me that you haven't experienced this for yourself. Everyone that has seen it is absolutely amazed. My argument was clear. I prefer, as do most to all here, a Cylindrical A-Lens and full panel full resolution(from 16x9 projector) 2.35 image to a zoomed image. How many times have we read posts here of people moving to a lens and scaling from the zoom method and talk about the superiority of the picture. I don't think I've ever read anyone prefering zoom over scaling+A-Lens, which makes 1-1 scaling a moot point. With today's advances in scaling, one to one pixel mapping is irrelevant. I can pretty much guarantee you I can put you in a room with half a dozens different scaled and non scaled panels (one to one) and you couldn't tell which was which, which picture has dot for dot scaling and which is scaled. But I'm sure you could tell the diffence between a 2k sourced 2k picture and a 2k sourced 4k picture. Another thing, I base my statements on what I've seen in person which extensive and not based on someone else's findings. It's pretty easy to spot a person that deals in theory and one that has had hands-on experience. Having been to six or seven demo's of Joe Kane over the years with all types of equipment, I must say I may not agree with everything he says, but, atleast I've experience it. I'm not using someone else's opinion or posts. Just to wrap up in conclusion, and to clarify as clear as I can make it, I prefer, as do most here, a higher res'd picture with A lens to a 25% les res 2.35 chip for displaying 2.35/2.40 material. The only ones that don't prefer this is those that don't have an A-Lens, for whatever the reason, typically cost. Once again, the current 2.35 chips are sliced (dmd's turned off) 16:10 chips. Good night to you sir.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19183111
> 
> 
> Sounds like a 'Monster Cable' type demo!!
> 
> 
> I think we should agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way image integrity can be maintained as image perfect as the original image displayed at it's original native capture ie 1920 x 1080 capture displayed at 1920 x 1080. Viewed at the appropriate distance for ones visual acuity.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that scaling cannot look good, it can, but it won't be as good as the original. Sure, if the resultant image is not large enough for the viewer and the size produced by zooming makes the pixel structure interfere with the desired quality of the projected image, scaling and using more pixels and an A-Lens will produce a better result under those circumstances.
> 
> 
> But to say an A-Lens will under all circumstances produce a superior image is false, zooming at times can be superior to scaling and using an A-Lens and vise versa. Think MTF & ANSI etc. Think of UMR's observations.
> 
> 
> If image size is not the deciding factor, viewed from the appropriate distance based on ones visual acuity, a masked 2.35:1 CIW will produce the best image quality, better than both zooming or scaling and using an A-Lens.
> 
> 
> My next spend is to buy another motorised 16:9 screen, slightly larger than the current, mount it a bit closer to the viewing area, both screens will have horizontal masking, the larger screen masked to 2.35:1 will have the same area and vertical viewing angle as the non masked smaller screen(16:9), essentially will be a CIA, however as it's mounted closer, the setup will also be CVIA (Constant Vertical Image Angle) between both screens (larger screen masked to 2.35:1 and the smaller screen displaying 16:9). The plan is 17.5 degrees vertical for both.
> 
> 
> The larger screen image will be dimmer, but that is a plus as it will reduce unwanted artifacts from being seen due to the image being bigger. If the encode is far from optimum, I can watch it on the smaller screen be it 16:9 or 2.35:1 masked...zero black bars on either screen, irrespective of the AR, 1.78:1 or larger that is.
> 
> 
> Should be interesting.



The one common factor in all mega-buck cinemascope home theaters is the use of a A-Lens, commonly a Isco IIIL. Most of the manufacturer endorse and even sell them as an add on kit. It makes sense as they what the best option for cinemascope. If this wasn't the best option the trade show demo's wouldn't be littered with these lenses. Mark's new lens is a CAVX MK4 and not a MK3a. Its different and better in every way.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19188251
> 
> 
> The one common factor in all mega-buck cinemascope home theaters is the use of a A-Lens, commonly a Isco IIIL. Most of the manufacturer endorse and even sell them as an add on kit. It makes sense as they what the best option for cinemascope. If this wasn't the best option the trade show demo's wouldn't be littered with these lenses. Mark's new lens is a CAVX MK4 and not a MK3a. Its different and better in every way.



Ive seen some mega bucks use schneider


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19188289
> 
> 
> Ive seen some mega bucks use schneider



Yeah like that monster XL prototype that has been shown at the Aussie CEDIA since 2008.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19150797
> 
> 
> Like they say Frank, 'nobody builds homes like they do in WA'
> 
> 
> So many double brick homes over there.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19188289
> 
> 
> Ive seen some mega bucks use schneider



Ah, of course. Schneider is the Godfather of the cylindrical.


----------



## GetGray

Schneider's "XL" is in production, has been for a while. I've sold several of them. It is an Isco IIIL in a different case. Identical (literally) glass. Isco (now Isco Division of Schneider) makes them both. You probably meant the MF Premiere. That's a semi-prototype *really* big lens. Can be Isco or Schneider branded. The one that shipped around to the shows is branded Schneider. They also show their great big 1.25x lens. That's a monster, too. But not applicable to our (normal) applications. History wise, Isco and Schnieder were the same company a log long tiem ago.


re Grandfather, I don't rememebr the details, but the President (strictly speaking - Managing Director) of Isco explained the path of divergence to me a couple of times. For large anamorphic history, Isco gets the nod. They were the only producer of a large format 1.33 lens for a long time.


----------



## CAVX











Here is the that XL Schneider


----------



## Widlarizer

I would say, that the Isco 3L looks WAY better than the XL of Schneider


----------



## CAVX

And I'd have to agree


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Widlarizer* /forum/post/19193541
> 
> 
> I would say, that the Isco 3L looks WAY better than the XL of Schneider





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19193589
> 
> 
> And I'd have to agree



Anti schneiders


----------



## GetGray

The "XL" Mark posted a photo of is NOT the XL in production. That's a old prototype, never sold to my knowledge. The production XL looks very different from that lens. I think I have a photo somewhere, I'll post it if I do.


----------



## coolrda

GG, I remember you gave me the scoop on Schneider/Isco timeline, leave it to me to screw that up. Those 1.25's are for the DCI 2k units with their 1080x2048 res. (2048/1080x1.25 = 1920/1080x1.33). I must agree as well. The Isco is the Victoria Secret Model of the A-lenses.


----------



## KX250F




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/18919288
> 
> 
> Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. Will be able to share details soon.
> 
> Top performance. Should put a dent in the market.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/18920632
> 
> 
> Should read "alignment is highly important to *equalizing pincushion top and bottom of screen*". Pincushion with cylindricals is about the same as with prism lenses. Pincushion improvements require much more complex optics than just using a couple of cylindrical lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should read "aligning the lens so that its optical axis is *completely normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the light path and centered on the beam* is just as critical *for some lenses*."
> 
> 
> The more elements in the design that are in the light path, the less critical this alignment (especially horizontal alignment) is. This is because the distribution of curvatures is spread over more glass surfaces.
> 
> 
> For example a lens with 4 glass-air surfaces (i.e. not counting cemented surfaces) will have more flexibility in alignment if all four surfaces are curved.
> 
> 
> A 4 glass-air surface lens with two flat surfaces will only have the possibility of 2 curved surfaces. These curvatures must, of necessity, be quite steep (as the other two of the four are flat), and alignment problems can ensue with them.
> 
> 
> A lens with, say, 6 glass-air surfaces has even more degrees of freedom, and thus more flexibility in alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrongly put. Using a lens should "theoretically" be 33% brighter *than zooming*
> 
> 
> There will always be a light *loss* with an A-lens. You are expanding the image in the horizontal direction by one-third. There's 33.3% light loss straight away. Then there's loss through the lens (due to internal reflection and absorption by the glass surfaces).
> 
> 
> On the other hand, with zooming you're expanding the image bioth vertically and hosizontally by one third. The Zoom Method arithmetic is 4/3 x 4/3 = a 16/9 increase in image area. Inverting this number you get the relative zoomed brightness (compared to pre-zoomed brightness): 9/16 (56.25% of the pre-zoomed brightness). However you're also enlarging the image which, with projector zoom lenses, makes the aperture of the lens effectively larger (relative to the shorter focal length of a wide angle zoomed lens). This is equivalent to reducing the f/number, so there less loss than you might think... the f/number of an optical system is the focal length (shorter when zoomed) divided by the (fixed) physical aperture.
> 
> 
> Compare this greater light transmission efficiency of a zoomed lens with the light loss from using an anamorphic lens and the final 'scope brightnesses are closer than you might think. An A-lens should still deliver greater bruightness than a zoomed lens, but not by 33.3%... more like 15%-20% (and sometimes they're about line-ball, depending on the projector, throw ratio etc. used). On the other hand, an A-lens will most likely never be _dimmer_ thanthe Zoom Method...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make that "another *two*" lenses to be available soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs.




Have we reached a point in time where any new information about these lenses can be released?


Pricing? Availability?


----------



## eummagic

Hi all,


Any news about the Schneider Cinedigitar 1.33x LE new model to be launched late Sep - Oct early?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eummagic* /forum/post/19198113
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Any news about the Schneider Cinedigitar 1.33x LE new model to be launched late Sep - Oct early?



Apparently its been delayed - again.


plastic - good for 720, not so good for 1080







or so i was told


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently its been delayed - again.
> 
> 
> plastic - good for 720, not so good for 1080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or so i was told



Huh?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I assume that means the cheaper LE was to be using plastic elements rather than glass.


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I assume that means the cheaper LE was to be using plastic elements rather than glass.
> 
> 
> Gary



Yeah but Gary why it's only good for 720p?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Probably because plastic doesn't have the same optical properties as glass, so doesn't pass light as well - maybe more refraction or less MTF capable? That would mean smaller pixel sizes wouldn't resolve as well as larger ones


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Probably because plastic doesn't have the same optical properties as glass, so doesn't pass light as well - maybe more refraction or less MTF capable? That would mean smaller pixel sizes wouldn't resolve as well as larger ones
> 
> 
> Gary



Oh ok, thanks!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I'm sure Aussie Bob or Mark will give us a more accurate answer though


----------



## madshi

Guys, I've a question about throw ratio. I've seen mentioned that A-Lenses shouldn't be used for throw ratios smaller than 1.5x. But what throw ratio are you refering to here? Is it the throw ratio with or without using the A-Lens to fill the Cinemascope screen?


CIH screen width: 280cm

distance to projector: 392cm

throw ratio for 2.35:1 movies: 1.40x

throw ratio for 1.87:1 movies: 1.76x


Is my throw ratio ok for an A-Lens or is it too small? Would any A-Lens do, or would it have to be an Isco IIIL?


To be honest, one major reason for my considering of using an A-Lens is that it might allow me to use projectors which I couldn't use otherwise. E.g. the TruVue Vango only goes down to 1.5x. Using zoom only the Vango isn't able to fill my screen. But with an (HE) A-Lens it would fit. But again that makes me wonder if my throw ratio is too small for an A-Lens or not, respectively if I could do with one of the upcoming bang-for-the-buck A-Lenses or if I needed the very expensive Isco IIIL.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Smaller throw ratios are not recommended because the size of the image coming out of the projector could be too large for the A lens, so the sides of the image can be obstructed by the A lens casing. In photography they call it vignetting.


With larger lenses, a smaller throw can be accommodated, but because you're using more of the A lens' glass area, you can get more pincushion. With a smaller beam, you use less curve on the A lens glass, so get less pincushion.


Gary


----------



## madshi

Gary, I understand that. But my question still stands: Which throw ratio is "too small"? And especially: When you say a number (like 1.5x), do you mean the throw ratio before or after horizontal expansion?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It's the throw before expansion, and will vary depending on the A lens.


With an ISCO IIIL for instance, you might be able to use a 1.5 throw because it has a larger aperture, but you won't get away with that on something like one of the small Schneider lenses, or the smaller prism lenses. The beam exiting the pj will be too large.


Sometimes a pj will have a recessed lens, and that will mean a longer throw will be needed compared to a similar pj with a flush or protruding lens.


Gary


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19200135
> 
> 
> It's the throw before expansion



Thanks. So in my case (see data a few posts back) the A-Lens throw ratio is considered to be 1.76x, and not 1.40x, is that correct?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19200024
> 
> 
> Smaller throw ratios are not recommended because the size of the image coming out of the projector could be too large for the A lens, so the sides of the image can be obstructed by the A lens casing. In photography they call it vignetting.
> 
> 
> With larger lenses, a smaller throw can be accommodated, but because you're using more of the A lens' glass area, you can get more pincushion. With a smaller beam, you use less curve on the A lens glass, so get less pincushion.
> 
> 
> Gary



Hi Gary, perhaps add to this. If one is using a shorter throw and getting a larger amount of pincushion, a curved screen would be a good option in order to counter that distortion. Otherwise stick to longer throws of around 1.8 ish or greater where possible.


----------



## GetGray

madshi: Here is a foolproof formula to calculate the TR. It's what I recommend everyone use. It takes the 1.78 or 2.35 question out of the equation, literally.


TR= (d * 0.5625) / h

where d is the distane to your screen from the Projectors owm (prime) lens

h is the height of your screen.

Use the same units for d and h


Example: 54" tall screen, 12' from PJ


TR = 144" *0.5625/54" = 1.5


----------



## SteveHorn

Somewhat OT... Just read a review in HT mag of the Dreamvision projector. An $8K option adds a Schneider a-lens. In the pix of the lens in the mag, the lens mount looks incredibly cheesy for an $8K lens. Pretty sad for that much coin...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19201989
> 
> 
> Somewhat OT... Just read a review in HT mag of the Dreamvision projector. An $8K option adds a Schneider a-lens. In the pix of the lens in the mag, the lens mount looks incredibly cheesy for an $8K lens. Pretty sad for that much coin...



It doesn't look that bad. Interesting that they have moved to cylindrical lenses over the precious prisms based lenses. LINK


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19202057
> 
> 
> It doesn't look that bad. Interesting that they have moved to cylindrical lenses over the precious prisms based lenses. LINK



I expected to see beefy posts, like those shown in the Schneider ad in the same issue. Even the pj reviewer, Tom Norton, commented on the difficulty of affixing the lens to the mount etc. - stripped out screw and such.


----------



## GetGray

I agree. That mount is PITIFUL.


If you know where to ask, you can do better in every way














(Mount and lens).


----------



## eummagic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19198377
> 
> 
> Apparently its been delayed - again.
> 
> 
> plastic - good for 720, not so good for 1080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or so i was told



But, why 1080p alone and how does this new model being compared with Panamorph, Aussiemorphic, Prismasonic in terms of performance?


----------



## GetGray

It is impossible to know how it will compare to anything, yet. It's not available, they are having trouble producing it I believe. They do not elaborate as to the reasons. My opinion is that this lens will not be anywhere near the performace of their glass lenses. If it were, why would anyone buy their glass anymore? At the price that it might be sold for (again time will tell), they would never sell another glass lens if it performed as well. It would be glass suicide. I don't see then doing that. Ther original intent years ago was to produce something that would be competitive with the lower end market, specifically Panamorph, and it's clones. So I think it will be (if they get it out) competitive with them, how well, dunno. But, typically speakng, the plastic lens projectors haven't fared well in the market IIRC. Certaintly not on the high end or even medium end side of things. But time will tell, if they get it out. And then there's the question of how uniform of a product will it be? Again, time will tell if they can produce them consistently. It's been a year since I saw the first one. Still don't have one.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19199115
> 
> 
> Guys, I've a question about throw ratio. I've seen mentioned that A-Lenses shouldn't be used for throw ratios smaller than 1.5x. But what throw ratio are you refering to here? Is it the throw ratio with or without using the A-Lens to fill the Cinemascope screen?
> 
> 
> CIH screen width: 280cm
> 
> distance to projector: 392cm
> 
> throw ratio for 2.35:1 movies: 1.40x
> 
> throw ratio for 1.87:1 movies: 1.76x
> 
> 
> Is my throw ratio ok for an A-Lens or is it too small? Would any A-Lens do, or would it have to be an Isco IIIL?
> 
> 
> To be honest, one major reason for my considering of using an A-Lens is that it might allow me to use projectors which I couldn't use otherwise. E.g. the TruVue Vango only goes down to 1.5x. Using zoom only the Vango isn't able to fill my screen. But with an (HE) A-Lens it would fit. But again that makes me wonder if my throw ratio is too small for an A-Lens or not, respectively if I could do with one of the upcoming bang-for-the-buck A-Lenses or if I needed the very expensive Isco IIIL.



The old saying "you get what you pay for" never rings more true than when an A-Lens purchase is considered. I bought my first lens before the Isco IIIL was around. Knowing what I know now wouldn't consider anything but a true Cylindrical lens. I'm so glad I paid the difference to step up to my Isco. Many times I've tried to save a buck only to repurchase the better product at twice the price later. From now on I can concentrate on Projector upgrade and not second guess my A-Lens purchase.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19202821
> 
> 
> The old saying "you get what you pay for" never rings more true than when an A-Lens purchase is considered. I bought my first lens before the Isco IIIL was around. Knowing what I know now wouldn't consider anything but a true Cylindrical lens. I'm so glad I paid the difference to step up to my Isco. Many times I've tried to save a buck only to repurchase the better product at twice the price later. From now on I can concentrate on Projector upgrade and not second guess my A-Lens purchase.



Exactly and projectors are getting better and better at a good price too!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree. That mount is PITIFUL.
> 
> 
> If you know where to ask, you can do better in every way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Mount and lens).



That mount is bad!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eummagic* /forum/post/19202443
> 
> 
> But, why 1080p alone and how does this new model being compared with Panamorph, Aussiemorphic, Prismasonic in terms of performance?



Panamorph = glass

Aussiemorphic = glass

Prismasonic = glass


At a given screen size, the pixels on a 1080 are way smaller than they are for 720. It is said simply that glass passes the finer detail better.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19201711
> 
> 
> madshi: Here is a foolproof formula to calculate the TR. It's what I recommend everyone use. It takes the 1.78 or 2.35 question out of the equation, literally.
> 
> 
> TR= (d * 0.5625) / h
> 
> where d is the distane to your screen from the Projectors owm (prime) lens
> 
> h is the height of your screen.
> 
> Use the same units for d and h
> 
> 
> Example: 54" tall screen, 12' from PJ
> 
> 
> TR = 144" *0.5625/54" = 1.5



Just what I needed, that clears up any confusion - thanks!


So my personal throw ratio is 1.85:1. Phew, that's good news!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19202821
> 
> 
> The old saying "you get what you pay for" never rings more true than when an A-Lens purchase is considered. I bought my first lens before the Isco IIIL was around. Knowing what I know now wouldn't consider anything but a true Cylindrical lens. I'm so glad I paid the difference to step up to my Isco. Many times I've tried to save a buck only to repurchase the better product at twice the price later. From now on I can concentrate on Projector upgrade and not second guess my A-Lens purchase.



Yeah, I understand. However, if you look at some of the comments in this thread, it might make sense to wait a little:


Alan Gouger: "Another cylinder lens is about to enter the market. [...] Top performance. Should put a dent in the market."


Aussie Bob: "I understand that at least one these two new lenses will be a lightweight, low-distortion, 5-element design, arranged in 3 groups, which is a much-needed improvement on the traditional Schenider/Isco (and other) 4-element, 2-group designs"


To those in the know: Will those upcoming lenses be able to compete with an ISCO IIIL with a 1.85 throw ratio with a 0.95" chip DLP projector? Or are those new lenses too small for such a setup?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> madshi: Here is a foolproof formula to calculate the TR. It's what I recommend everyone use. It takes the 1.78 or 2.35 question out of the equation, literally.
> 
> 
> TR= (d * 0.5625) / h
> 
> where d is the distane to your screen from the Projectors owm (prime) lens
> 
> h is the height of your screen.
> 
> Use the same units for d and h
> 
> 
> Example: 54" tall screen, 12' from PJ
> 
> 
> TR = 144" *0.5625/54" = 1.5



Thanks for that, definitely good to know


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19203616
> 
> 
> 
> To those in the know: Will those upcoming lenses be able to compete with an ISCO IIIL with a 1.85 throw ratio with a 0.95" chip DLP projector? Or are those new lenses too small for such a setup?



Well at least one of those new lenses does have the same size (5" wide) front lens allowing TR's as short (projector pending of course) as 1.4 (actual install) to be used.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19203717
> 
> 
> Well at least one of those new lenses does have the same size (5" wide) front lens allowing TR's as short (projector pending of course) as 1.4 (actual install) to be used.



Thanks. Looking forward to those new lenses to be released then...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19203733
> 
> 
> Thanks. Looking forward to those new lenses to be released then...



Just an FYI, the one I'm talking about is already out


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19203743
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, the one I'm talking about is already out



It is? Where can I find detailed information (specs, price etc) about it?


Edit: You mean your MK4?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19203911
> 
> 
> It is? Where can I find detailed information (specs, price etc) about it?
> 
> 
> Edit: You mean your MK4?



Yes the one and only "Australian First" and it is almost 12 months old now. I guess being "square" and at it current price point, it technically could be a considered a "world first".


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19207265
> 
> 
> Yes the one and only "Australian First" and it is almost 12 months old now. I guess being "square" and at it current price point, it technically could be a considered a "world first".



Well, I think Minolta had the first square A lens I ever saw. Made for Marantz. Little bitty thing as shown by my business card. Neevr made it to production. The little buggers are harder to make right than enterprising folks think:


----------



## GetGray

Back to the "XL", here are some photos I have from a production Schneider XL and the Isco IIIL (identical sized glass):


(sorry about the copyright watermarks).


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19207512
> 
> 
> Back to the "XL", here are some photos I have from a production Schneider XL and the Isco IIIL (identical sized glass):
> 
> 
> (sorry about the copyright watermarks).



Damn there nice lenses!!


----------



## eummagic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19203472
> 
> 
> Panamorph = glass
> 
> Aussiemorphic = glass
> 
> Prismasonic = glass
> 
> 
> At a given screen size, the pixels on a 1080 are way smaller than they are for 720. It is said simply that glass passes the finer detail better.



Thanks CAVX, I understand glass performs better than plastic. My doubt earlier was glass prisms vs cylindrical plastics - now cleared


----------



## img eL

Go Glass


----------



## Highjinx

Be nice to see the day when a material is developed for lens use when one has to touch it to 'see' if it is actually there.....cause' it's so transparent!....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19207505
> 
> 
> Well, I think Minolta had the first square A lens I ever saw. Made for Marantz. Little bitty thing as shown by my business card. Neevr made it to production. The little buggers are harder to make right than enterprising folks think:



Wasn't that little lens actually prisms based? I saw one of these at CEDIA 2009. I can not honestly say if it was a prototype or an actual production model as it did have a serial number. And I'm sure a DTV Forum member had one (cost him $7K just for the anamorphic adaptor) which he bought with the Marantz projector (and the lens/sled combo). I'm sure he said it was prisms based in his review. The thing was small, so would work only with the longest throws.

Here is another link with a slightly different angle. 


Mine is certainly the first "square cylindrical lens with adjustable astigmatism correction"


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19207265
> 
> 
> Yes the one and only "Australian First" and it is almost 12 months old now. I guess being "square" and at it current price point, it technically could be a considered a "world first".



Gotta admit that when I saw it was square I thought it couldn't be cylindrical. Obviously I was wrong...


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Gotta admit that when I saw it was square I thought it couldn't be cylindrical. Obviously I was wrong...



Your not the first to think that either, but I was wrong also.


----------



## madshi

So did anybody do an ISCO IIIL vs. CAVX MK4 shootout yet?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19208485
> 
> 
> So did anybody do an ISCO IIIL vs. CAVX MK4 shootout yet?



Not a shootout per say. I did demonstrate astigmatism adjustment using an ISCO III at a GTG in Melbourne. I found that it resolved single line 1080 display pixel lines the same as my MK4 can. Therefore I'd say my with confidence that the Aussiemorphic Lens MK4 is as good as the ISCO III for resolution.


----------



## Franin

What I find good is when calibrating the projector without the lens and then with the lens and there is no change in results that's a good indication in the quality of the lens.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19208476
> 
> 
> Gotta admit that when I saw it was square I thought it couldn't be cylindrical. Obviously I was wrong...



The name cylindrical is given to the shape of the optics when viewed in plan IE - they appear as if a cylinder has been taken out of them (front lens) or appear to be part of a cylinder (rear lens). In essence, for a HE lens, these lenses curve in just one direction (horizontal) and are flat in the other (vertically). Spherical lenses curve in both directions.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19208566
> 
> 
> What I find good is when calibrating the projector without the lens and then with the lens and there is no change in results that's a good indication in the quality of the lens.



This is an interesting comment as I read on a UK forum recently about a HD950 (RS25) owner who had an ISF calibration done (very well respected calibrator over on the UK forums). The owner has a cineslide and a Mk4 lens. The calibrations for both modes was quite different. He is extremely happy with the calibrated results (after being unsure as to the worth of getting it done). Apart from a small issue with a 'shadow' in one corner due to the cineslide being slightly too far to one side, he is very pleased with the lens. I understand he is moving the cineslide position this weekend to resolve the shadow isse.


Results below for those interested.


ISF 16x9 "WITHOUT LENS" SETTINGS


CONTRAST = 4

BRIGHTNESS = -6

GAMMA CUSTOM 1 CORRECTION VALUE 2.5

COLOUR TEMP CUSTOM 1


Custom Colour Temp 1

GAIN RED = 0

GAIN GREEN = -8

GAIN BLUE = -25


OFFSET RED = -3

OFFSET GREEN = 0

OFFSET BLUE = 2


CMS SETTINGS : HUE, SATURATION, BRIGHTNESS

RED : H = 12, S = -18, B = 1

YELLOW : H = 0, S = -41, B = 27

GREEN : H = -20, S = -42, B = 28

CYAN : H = 5, S = -47, B = 35

BLUE : H = -27, S = -9, B = 4

MAGENTA : H = 0, S = -26, B = 12



ISF "2.40:1 USING LENS" SETTINGS


CONTRAST = 4

BRIGHTNESS = -6

GAMMA CUSTOM 2 CORRECTION VALUE 2.5

COLOUR TEMP CUSTOM 2


Custom Colour Temp 2

GAIN RED = 0

GAIN GREEN = -3

GAIN BLUE = -12


OFFSET RED = -1

OFFSET GREEN = 0

OFFSET BLUE = 2


CMS SETTINGS : HUE, SATURATION, BRIGHTNESS

RED : H = 0, S = -20, B = 40

YELLOW : H = 0, S = -38, B = 60

GREEN : H = -15, S = -34, B = 60

CYAN : H = 0, S = -28, B = 55

BLUE : H = 0, S = -20, B = 50

MAGENTA : H = 0, S = -20, B = 48


I'm planing on renting an i1 Pro soon to redo my HD350/IscoII/VideoEQ Pro calibration and I plan on taking two sets of readings with and without the lens to see what results I get. I will likely only calibrate with the lens in place though as this is the vast majority of my viewing (unless I have enough time to adjust a spare memory). I would expect there to be some difference between results, though whether they are big enough to be noticable with the naked eye is another matter.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Could you place your current probe in front of your pj and lens and take a reading for white, and then move the lens to see if it changes? You could then see if the lens was introducing any colour shift (assuming you still have your old probe).


Gary


----------



## Franin

He is coming in Oct again to do another ISF calibration again because I have know moved it back from it original position. When he originally did it he showed me the results without the lens and then with the lens it didn't change( he was actually quite impressed ).


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Yes I could, but I haven't had much chance to mess about with the calibration lately. I'll see if I can get round to it in the meantime (assuming you were directing your comments at me Gary







).


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19208649
> 
> 
> Could you place your current probe in front of your pj and lens and take a reading for white, and then move the lens to see if it changes? You could then see if the lens was introducing any colour shift (assuming you still have your old probe).
> 
> 
> Gary



If its directed at me Gary I don't have the equipment I have to leave it to the experts which would be in OCT.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Oops, sorry, I was asking Kelvin










Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19208674
> 
> 
> Oops, sorry, I was asking Kelvin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary










Gary. I don't have the equipment but if your interested will be happy to share OCT results with and without the lens if any of you like. Just curious whats everyone using because Im interested to ask him when I see him what he is using and the comparison between the two.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19208674
> 
> 
> Oops, sorry, I was asking Kelvin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary



I thought I'd stepped on Franin's toes there.







I'll get back to you with some results at some point (only an i1 LT sensor though for now).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I'd be interested in all results, though especially Kelvins, since we both have the same ISCO II lens. I can't remember if I measured my lens when I had a pj, but as I didn't move mine for 16:9, I probably didn't do the comparison.


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/19208682
> 
> 
> I thought I'd stepped on Franin's toes there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get back to you with some results at some point (only an i1 LT sensor though for now).



Dont worry about that mate


----------



## CAVX

I'd be interested to see the results from a probe like SENCOR


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19208756
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to see the results from a probe like SENCOR



I don't know what probe was used in the above measurements, but it wouldn't have been a budget model. However, if I take two readings using the i1 LT within minutes of each other even if the absolute readings aren't @D65 it should still show if there is a difference with my Isco II in and out of the light path.


Thinking about it, there may well be differences not specifically related to any colour tint in the glass (if any?) but more to do with the uniformity of the projector in question. I know if I move the sensor even a small amount I can get variations in the readings (it was worse with my previous AE3000 for sure). Putting the lens in place may mean that a different sample of pixels ends up in front of the sensor perhaps?


Ultimately it doesn't really matter if the calibration is done with the lens in place (in my case as that's the majority of viewing anyway). If there is a requirement for non lens ARs then a separate calibration could be saved if it was felt to be that important.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19208112
> 
> 
> Wasn't that little lens actually prisms based? I saw one of these at CEDIA 2009.



No, sorry. It was cylindrical.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19209298
> 
> 
> No, sorry. It was cylindrical.



So where is the adjustment for astigmatism correction? And am I left to think the owner didn't know the difference between a prism and cylindrical lens? Hey maybe he is the same guy that typed that "review" about the MK4 when he actually had an MK3 in his possession










I'll see if I can find the review he did and link it for you to read


----------



## Highjinx

When you guys n' gals are doing your with lens and without lens measurements, could you also do CR, both On/Off and ANSI.


Would be most interesting to see the difference among the available lenses.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19211150
> 
> 
> So where is the adjustment for astigmatism correction? And am I left to think the owner didn't know the difference between a prism and cylindrical lens? Hey maybe he is the same guy that typed that "review" about the MK4 when he actually had an MK3 in his possession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see if I can find the review he did and link it for you to read



Don't know that it had one. Don't think it did. It was definately not a prism lens. And yes, would not surprise me one bit if some reviewer didn't know the difference.


----------



## Highjinx

Here's a good image of it.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19211150
> 
> 
> So where is the adjustment for astigmatism correction? And am I left to think the owner didn't know the difference between a prism and cylindrical lens? Hey maybe he is the same guy that typed that "review" about the MK4 when he actually had an MK3 in his possession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see if I can find the review he did and link it for you to read



Which reviewer was that Mark?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19211348
> 
> 
> Don't know that it had one. Don't think it did. It was definately not a prism lens. And yes, would not surprise me one bit if some reviewer didn't know the difference.


 Here is the thread.

And here is a picture of his set up


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19211188
> 
> 
> When you guys n' gals are doing your with lens and without lens measurements, could you also do CR, both On/Off and ANSI.
> 
> 
> Would be most interesting to see the difference among the available lenses.



You do mean lens in vs lens out + zoomed image of the same size? just to ensure one would be comparing apples with apples and not an image that's 78% smaller...


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19212005
> 
> Here is the thread.
> 
> And here is a picture of his set up



Josh has a nice setup. Does he still have the marantz? I know marantz is out of the projector game.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19212101
> 
> 
> Josh has a nice setup. Does he still have the marantz? I know marantz is out of the projector game.



I believe he sold the lot a while ago.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Square anamorphic lenses are nothing particularly new. Here's the old Professor himself, Jean Chretien, showing off the original square lens in 1951...

 


It was mainstream technology, even by then, being what is regarded now as an old-fashioned, bare-basics, 4-element design, from 1927. Not quite as ancient as prism systems, but close.


Chretien's design didn't last long because it was so simple and there was too much distortion, as well as some ghost imaging, but it was good enough to get Cinemascope off the ground. It seems there are advantages to be gained by buying other people's designs whole, especially if you let others think it was your own brilliant invention...

 


Here it is on the first Cinemascope camera. 20th Century bought it right out of Chretien's desk drawer...

 


I even found this mysterious example (sorry bumped up from a lower res thumbnail)... squared lens in a round barrel... easier to rotate for lineup purposes, I'd think...

 


So, I guess square anamorphic cinema lenses have been around for, oh, at least 90 years (and the 4-element design form, about the same)


Seems there really _is_ nothing new under the sun. "World Firsts" are rarer than some would like you to think.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Don't know that it had one. Don't think it did. It was definately not a prism lens. And yes, would not surprise me one bit if some reviewer didn't know the difference.



That post about the Marantz lens...

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s...namorphic+lens 


...is wrong on at least one major count. From the post:



> Quote:
> This is a prism based lens - which is now available in Australia - not an aspherical design like an ISCO or Schneider. So, a curved screen is not required.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> [aspherical lens's do require curved screens for optimal results however]



Prism lenses have a GREATER need for a curved screen. They distort the image even MORE than simple cylindrical systems do. Prism lenses have no curved air-glass surfaces to compensate for distortion. As a general rule the more curved surfaces you have, the better. Less curved surfaces mean you have less to play with in anamorposing the image. A prisms systems have ZERO curvature, then they can do nothing to fix the kinds of distortion a curved screen ameliorates.


Some prism systems have a "corrector" lens. The curvature on these corrector lenses is virtually nothing. It is a very weak lens that does a very subtle job. Corrector lenses are almost (but not quite) equivalent to a sheet of flat glass. They don't really count as a "curved surface" for distortion-correction purposes.


Sheesh...


----------



## Franin

Maybe world first for astigmatism correction for that design


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19211622
> 
> 
> Here's a good image of it.



Is it just me or does the bottom left corner where the elements are look plastic? Either the holders were plastic or the elements were? Looks a little odd and probably too hard to tell from one photo anyway.


So this lens is not being made anymore? Was awfully tiny for the price don't you think?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19212467
> 
> 
> Maybe world first for astigmatism correction for that design



Hi Frank, what design do you mean?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Frank, what design do you mean?



The Mk 4


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19212529
> 
> 
> The Mk 4



Mr Liuzwen had the first one that I ever saw...


It is cost effective to leave the glass square or rectangular as it comes in that shape to begin with, glass blanks. To make it round like an isco would cost more, but round looks nicer imo.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liuzwen had the first one that I ever saw...
> 
> 
> It is cost effective to leave the glass square or rectangular as it comes in that shape to begin with, glass blanks. To make it round like an isco would cost more, but round looks nicer imo.



Yeah I'm a big fan of the round look.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19212699
> 
> 
> Yeah I'm a big fan of the round look.



Me too.


But there are practical reasons as well, mainly being that they are easier to fine-rotate when setting up.


----------



## MichaelCarey

Hi Everybody,


After a long and patient wait, my Aussiemorphic MkIV lens arrived last week.

I made a simple bracket adapter from 10mm thick aluminium to allow the MkIV bracket to interface with my existing manual lens slide.


I got the MkIV "up in the air" a few days ago and although I still have to play with alignment and the like, I am most impressed.


It's a very different beast to my old home made prism lens.

Screen shots will be provided, but in the meantime here are some pics of the lens in front of my Sony VPL-VW60 projector.

http://www.users.on.net/~michaelcarey/pics/HT/MkIV/ 


I am very happy to join the ranks of a cylindrical 1.33x anamorphic lens owner.


Michael.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MichaelCarey* /forum/post/19230089
> 
> 
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> 
> After a long and patient wait, my Aussiemorphic MkIV lens arrived last week.
> 
> I made a simple bracket adapter from 10mm thick aluminium to allow the MkIV bracket to interface with my existing manual lens slide.
> 
> 
> I got the MkIV "up in the air" a few days ago and although I still have to play with alignment and the like, I am most impressed.
> 
> 
> It's a very different beast to my old home made prism lens.
> 
> Screen shots will be provided, but in the meantime here are some pics of the lens in front of my Sony VPL-VW60 projector.
> 
> http://www.users.on.net/~michaelcarey/pics/HT/MkIV/
> 
> 
> I am very happy to join the ranks of a cylindrical 1.33x anamorphic lens owner.
> 
> 
> Michael.



Welcome Micheal you have a very nice lens there,congrats


----------



## MichaelCarey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19230613
> 
> 
> Welcome Micheal you have a very nice lens there,congrats



Thanks Frank,


It's lived up to my expectations... and then some!











Michael.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MichaelCarey* /forum/post/19231581
> 
> 
> Thanks Frank,
> 
> 
> It's lived up to my expectations... and then some!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael.



Congrads and enjoy.......CinemaScope perfection.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19134618
> 
> 
> Hey HJ, there is another GTG in Melbourne soon where I will be giving a talk on CIH and demoing the benefits of cylindrical lenses with adjustable astigmatism correction. Will I see you there?



I'd love to if you do a masked zoom vs A-Lens demo side by side or one after another or two of the same projectors one at a time, brightness eq'ed!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19237029
> 
> 
> I'd love to if you do a masked zoom vs A-Lens demo side by side or one after another or two of the same projectors one at a time, brightness eq'ed!



As long as the projector with the lens gets positioned to the correct throw ratio where there is little zoom used, why not!!


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19188251
> 
> 
> The one common factor in all mega-buck cinemascope home theaters is the use of a A-Lens, commonly a Isco IIIL. Most of the manufacturer endorse and even sell them as an add on kit. It makes sense as they what the best option for cinemascope. If this wasn't the best option the trade show demo's wouldn't be littered with these lenses. Mark's new lens is a CAVX MK4 and not a MK3a. Its different and better in every way.



I know Cineramax*(builder of megabuck theaters)will disagree with you.....









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ight=cineramax * Enjoy!


If I was running a huge screen and needed the extra brightness I would get one too.....But I don't need/want a huge screen. The closest I like to sit is 1.65:1 screen widths with 1920 x 1080....if I did, I get CAVX's Mk4 or Aussie Bob's design that is looking revolutionary.

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/ 


I guess...just enjoy the hobby.....either way!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19237049
> 
> 
> 
> I guess...just enjoy the hobby.....either way!!



Spot on Highjinx!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19237049
> 
> 
> I know Cineramax*(builder of megabuck theaters)will disagree with you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!



Yeah but he builds different calibre of theatre. Hes in a whole different level, hes way above high end home theatres, rooms and equipment that majority of people will never have. Your talking about a whole different game here.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19237049
> 
> 
> I know Cineramax*(builder of megabuck theaters)will disagree with you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ight=cineramax * Enjoy!
> 
> 
> If I was running a huge screen and needed the extra brightness I would get one too.....But I don't need/want a huge screen. The closest I like to sit is 1.65:1 screen widths with 1920 x 1080....if I did, I get CAVX's Mk4 or Aussie Bob's design that is looking revolutionary.
> 
> http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/
> 
> 
> I guess...just enjoy the hobby.....either way!!



The problem is I make a statement based on my experience and based on fact. You remind of a guy at work we call "One-up Guy". Everything you do, say or own he does better. Everyone knows is garbage, but he can't help himself. You know how ridiculous you sound making the statement about Cineramax. What's next, "hey coolrda, you think your the boss of the whole wide world but your not". How second grade-ish of you.


This started with me stating that using a C A-lens is superior to zooming. That hundreds agree with me, is gravy on the top. Point is I went in neutral and unfortunately for the pocketbook, came to that conclusion. I've compared my panamorph 752 to zooming and gave it a tie with the Isco crushing both. When you have the same gear and have spent hundreds of hours testing back and forth, then you can likewise comment. If you come to a different conclusion, that ok. I at least can respect that as yours. But using Cineramax, come on man.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19240002
> 
> 
> The problem is I make a statement based on my experience and based on fact. You remind of a guy at work we call "One-up Guy". Everything you do, say or own he does better. Everyone knows is garbage, but he can't help himself. You know how ridiculous you sound making the statement about Cineramax. What's next, "hey coolrda, you think your the boss of the whole wide world but your not". How second grade-ish of you.
> 
> 
> This started with me stating that using a C A-lens is superior to zooming. That hundreds agree with me, is gravy on the top. Point is I went in neutral and unfortunately for the pocketbook, came to that conclusion. I've compared my panamorph 752 to zooming and gave it a tie with the Isco crushing both. When you have the same gear and have spent hundreds of hours testing back and forth, then you can likewise comment. If you come to a different conclusion, that ok. I at least can respect that as yours. But using Cineramax, come on man.



Hey cooldra that's a good name "One-up Guy". I have a cousin who is exactly like that, if your theatre is worth x amount he knows someone that is worth

triple the x amount.


----------



## coolrda

Thanks Franin. Btw, that's quite a stash of choice equipment you have there.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19276047
> 
> 
> Thanks Franin. Btw, that's quite a stash of choice equipment you have there.



Thanks coolrda


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I did a very quick check last night and I've taken the two greyscales attached. They were both taken within minutes of each other, nothing changed between runs apart from physically removing the lens. I left the aspect in my Edge set the same (4:3 for 16:9 squeeze) for this. I used my i1-LT with diffuser facing the screen having first created an offset using measurements off the screen. I'm using Chromapure Version 2.03 Professional. The projector is a JVC HD350, using a VideoEQ Pro for greyscale, gamma and gamut adjustments. The lens is an Isco II.


I think that's covered the technicallities. I know the i1-LT isn't the most accurate sensor (plus mine is about 2 years old), but it is the comparative results this is designed tos show rather than the absolute. I'm going to rent an i1 Pro in the near future, so if I remember I'll do this same test again then.


In brief the greyscale was slightly effected showing less red without the lens. The gamma was the same (within the bounds of repeatability) and there was a slight change in the measured colour gamut.


I hope this is of interest...I can't really tell any difference myself when watching with or without the lens in terms of colour difference/greyscale, so I don't bother doing a calibration for both cases. I do make any calibration adjustments with the lens in place however, as this is my typical viewing situation.


The left hand image is with lens and the right hand is without in each pair.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Just the extra two images to show the luminance with and without.


----------



## coolrda

Thanks Kelvin. Using the same colorimeter, I had essentially no measureable difference between having the lens in or out. In my case with the Benq i have,having red push with the lens in, would be desirable since this is lacking in my current projector. In the near future, I'm hoping that a JVC RS40/Isco 3L combo becomes my video nirvana.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I think that RS40/IscoIII combo would be a very nice setup, you're a lucky guy.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/19287364
> 
> 
> I think that RS40/IscoIII combo would be a very nice setup, you're a lucky guy.



I sure hope so. There's always apprehension being an early adopter of new tech and buying something unseen. However, I'm really looking forward to 3D. This is a leap going from DLP to LCOS. But the initial feedback is positive


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I tried to measure the ANSI contrast with and without my Isco II last night. I think there is something wrong with my method as I got 50% more with the lens in place.







I used the AVS HD709 contrast test pattern (checkerboard) and 16:9 mode without the lens. To keep the size the same with the lens in place I selected 4:3 mode on my Edge VP. I now realise that this means there were two large black sections each side of the test pattern, which will have altered the white/black ratio reducing the APL and probably totally skewing the results (good as they are from a lens owner's POV







).


What test patterns have others used when doing these tests? I figured if there is a 2.35:1 ANSI checkerboard 50% white 50% black then I'd compare ANSI when zooming to that when using the lens. However I don't know how I can compare apples to apples with this 16:9 test pattern.


I know it's just for S&Gs but if anyone has a suitable process and/or test pattern(s) I'd be grateful.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19237049
> 
> 
> .if I did, I get CAVX's Mk4 or Aussie Bob's design that is looking revolutionary.



You forgot to mention the new Prismasonic. All three are similar design.

I do not know what the others will sell for but Prismasonic will offer aggressive pricing due to the economy. Something I have been waiting for for years.

This lens is currently in production & we will launch this lens for sale with special pricing shortly. Will post more information soon.

"Finally" no need to break the bank for a cylinder lens.


----------



## GetGray

I'm certaintly curious to see what you've worked out with Annsi, but respectfully, AB's is not similar to any of them, Isco included.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Scott you made my point. He mentioned only two when there are three revolutionary designs. If all goes well with final production there will no longer be a need to spend twice the money for any other lens. My fingers are crossed.


----------



## GetGray

OK... well good, you're welcome then







. It's unfortunate all these guys couldn't have pulled (or better said, didn't pull) this together 2 years ago. The bottom is about to fall out of A-lens prices, relatively speaking, from 4 fronts. With different features, and I'm sure pros and cons to each model, but in any case, better than prisims at closer to prisim pricing. With the heavy metal (glass) big dogs still avail for those who can swing them.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19317404
> 
> 
> With the heavy metal (glass) big dogs still avail for those who can swing them.



I think all the new lens will fair well if not better in some areas to the current big dog. We will see, I do not want to put the cart before the horse. If that proves the case ( will know soon with one ) there will be no reason to spend twice the money for the current crop of big dogs for the same performance and aperture. I am optimistic and excited to see the benefits of a cylinder lens finally hitting below the price point of some Prism based lens. As you mention regarding price, better late then never.


----------



## Franin

I think it's great that finally prices are dropping for these lenses. It will be good to see many more members jump on board the scope train.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19315693
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention the new Prismasonic. All three are similar design.
> 
> I do not know what the others will sell for but Prismasonic will offer aggressive pricing due to the economy. Something I have been waiting for for years.
> 
> This lens is currently in production & we will launch this lens for sale with special pricing shortly. Will post more information soon.
> 
> "Finally" no need to break the bank for a cylinder lens.



Ah!......that post was made before the new Prismasonic was announced.


So we have 3 new cylindercial lenses, The Cavx Mk4











The New Prismasonic










(BTW Alan I think the chrome bits on the stand should have a black option to reduce light reflection).....


......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....











.................wait for it......................


>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>














!!!!!







!!!!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!......that post was made before the new Prismasonic was announced.
> 
> 
> So we have 3 new cylindercial lenses, The Cavx Mk4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Prismasonic
> 
> 
> 
> (BTW Alan I think the chrome bits on the stand should have a black option to reduce light reflection).....
> 
> 
> ......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .................wait for it......................
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!



That's good highjinx







. Well see who comes in at a good price now


----------



## Highjinx

The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.


Woulb be good to see AVS sell all three...







............what say you Mr. Gouger?!!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.
> 
> 
> Would be good to see AVS sell all three...



You will finally be able to enjoy scope HJ?


----------



## Ranger

......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....











.................wait for it......................


>

>

>


>














!!!!!







!!!!!















[/quote]



hahahaha...very funny. I like it


----------



## GetGray

Not to get on anyone's wagon, but the 5th Element lens is also the only one of the bunch listed that can adjust roll at all. Only one that can adjust tilt and altitude independently, only one with any adjustment on the in-out axis. As shown. Only one claiming any effort at assembly in a ISO clean-room enviroment. Only one that appears to be sealed internally. In my life experience, it is rare that one doesn't get what they pay for







. So if all these fall out at similar price points, I'll be looking hard at the details. If one falls out under the rest, particularly for those with middle sales people involved, then the obvious question will be how.


But, if they all perform well, even with their individual quirks, ommisions, or compromises (and I expect all will have them in one form or another) it's good for everyone who couldn't afford something before.


----------



## Franin

I'm curious to know what mount the primasonic is going to offer with there lens?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not to get on anyone's wagon, but the 5th Element lens is also the only one of the bunch listed that can adjust roll at all. Only one that can adjust tilt and altitude independently, only one with any adjustment on the in-out axis. As shown. Only one claiming any effort at assembly in a ISO clean-room enviroment. Only one that appears to be sealed internally. In my life experience, it is rare that one doesn't get what they pay for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



You forgot one thing it's also designed to fit your mount.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19318084
> 
> 
> The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.
> 
> 
> Woulb be good to see AVS sell all three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ............what say you Mr. Gouger?!!!



Are some of these looking for manufacturing by someone else or shopping sales before manufacturing. The Prismasonic is already in production. In order for me to sell something there must be inventory. Not sure how far along the others are but I always keep the door open. It would be sad to see a lens go to an OEM channel due to lack of funding as then everyone will have to pay a premium. That would further drive the sales of the Prismasonic at least here on AVSF.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Are some of these looking for manufacturing by someone else or shopping sales before manufacturing.



In my case, my lens is in the middle of production, privately financed at rather large expense, as a substantial first run of 50 is in progress. Really only waiting on the second run of glass to provide inventory.


Mechanicals are done and paid for. Surface finishing is in progress, ready by next week or early the week after.


Testing of production models has commenced with two lenses assembled and being used for evaluation (to check conformance with tolerances and assembly systems). So far: excellent performance.


You could put it as "8.99 moths pregnant"










This is not a DIY project. When you think about it, it couldn't possibly be, given the complexity of the build.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ranger* /forum/post/19318372
> 
> 
> ......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .................wait for it......................
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!!




hahahaha...very funny. I like it














[/quote]


This is like the gillete razor evolution







. Just google for "onion we are doing five blades" for a hilarious read. Wonder how many are going to be enough.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19323318
> 
> 
> This is like the gillete razor evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



No, it's not. Adding glass to lenses isn't even sort of like adding blades to a razor.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19318560
> 
> 
> You forgot one thing it's [AB's] also designed to fit your mount.



Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.



Which others?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Which others?



Isco, Schneider, CAVX, AB's. Maybe one more


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.



The last thing you want to do when you're introducing a new lens is to buck the System. GG's is as near to "industry standard" as you can get. I go with the flow.



> Quote:
> This is like the gillete razor evolution. Just google for "onion we are doing five blades" for a hilarious read. Wonder how many are going to be enough.



The extra glass is there for a purpose. Believe me, it'd be a LOT easier to design a lens without that middle element that has to be mounted, sealed in and independently adjustable from the outside.


In designing my lens I didn't try to match its performance to anything else. It was designed from a blank sheet of paper (so to speak) to better than Nyquist specifications that I thought would do justice to Blu-Ray and 4K movies (if the latter ever arrive).


I took the test: I looked at the "4-blade" option and it didn't give a smooth enough shave







.


(Call me a perfectionist)


----------



## CAVX

AB,


For clarity and the benifits of not only myself, but the other forum members, please define an 'element' Vs a lens. When I got to see your work known as HORIZON in 2008, you described it as a 4 lens system even though it appeared to have 6 elements (2 doublets and 2 singlets). The prisms based units have always referred to doublets as dual elements because even though a doublet is (lens or prism) a single unit, it is originally made from from 2 elements.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19326464
> 
> 
> AB,
> 
> 
> For clarity and the benifits of not only myself, but the other forum members, please define an 'element' Vs a lens. When I got to see your work known as HORIZON in 2008, you described it as a 4 lens system even though it appeared to have 6 elements (2 doublets and 2 singlets). The prisms based units have always referred to doublets as dual elements because even though a doublet is (lens or prism) a single unit, it is originally made from from 2 elements.



Happy to oblige.


First let me note that in the industry there is no small amount of confusion over this topic.


A "Lens" can be an entire opto-mechincal device, like a camera lens, or an anamorphic lens (with or without stand).


A "lens" may be two "lenses" (pieces of glass that share a common radius of curvature on the inside, so that they can be cemented together perfectly - a "doublet"), or a single "lens" or piece of glass (sometimes called a "singlet").


The way I (and _most_ others) use the term is as follows:

*"Element"*

A ground and polished piece of glass, usually employing curvature (circular, parabolic, or aspherical), that posseses positive or negative refractive properties in a consistent manner across the face of the element.

*"Singlet"*

A single, standalone element, employed in an optical system for a particular refractive purpose.

*"Doublet"*

Two elements made of different types of glass, sharing a common inside radius of curvature, usually cemented together with clear optical cement.


Doublets _may_ be used to correct color or other aberrations as standalone components, or may be used to provide pre or post aberrations that affect or are affected by other elements respectively.

*"Triplet"*

A 3-element version of a doublet. Very rare, and not usually required in a system unless it has extremely high performance specifications (i.e. much higher than projection or SLR-type camera systems).

*"Group"*

A fairly vague term... Usually it denotes an arrangement of singlets and/or doublets that function as a sub-system within an optical design (e.g. zoom lenses consist of "focus" orientated groups and "zoom" orientated groups).

*"Cylindrical Curvature"*

Curved in only one direction... a section of a cylinder, not a sphere (which is curved equally in _all_ directions).

*"Aspherical"*

In _one_ sense, cylindrical lenses are aspherical, as their curved surfaces do not represent a section of a sphere.


Usually, however, "aspherical" means a curvature that is not based on a circle, a sphere or a plane. It could be a simple parabolic surface (y = x-squared + K), or one based on a complex multi-term mathematical function of any degree of complexity.


Aspherical surfaces are usually employed sparingly in an optical system when there is no other option, because they are so expensive to manufacture. You can't use a template, or simple rotation (as with a spherical lens) to grind and _especially_ polish an aspheric. A diamond-tipped CNC cutter is used that must not only cut out the irregular, aspheric shape, but _also_ polish it. Aspheric surfaces refract light differently in different positions on the "sag" (or curve). They tend to correct the inherent aberrations of cylindrical or spherical surfaces and can save glass in an optical system, but at huge effort and expense. There is a lot of controversy as to whether they are really needed in a simple projection or camera system (although some higher end camera lenses do use them, also simpler systems with plastic - highly repeatable - lens elements, like CD players). They tend to be more required in areas like modern microlithography systems (e.g. microchip manufacture, nanotechnology engineering) where large basic artwork is reduced to micron and sub-micron size, requiring as close to perfection as possible in the imagery.

*"Lens"*

Can be an element, a singlet, a doublet, a triplet or an entire optical device, depending on context... which is why I tend to use the more precise terms unless that context is clear.

*Examples*

1. An anamorphic lens with only 2 cylindrical elements would consist of two singlets - the one nearest the projector being a converging (positive focal length) element, and the one nearest the screen being a diverging (negative focal length) element, separted by an air gap calculated by a function of their combined focal lengths.


This would be the simplest possible cylindrical anamorphic lens.


It could be designed to eliminate color aberration at one particular throw distance, but would be unlikely to work properly in correcting color errors at any other throw distance.


This lens will have a maximum possible 4 air-glass surfaces that can contain curvature.


These designs are rarely built, and are used mostly in textbooks to illustrate the basic principle of anamorphism, or (more generally) a lens system that has infinite focal length (parallel rays that pass through it stay parallel, they never focus. Conversely, a focusing beam will still focus, at _roughly_ the same focal point as it would without the lens in the beam... "roughly" is the key word here... it is where "astigmatism" comes into play, because the new focus point is close but not quite the same in the horizontal direction as it is in the vertical direction). The air gap is varied to reduce astigmatism.


2. An anamorphic lens with 4 elements usually consists of 2 doublets... two elements per doublet. The function of the doublets is mostly to provide color aberration correction, when used in conjunction with each other. Refractively speaking, anything regarding "bending" the projector beam that the simple "Type 1" lens can do, can be done with this "Type 2" lens, with the added function of more universal color correction, over a wider range of throws.


3. My lens has 5 elements: 2 doublets and one singlet, arranged as three lenses (or groups, or stages). The two end lenses are fixed in place. The middle element moves back and forth along a precision (tolerance measured in microns) rail. As the air gap between the first and middle lenses decreases, the air gap between the last and middle lens increases by the same amount. The extra glass serves to both color correct and to bend the beam in a more controllable way that lenses with lesser numbers of elements cannot do, as they have less degrees of variation available to them. The extra 2 air-glass surfaces mean that each individual surface has to do "less work" to achieve the final result. Therefore, the extra surfaces allow my lens to be "gentler" on the beam, correcting or reducing some aberrations as it goes, in order to achieve different results, particularly as regards image geometry.

*In Summary*

To put this all into perspective, you can use a simple magnifying glass as a camera or projector lens (but NOT as an anamorphic lens - for this you need a minimum of two elements _see "Type 1" lenses above_). The resulting image from a simple magnifying glass projection or camera "lens" will be blurred at the edges (astigmatism) and will have severe color problems ("Newton's rainbow effect" or Color Aberration - "CA"), as well as other less well-known aberrations such as spherical aberration and coma, sometimes extending through several algebraic orders (1st order... 5th order... etc.).


Lenses can be combined as groups, doublets etc. to reduce aberrations, although they are unlikely to be completely eliminated. Sometimes correcting one aberration promotes another. Generally (and I mean _generally_) speaking, the more glass you use, the more you can use one refractive property in one element (or group) to correct aberrations resulting from another element, without adding too much by way of "collateral" aberration by the very act of correction. Eventually, the designer has to balance performance against cost, weight and ultimately expense, especially with such big pieces of glass as anamorphic add-on adapters employ.


There are no "1s" and "0s" in optical design, like there are in digital sound or CNC machining. Optics is all "analog" and fraught with challenges. Optical manufacture is very difficult and time consuming. The aim is to achieve performance with the minimum number of elements that deliver your specifications within an acceptable practical environment - be that cost, size, image quality, or ease of use.


----------



## coolrda

Excellent Bob. Some really good product coming from down under.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19318200
> 
> 
> You will finally be able to enjoy scope HJ?



I enjoy all aspect ratios, Cinemascope ratios, Panavision Ratios, Odd ball ratios, all without black/grey bars on my setup except 4:3/1.33:1 on my horizontally maskable motorised 16:9 screen.










My next move is to mount a larger motorised maskable 16:9 screen in front of the existing one at the appropriate distance, so when viewing 2.35:1 films on the larger one it will be at the same vertical viewing angle as the smaller screen (behind it)displaying a 1.78:1 image.......essentially CIH by virtue of the viewing angle. By coinsidence the larger masked(to 2.35:1)16:9 screen will be the same area as the smaller unmasked 16:9 screen. This is achieved with a screen only 15% wider!


No scaling or A-Lens will be used, avoiding any scaling introduced softening/artifacts and not using an A-lens I can avoid pincushion etc. Sure the larger image will drop the On/Off CR a tad, but not that the eye will be able to detect...as I said the screen is only 15% wider. ANSI will be maintained, possibly increased as I will open up the iris a bit on the JVC for the larger screen.


With this set up I have the option viewing Imax type 16:9 presentations, at a higher height by raising the masking on the larger screen, than if I had a dedicated 2.35:1 screen, where I would have been restricted to the height of the 2.35:1 screen.


However say I had to reinstall in a different room and due to the projector placement/throw, if the ensuing image size was insufficent and it suffered inadiquate brightness, yes I would purchase an A-Lens.


If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.



It will be nice


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> It will be nice



It's _designed_ to be nice







.



> Quote:
> If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.



Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.


Sure, anamorphic encoding could be included in the same manner as "director's Cut" v. "Theatrical Cut" versions ae both present on a disk (particularly on a 50gB Blu-Ray format), but my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.


To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K) and I just don't think the market's big enough to justify the cost and the telephone hotline required when non-CIH users pressed the wrong menu button and got mad at the funny shapes on the screen.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ranger* /forum/post/19318372
> 
> 
> hahahaha...very funny. I like it


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19337824
> 
> 
> It's _designed_ to be nice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> Sure, anamorphic encoding could be included in the same manner as "director's Cut" v. "Theatrical Cut" versions ae both present on a disk (particularly on a 50gB Blu-Ray format), but my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.
> 
> 
> To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K) and I just don't think the market's big enough to justify the cost and the telephone hotline required when non-CIH users pressed the wrong menu button and got mad at the funny shapes on the screen.



Pity!


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19337824
> 
> 
> Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.



Agreed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19337824
> 
> 
> my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.
> 
> 
> To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K)



By far most movies are shot on film, which doesn't have a specific "native resolution" cause it's analog. So the question is in which resolution the film was scanned. If it was scanned in 2K then you're right and anamorphic encoding would just give us a vertical stretch done by the studio. However, newer scans are usually done at 4K+, which is then downscaled to the Blu-Ray output resolution. It would be easy enough to scale the 4K master directly to anamorphic Blu-Ray and that should produce superior results.


However, since anamorphic encoding is not part of the Blu-Ray standard, chances that studios will do that are practically zero. I think getting true 4K encoding added to the Blu-Ray standard has higher chances than getting anamorphic 1080p encoding added.


IMHO A-lenses will become (even) more attractive once we get 4K+ projectors. Because then we'll need to upscale 1080p to 4K, anyway. Which means that the vertical stretch will not cost *any* image quality. Actually it should then improve quality, because once you have to scale, anyway, the higher the upscaling factor the better image quality will be. Of course once we have 4K+ projectors, we may have to reevaluate all A-lenses to see which can pass the full 4K+ resolution through without losing sharpness.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> It would be easy enough to scale the 4K master directly to anamorphic Blu-Ray and that should produce superior results.
> 
> 
> However, since anamorphic encoding is not part of the Blu-Ray standard, chances that studios will do that are practically zero.



On the first point that WAS my point. A new, separate scale down, with all the fuss and bother involved (more than just pressing a button, I'd assume) might be regarded as too expensive just to cater for the expectations of a little known fringe of HT CIH enthusiasts.


On the second point, I can't see how including anamorphic encoded versions defies any standard. Think of the anamorphic version as an "Extra", or an "Easter Egg", just put there on the menu for the geeks. The trouble is, in my opinion, that it might cost money to provide it and hence would make the disk more expensive.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19341880
> 
> 
> On the second point, I can't see how including anamorphic encoded versions defies any standard. Think of the anamorphic version as an "Extra", or an "Easter Egg", just put there on the menu for the geeks.



Such a solution would not defy the Blu-Ray standard. But it would cut Blu-Ray disc capacity in half, possibly resulting in lower video bitrates.


If anamorphic encoding were a mandatory Blu-Ray feature, studios could decide to encode anamorphically only, without needing to store a seperate non-anamorphic encoding on the disc. That's the only way it would make sense, IMHO.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> If anamorphic encoding were a mandatory Blu-Ray feature, studios could decide to encode anamorphically only, without needing to store a seperate non-anamorphic encoding on the disc.



But wouldn't that then screw up the VAST majority of 16:9 users with flat screen TVs? I haven't seen a flat screen TV with vertical _compression_ yet (I might have missed it though).


But I see your point... if anamorphic encoding was a standard then TVs would have had the feature built in... but then that begs the question of backwards compatibility with the first couple of generations of flat screens which had horizontal _stretch_ built in, not vertical compression.


It's all too hard, methinks. The problem is that a HD standard that was supposed to get rid of the mess of standards we had before, is even more complicated than things used to be, due to legacy throwbacks.


I was doing some production management for an Australian firm that makes High Definition test, monitoring and standards-conversion equipment (not Black Magic, one of their competitors). One of their most successful products is a gizmo that puts out every known standard of digital signal, plus all the mainstream analog standards (excepting SECAM and the South American PAL "amigos"). There were 32 of them, right back from 480i and 480p, to 1080p 120Hz and 119.8Hz (just in case someone had an old NTSC movie with 3:2 pulldown they wanted to run in HD-3D)... and everything in-between that you could possibly shake a stick at. And this was supposed to be a reflection of the _consolidation_ of standards! The logic was that somewhere in Patagonia or Lower-Eastern Mongolia someone was shooting documentaries or commercials in some weird standard that had to be accounted for and converted to some _other_ standard that a few tribesmen living in mud huts in Greater Waziristan had TV sets to suit.


I don't know what was more bewildering: the number of standards, or the fact that, when I was in broadcast television last, you needed two racks full of equipment, a sub-station for excess power, and a guy in a white lab coat to run standards conversion from PAL to NTSC and vice versa, and now you could hold something that could convert anything to anything digital in the palm of you hand and pay $500 for it!


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19342209
> 
> 
> But wouldn't that then screw up the VAST majority of 16:9 users with flat screen TVs? I haven't seen a flat screen TV with vertical _compression_ yet (I might have missed it though).



Well, my thinking is that if anamorphic encoding were part of the Blu-Ray standard, Blu-Ray players would be required to be able to output the image vertically compressed. That would solve all problems...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19342209
> 
> 
> It's all too hard, methinks. The problem is that a HD standard that was supposed to get rid of the mess of standards we had before, is even more complicated than things used to be, due to legacy throwbacks.



Yeah, I wish HD broadcasts and Blu-Ray would be identical to 2K digital cinema world wide. That way we'd have only one HD format world wide. But no, they made HD different to digital cinema. And furthermore they still maintained different refresh rates for PAL and NTSC countries. At least the HD primaries and resolutions are identical world wide now. That's at least some progress.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19342209
> 
> 
> I was doing some production management for an Australian firm that makes High Definition test, monitoring and standards-conversion equipment (not Black Magic, one of their competitors). One of their most successful products is a gizmo that puts out every known standard of digital signal, plus all the mainstream analog standards (excepting SECAM and the South American PAL "amigos"). There were 32 of them, right back from 480i and 480p, to 1080p 120Hz and 119.8Hz (just in case someone had an old NTSC movie with 3:2 pulldown they wanted to run in HD-3D)... and everything in-between that you could possibly shake a stick at. And this was supposed to be a reflection of the _consolidation_ of standards! The logic was that somewhere in Patagonia or Lower-Eastern Mongolia someone was shooting documentaries or commercials in some weird standard that had to be accounted for and converted to some _other_ standard that a few tribesmen living in mud huts in Greater Waziristan had TV sets to suit.
> 
> 
> I don't know what was more bewildering: the number of standards, or the fact that, when I was in broadcast television last, you needed two racks full of equipment, a sub-station for excess power, and a guy in a white lab coat to run standards conversion from PAL to NTSC and vice versa, and now you could hold something that could convert anything to anything digital in the palm of you hand and pay $500 for it!



I'm wondering whether a $500 device can do conversions like PAL NTSC with really good quality, though. I mean, for a "perfect" conversion you first have to deinterlace as good as possible (motion compensation etc), then you need great scaling algorithms and finally for perfect framerate conversion you would probably need to do some kind of clever intermediate frame interpolation. I don't think a $500 box could do any of the above in satisfactory quality.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19343853
> 
> 
> Well, my thinking is that if anamorphic encoding were part of the Blu-Ray standard, Blu-Ray players would be required to be able to output the image vertically compressed. That would solve all problems...



Agreed - DVD players had this (I guess they still do) so you could tell it if the tv was 4:3 or 16:9, and it would output the anamorphically encoded DVD as letterbox for 4:3 tvs. The same could be done for 16:9 tvs with anamorphically encoded BD.


Can't see it hapenning though, especially with 3D being the new thing and more money to be had from that - plenty of 3D tvs out there now, and not many 21:9 displays (even if we included projectors with A lenses).


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - DVD players had this (I guess they still do) so you could tell it if the tv was 4:3 or 16:9, and it would output the anamorphically encoded DVD as letterbox for 4:3 tvs. The same could be done for 16:9 tvs with anamorphically encoded BD.
> 
> 
> Can't see it hapenning though, especially with 3D being the new thing and more money to be had from that - plenty of 3D tvs out there now, and not many 21:9 displays (even if we included projectors with A lenses).
> 
> 
> Gary



Are the 3D tvs selling like hot cakes in your country Gary?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19343986
> 
> 
> Are the 3D tvs selling like hot cakes in your country Gary?



I've no idea to be honest, but there are lots of people advertising them in mags and on tv etc and I see them in the shops, whereas I only see 2.35 stuff being mentioned on forums, so it seems that the industry is for making and promoting 3D and doing very little for 235. That's what makes me think we've little chance of getting anamorphic disks. Both BD and HDMI are already 3D ready, whereas nothing has happenned for scope.


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19344000
> 
> 
> I've no idea to be honest, but there are lots of people advertising them in mags and on tv etc and I see them in the shops, whereas I only see 2.35 stuff being mentioned on forums, so it seems that the industry is for making and promoting 3D and doing very little for 235. That's what makes me think we've little chance of getting anamorphic disks. Both BD and HDMI are already 3D ready, whereas nothing has happenned for scope.
> 
> 
> Gary



Scope is definitely used by a minority group. Though once you show someone scope especially moving the lens into place once the movie begins then you get the uninterested interested.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Very true - pity we can't get the industry as interested though!










Gary


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19344021
> 
> 
> Scope is definitely used by a minority group. Though once you show someone scope especially moving the lens into place once the movie begins then you get the uninterested interested.



That without a doubt is a cool effect.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I'm wondering whether a $500 device can do conversions like PAL NTSC with really good quality, though. I mean, for a "perfect" conversion you first have to deinterlace as good as possible (motion compensation etc), then you need great scaling algorithms and finally for perfect framerate conversion you would probably need to do some kind of clever intermediate frame interpolation. I don't think a $500 box could do any of the above in satisfactory quality.



The gear I'm referring to is amazingly good. It's been tested by the BBC, Fox, Warner Bros. NBC and many others. I spent an hour on the phone with their BBC World Chief Engineer - he's responsible for 47 television studios around the world - and he was begging me to send him shipments (we were experiencing a parts shortage at the time). He raved about it.


The gear uses absolutely cutting edge programmable logic - either Xilinx, Altera or Lattice depending on application - and works wonderfully well. It's all programmed in Verilog (not graphical input), and one of the more complicated devices runs the equivalent of 30 microprocessors simultaneously (not "module" processors you buy as macros from the manufacturer, but processors of his own design), in real time at 3.5 gig. clock speed (that's more than $500 though, about $1000 I recall). The guy who does the design is your original "brain in a bottle" - he eats, lives and breathes high definition. I haven't seen any professional video engineer ever object to the quality.


I left because we had an unresolvable disagreement, but I can't disagree with the quality of the gear. The gear is standard equipment for every Steadicam cameraman in the world (just about). One of the big camera companies (grudgingly) uses his gear because he does a better job with their RAW output signal than they do.


Can't say anymore due to an extant NDA, but PM me if you want contact details.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very true - pity we can't get the industry as interested though!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary



Over here the smaller hifi retailers are contemplating wether to do it but your right it's 3D that's taking over.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> That without a doubt is a cool effect.



Well it has a few enquiring about it and they like the idea of removing the black bars and I mention about the cheaper lens available but after a week or so asking them wether there perusing it or not there not interested. Unfortunately this economy has put a lot of things on hold for many.


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19346132
> 
> 
> The gear I'm referring to is amazingly good. It's been tested by the BBC, Fox, Warner Bros. NBC and many others. I spent an hour on the phone with their BBC World Chief Engineer - he's responsible for 47 television studios around the world - and he was begging me to send him shipments (we were experiencing a parts shortage at the time). He raved about it.
> 
> 
> The gear uses absolutely cutting edge programmable logic - either Xilinx, Altera or Lattice depending on application - and works wonderfully well. It's all programmed in Verilog (not graphical input), and one of the more complicated devices runs the equivalent of 30 microprocessors simultaneously (not "module" processors you buy as macros from the manufacturer, but processors of his own design), in real time at 3.5 gig. clock speed (that's more than $500 though, about $1000 I recall). The guy who does the design is your original "brain in a bottle" - he eats, lives and breathes high definition. I haven't seen any professional video engineer ever object to the quality.
> 
> 
> I left because we had an unresolvable disagreement, but I can't disagree with the quality of the gear. The gear is standard equipment for every Steadicam cameraman in the world (just about). One of the big camera companies (grudgingly) uses his gear because he does a better job with their RAW output signal than they do.
> 
> 
> Can't say anymore due to an extant NDA, but PM me if you want contact details.



I'm surprised that a $500/1000$ hardware can do this in good quality. But I'm still doubtfull that it's near "perfect quality" (meaning: maximum theoretically achievable quality, by using best algorithms known today). Ok, probably perfect quality doesn't exist today because the best algorithms don't run in realtime today. Anyway, from what I've seen, upscaled Blu-Rays, upscaled HD broadcasts and NTSC -> PAL conversions have all been pretty bad to my eyes. E.g. I'm daily shocked at how bad SD -> HD upscaling is when watching TV here in Germany. But I guess we're OT here, so I'll stop now...


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19347429
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that a $500/1000$ hardware can do this in good quality. But I'm still doubtfull that it's near "perfect quality" (meaning: maximum theoretically achievable quality, by using best algorithms known today). Ok, probably perfect quality doesn't exist today because the best algorithms don't run in realtime today. Anyway, from what I've seen, upscaled Blu-Rays, upscaled HD broadcasts and NTSC -> PAL conversions have all been pretty bad to my eyes. E.g. I'm daily shocked at how bad SD -> HD upscaling is when watching TV here in Germany. But I guess we're OT here, so I'll stop now...



It _is_ an arcane argument: "Which is best?".


What amazed me working with this stuff just recently (early this year) was how a technology I first used in 1992 - Altera EPLDs - had progressed, even from 2005 when I last designed something using the then "latest" chip (never got built, though). I used their graphic interface for input - basically a "circuit diagram" approach - but apparently the real way to do it is to write Verilog code that cuts out the interpreter between graphics and silicon. Verilog is supposed to be ten times more efficient, if you're good at coding. These chips have thousand of times the logic capacity of their 1992 ancestors.


I gave up trying to understand the complexities of the 2010 version of programmable hardware and just concentrated on the production management side, a sad case (which comes to all of use eventually) of being content to regard a sufficiently advanced technology as indistinguishable from magic


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19333428
> 
> 
> I enjoy all aspect ratios, Cinemascope ratios, Panavision Ratios, Odd ball ratios, all without black/grey bars on my setup except 4:3/1.33:1 on my horizontally maskable motorised 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My next move is to mount a larger motorised maskable 16:9 screen in front of the existing one at the appropriate distance, so when viewing 2.35:1 films on the larger one it will be at the same vertical viewing angle as the smaller screen (behind it)displaying a 1.78:1 image.......essentially CIH by virtue of the viewing angle. By coinsidence the larger masked(to 2.35:1)16:9 screen will be the same area as the smaller unmasked 16:9 screen. This is achieved with a screen only 15% wider!
> 
> 
> No scaling or A-Lens will be used, avoiding any scaling introduced softening/artifacts and not using an A-lens I can avoid pincushion etc. Sure the larger image will drop the On/Off CR a tad, but not that the eye will be able to detect...as I said the screen is only 15% wider. ANSI will be maintained, possibly increased as I will open up the iris a bit on the JVC for the larger screen.
> 
> 
> With this set up I have the option viewing Imax type 16:9 presentations, at a higher height by raising the masking on the larger screen, than if I had a dedicated 2.35:1 screen, where I would have been restricted to the height of the 2.35:1 screen.
> 
> 
> However say I had to reinstall in a different room and due to the projector placement/throw, if the ensuing image size was insufficent and it suffered inadiquate brightness, yes I would purchase an A-Lens.
> 
> 
> If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.



If your worried about pincushion, don't be. I measured mine at little over 1/4" or about 7-8 mm. Same goes for sharpness/resolving power. Comparing the image, Lens vs no Lens, at the pixel level shows this. I know if you ever had the chance to demo a top shelf A-Lens you would see the benefit. The problem is the cost. Its a very esoteric piece of equipment. Right off the top, maybe one in a hundred FP owners have purchased an A-Lens. And until you have one in your own system for a few hours, days, weeks can you begin to see the benefit of having one. Having said that, I could buy two RS40's for what I paid for my Isco. Currently its sitting on my dining room table. I walked by, started thinking of the purchase and kind of freaked out. But thats the cost if you wanna play the game. Its good new lower cost alternatives will be available. Sadly, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Unfortunately, I doubt anamorphic cinemascope will be coming to bluray anytime soon, unless a company like what Criterion did for LD, saves the day. I hear AIX is getting into the 3D game. Maybe they could help. It would take a company not bothered by small volume sales, to step up.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19208566
> 
> 
> What I find good is when calibrating the projector without the lens and then with the lens and there is no change in results that's a good indication in the quality of the lens.



Exactly. Good point.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19344000
> 
> 
> I've no idea to be honest, but there are lots of people advertising them in mags and on tv etc and I see them in the shops, whereas I only see 2.35 stuff being mentioned on forums, so it seems that the industry is for making and promoting 3D and doing very little for 235. That's what makes me think we've little chance of getting anamorphic disks. Both BD and HDMI are already 3D ready, whereas nothing has happenned for scope.
> 
> 
> Gary



One word, MONEY. Greed drives everything today. They will pass on the hundreds of thousands that 2.35 content and A-Lens sales would bring in, to get to the hundreds of millions that 3D brings in. Even though its the next step towards the progression to holography, 3D would be thrown to the wolves if it didn't produce. It does and hence the expansion of it at the rapid rate were seeing. Even I must admit I'm looking forward to my RS40 with great eagerness. And while it should be because of so many other reason like brightness, killer contrast, the 2.35 mode, its being my first LCOS and smooth film-like but sharp picture, it's because of it being 3D capable. Its the first thing I'll try. It may be days before I get around to watching 2D content and really evaluating the unit.


----------



## Aussie Bob

One of the sub-contractors who's doing some of the metal-finishing work on my lens finally asked me today "Well, what does this thing do?".


I explained what an anamorphic lens was and why some people liked them, and then he said, "Wow! Sounds great! We bought a 3D flat-screen the other day and watched the football Grand Final on it. Fantastic! Especially when some bod in the foreground popped up right in front of the camera and grinned into it... my wife nearly fainted... it was so realistic, he gave her a fright. Will your lens do the 3D thing?"


I explained to him that yes, of course it would... or rather wouldn't get in the way. But he won't be buying one soon as he's perfectly happy with his new, expensive LCD flatty, especially when the footy finals are on.


Having said that, I still haven't seen a 3D movie in a cinema (although have seen some SMPTE demos at "profesional" nights). Got a migrane from them. Saw Avatar in 2D, but couldn't image how a piece of melodramatic, cartoony schlock like Avatar could be improved by the addition of an extra dimension, or even two, or even a sex scene. Garbage is garbage, no matter how many dimensions it's in. Fell asleep in the big battle scene, it was so boring and predictable.

_P.S. Rupert Murdoch making money out of it might have had something to do with my underwhelmment_.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> One of the sub-contractors who's doing some of the metal-finishing work on my lens finally asked me today "Well, what does this thing do?".
> 
> 
> I explained what an anamorphic lens was and why some people liked them, and then he said, "Wow! Sounds great! We bought a 3D flat-screen the other day and watched the football Grand Final on it. Fantastic! Especially when some bod in the foreground popped up right in front of the camera and grinned into it... my wife nearly fainted... it was so realistic, he gave her a fright. Will your lens do the 3D thing?"
> 
> 
> I explained to him that yes, of course it would... or rather wouldn't get in the way. But he won't be buying one soon as he's perfectly happy with his new, expensive LCD flatty, especially when the footy finals are on.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still haven't seen a 3D movie in a cinema (although have seen some SMPTE demos at "profesional" nights). Got a migrane from them. Saw Avatar in 2D, but couldn't image how a piece of melodramatic, cartoony schlock like Avatar could be improved by the addition of an extra dimension, or even two, or even a sex scene. Garbage is garbage, no matter how many dimensions it's in. Fell asleep in the big battle scene, it was so boring and predictable.
> 
> 
> P.S. Rupert Murdoch making money out of it might have had something to do with my underwhelmment.



Have to agree aussiebob 3D doesn't agree with me either but unfortunately it's the future.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Have to agree aussiebob 3D doesn't agree with me either but unfortunately it's the future.



It wasn't the medium that I loathed. It was the content. In any medium.


----------



## coolrda

And now we have another roadblock, no V-Stretch in 3D mode, which has caused at least a little angst in me. I can't imagine moving the lens out to zoom. The fact that there's little in the way of 2.35 3D content without paying a bundle(due to the fact that what 2.35 content there is, is pack-ins from starter kits), has led me to the decision that I'll record 3D content on the DVR(16x9 content) and wait until public release date's for 2.35 3D BR's. By then we should have an external VP that can scale 3D. I just can't bring myself to bypass the lens and zoom.


Like it or not, I think 3D is here for good. I don't like playing this endless upgrade game. With shorter and shorter product lifecycle's it can be overwhelming financially. New, perfectly good gear, is replaced at an increasingly rapid rate, many times out of necessity. Component video cables sure lasted a long time, didn't they. I sure hope my Lens isn't obsolete next year. I'd be pissed. I don't think so, as A-Lens seem to be gaining momentum. Here's hoping for a quick resolution to this potential major problem. Give me 3D scaling.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And now we have another roadblock, no V-Stretch in 3D mode, which has caused at least a little angst in me. I can't imagine moving the lens out to zoom. The fact that there's little in the way of 2.35 3D content without paying a bundle(due to the fact that what 2.35 content there is, is pack-ins from starter kits), has led me to the decision that I'll record 3D content on the DVR(16x9 content) and wait until public release date's for 2.35 3D BR's. By then we should have an external VP that can scale 3D. I just can't bring myself to bypass the lens and zoom.
> 
> 
> Like it or not, I think 3D is here for good. I don't like playing this endless upgrade game. With shorter and shorter product lifecycle's it can be overwhelming financially. New, perfectly good gear, is replaced at an increasingly rapid rate, many times out of necessity. Component video cables sure lasted a long time, didn't they. I sure hope my Lens isn't obsolete next year. I'd be pissed. I don't think so, as A-Lens seem to be gaining momentum. Here's hoping for a quick resolution to this potential major problem. Give me 3D scaling.



Just to give you an idea SD DVD are still going strong, why? Price. It's cheap. Not many care for 3D as you think.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19372428
> 
> 
> And now we have another roadblock, no V-Stretch in 3D mode, which has caused at least a little angst in me. I can't imagine moving the lens out to zoom. The fact that there's little in the way of 2.35 3D content without paying a bundle(due to the fact that what 2.35 content there is, is pack-ins from starter kits), has led me to the decision that I'll record 3D content on the DVR(16x9 content) and wait until public release date's for 2.35 3D BR's. By then we should have an external VP that can scale 3D. I just can't bring myself to bypass the lens and zoom.
> 
> 
> Like it or not, I think 3D is here for good. I don't like playing this endless upgrade game. With shorter and shorter product lifecycle's it can be overwhelming financially. New, perfectly good gear, is replaced at an increasingly rapid rate, many times out of necessity. Component video cables sure lasted a long time, didn't they. I sure hope my Lens isn't obsolete next year. I'd be pissed. I don't think so, as A-Lens seem to be gaining momentum. Here's hoping for a quick resolution to this potential major problem. Give me 3D scaling.



I'm pretty sure Lumagen has 3D support. Just releasd it recently. I haven't looked into the details, but IIRC, the stretch was one of the things it was doing. I've always loved their products, they do an outstanding job.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Lumagen has 3D support. Just releasd it recently. I haven't looked into the details, but IIRC, the stretch was one of the things it was doing. I've always loved their products, they do an outstanding job.



Duo is also releasing 3D support


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19372883
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Lumagen has 3D support. Just releasd it recently. I haven't looked into the details, but IIRC, the stretch was one of the things it was doing. I've always loved their products, they do an outstanding job.



Yes, the new 3D firmware for the Radiance XE/XS will support all of the current features for both 3D and 2D. It is getting ready for the beta stage at this time, which I will hopefully be participating in.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19372883
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Lumagen has 3D support.
> 
> Just releasd it recently.
> 
> I haven't looked into the details, but IIRC, the stretch was one of the things it was doing.
> 
> I've always loved their products, they do an outstanding job.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/19373073
> 
> 
> Yes, the new 3D firmware for the Radiance XE/XS will support all of the current features for both 3D and 2D.
> 
> It is getting ready for the beta stage at this time, which I will hopefully be participating in.


 jrp post link 


Beta $299

Post-beta $499


Beta expected to last 3-4 months.



Mike


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19351327
> 
> 
> If your worried about pincushion, don't be. I measured mine at little over 1/4" or about 7-8 mm. Same goes for sharpness/resolving power. Comparing the image, Lens vs no Lens, at the pixel level shows this. I know if you ever had the chance to demo a top shelf A-Lens you would see the benefit. The problem is the cost. Its a very esoteric piece of equipment. Right off the top, maybe one in a hundred FP owners have purchased an A-Lens. And until you have one in your own system for a few hours, days, weeks can you begin to see the benefit of having one. Having said that, I could buy two RS40's for what I paid for my Isco. Currently its sitting on my dining room table. I walked by, started thinking of the purchase and kind of freaked out. But thats the cost if you wanna play the game. Its good new lower cost alternatives will be available. Sadly, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Unfortunately, I doubt anamorphic cinemascope will be coming to bluray anytime soon, unless a company like what Criterion did for LD, saves the day. I hear AIX is getting into the 3D game. Maybe they could help. It would take a company not bothered by small volume sales, to step up.



My goal is the best quality image and the two screen (CIH+CIA+CVIA) method will give me a better image quality than the very best A-Lens implimentation with non anamorphically encoded source material...







...as no scaling, filtering or additional optical expansion is implemented.


If one's projector's throw is insufficient to produce the image size one seeks or the brightness is insuficient then an A-Lens is one possible solution.


Interesting post here from Wolfgang Mayer on his tests with the ISCO3(same lens as yours?)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=242 

"i post here at avs many times that the use of such a anamorphic

lens even if you use the best one the isco3 will decrease the

picture quality.

as i had in the past years 3 stacks with 2 pr.

-2 qualia

-2 christie hd6k(the one with the xenon lamp)

-2 benq w 5000


with the qualia and at the christie i can test this isco lens and i found

out that the best is to have not such a lens in front of the

pr.

in some set up its may a option as it can encrease the light out but

when you look for the best picture quality you should not use it.


you can see the decrease easy when you can switch fast between it

but your eye cant remember it when you see today a set up

without the isco3 and tomorror with it.


you have to have switch between it in sec. to see the impact such

a lens have.

when i sale one of the christie hd 6k about 8 months ago

i demo this to the buyer.

than he not want it anymore.

to bad for me i not sale it and the lens is still for sale if someone need it."


----------



## GetGray

People I know switch their IIILs in an out in less than a second all the time. Never heard that before.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is the best quality image and the two screen (CIH+CIA+CVIA) method will give me a better image quality than the very best A-Lens implimentation with non anamorphically encoded source material...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as no scaling, filtering or additional optical expansion is implemented.
> 
> 
> If one's projector's throw is insufficient to produce the image size one seeks or the brightness is insuficient then an A-Lens is one possible solution.
> 
> 
> Interesting post here from Wolfgang Mayer on his tests with the ISCO3(same lens as yours?)
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=242
> 
> 
> "i post here at avs many times that the use of such a anamorphic
> 
> lens even if you use the best one the isco3 will decrease the
> 
> picture quality.
> 
> as i had in the past years 3 stacks with 2 pr.
> 
> -2 qualia
> 
> -2 christie hd6k(the one with the xenon lamp)
> 
> -2 benq w 5000
> 
> 
> with the qualia and at the christie i can test this isco lens and i found
> 
> out that the best is to have not such a lens in front of the
> 
> pr.
> 
> in some set up its may a option as it can encrease the light out but
> 
> when you look for the best picture quality you should not use it.
> 
> 
> you can see the decrease easy when you can switch fast between it
> 
> but your eye cant remember it when you see today a set up
> 
> without the isco3 and tomorror with it.
> 
> 
> you have to have switch between it in sec. to see the impact such
> 
> a lens have.
> 
> when i sale one of the christie hd 6k about 8 months ago
> 
> i demo this to the buyer.
> 
> than he not want it anymore.
> 
> to bad for me i not sale it and the lens is still for sale if someone need it."



Each to there own


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19376858
> 
> 
> My goal is the best quality image and the two screen (CIH+CIA+CVIA) method will give me a better image quality than the very best A-Lens implimentation with non anamorphically encoded source material...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as no scaling, filtering or additional optical expansion is implemented.
> 
> 
> If one's projector's throw is insufficient to produce the image size one seeks or the brightness is insuficient then an A-Lens is one possible solution.
> 
> 
> Interesting post here from Wolfgang Mayer on his tests with the ISCO3(same lens as yours?)
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=242
> 
> "i post here at avs many times that the use of such a anamorphic
> 
> lens even if you use the best one the isco3 will decrease the
> 
> picture quality.
> 
> as i had in the past years 3 stacks with 2 pr.
> 
> -2 qualia
> 
> -2 christie hd6k(the one with the xenon lamp)
> 
> -2 benq w 5000
> 
> 
> with the qualia and at the christie i can test this isco lens and i found
> 
> out that the best is to have not such a lens in front of the
> 
> pr.
> 
> in some set up its may a option as it can encrease the light out but
> 
> when you look for the best picture quality you should not use it.
> 
> 
> you can see the decrease easy when you can switch fast between it
> 
> but your eye cant remember it when you see today a set up
> 
> without the isco3 and tomorror with it.
> 
> 
> you have to have switch between it in sec. to see the impact such
> 
> a lens have.
> 
> when i sale one of the christie hd 6k about 8 months ago
> 
> i demo this to the buyer.
> 
> than he not want it anymore.
> 
> to bad for me i not sale it and the lens is still for sale if someone need it."



I think a great many people who have done the A/B lens/zooming option have come to a completely different conclusion, especially those who prefer closer seating distances. If the image was inferior, they wouldn't have bought the lens. We've no idea if it was a set up problem in his case, but I wouldn't have thought those who've done the comparison would have spent money to deliberately reduce the quality of the image they were seeing.


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19376858
> 
> 
> My goal is the best quality image and the two screen (CIH+CIA+CVIA) method will give me a better image quality than the very best A-Lens implimentation with non anamorphically encoded source material...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as no scaling, filtering or additional optical expansion is implemented.



Please do come to the next GTG at Selbys HJ. I will have something to show that I am sure even you will be impressed by.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Please do come to the next GTG at Selbys HJ. I will something to show that I am sure even you will be impressed by.



Selbys, where is that?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19377749
> 
> 
> Selbys, where is that?



Melbourne. The next CIH gathering is the 19th of November. Last time we had to close the numbers at 50 and I think 42 attended. It was good night and those that attended got to see a number of products including a new subwoofer from Krix.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne. The next CIH gathering is the 19th of November. Last time we had to close the numbers at 50 and I think 42 attended. It was good night and those that attended got to see a number of products including a new subwoofer from Krix.



Everything is Melbourne


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19377772
> 
> 
> Everything is Melbourne



Yeah and a short flight for me


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19377783
> 
> 
> Yeah and a short flight for me



lucky


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19376858
> 
> 
> My goal is the best quality image and the two screen (CIH+CIA+CVIA) method will give me a better image quality than the very best A-Lens implimentation with non anamorphically encoded source material...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as no scaling, filtering or additional optical expansion is implemented.
> 
> 
> If one's projector's throw is insufficient to produce the image size one seeks or the brightness is insuficient then an A-Lens is one possible solution.
> 
> 
> Interesting post here from Wolfgang Mayer on his tests with the ISCO3(same lens as yours?)
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=242
> 
> "i post here at avs many times that the use of such a anamorphic
> 
> lens even if you use the best one the isco3 will decrease the
> 
> picture quality.
> 
> as i had in the past years 3 stacks with 2 pr.
> 
> -2 qualia
> 
> -2 christie hd6k(the one with the xenon lamp)
> 
> -2 benq w 5000
> 
> 
> with the qualia and at the christie i can test this isco lens and i found
> 
> out that the best is to have not such a lens in front of the
> 
> pr.
> 
> in some set up its may a option as it can encrease the light out but
> 
> when you look for the best picture quality you should not use it.
> 
> 
> you can see the decrease easy when you can switch fast between it
> 
> but your eye cant remember it when you see today a set up
> 
> without the isco3 and tomorror with it.
> 
> 
> you have to have switch between it in sec. to see the impact such
> 
> a lens have.
> 
> when i sale one of the christie hd 6k about 8 months ago
> 
> i demo this to the buyer.
> 
> than he not want it anymore.
> 
> to bad for me i not sale it and the lens is still for sale if someone need it."



And for everyone you posts here I can give you ten that says the opposite and we can go round and round and round forever. Come back and see me when you've done the testing yourself then we'll debate this some more. Until then stop the "he said she said". Its silly. I've done both for six months each. Thats something you can't say because you haven't done it. Period. Do your own testing. I don't know Wolfgang Mayer from a hole in the wall. Its nothing personal. I don't know him. You posting his choices or findings means nothing to me.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> And for everyone you posts here I can give you ten that says the opposite and we can go round and round and round forever. Come back and see me when you've done the testing yourself then we'll debate this some more. Until then stop the "he said she said". Its silly. I've done both for six months each. Thats something you can't say because you haven't done it. Period. Do your own testing. I don't know Wolfgang Mayer from a hole in the wall. Its nothing personal. I don't know him. You posting his choices or findings means nothing to me.



Spot on coolrda. I don't care for other peoples findings they should do there own tests at home and what suits them best is the way to go. Everyone should sit back and enjoy what they have, where all here for the same reason our passion for HT.


It's getting tiring to read the same debate over and over. If people are enquiring about a lens they can come and visit this thread where there is enough knowledgeable people to get them started. And if they want to go the zoom route there are appropriate threads too.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19380388
> 
> 
> I don't know Wolfgang Mayer



I doubt HJ knows him either and from memory, THIS IMAGE is of his D-Cinema 2K Barco using an ISCO 1.25x lens.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I doubt HJ knows him either and from memory, THIS IMAGE is of his D-Cinema 2K Barco using an ISCO 1.25x lens.



Oh for the days when _Star Wars_ was the coolest thing to use for show-off screen shots. And _Gladiator_ too.


Wolfgang's point is based on the fact that vertically stretching an image means test patterns based on siingle-pixel increments don't look so hot.


Wow! Who'd a thunk _that_?


I mean, that's what we watch, right? Test patterns? Gee... I may as well throw in the towel now. The Germans have triumphed yet again.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19383296
> 
> 
> Oh for the days when _Star Wars_ was the coolest thing to use for show-off screen shots.



And it will happen all over again this time next year when the 6 SW films hit BD


----------



## manoharshetty9




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19383420
> 
> 
> And it will happen all over again this time next year when the 6 SW films hit BD



what does 6 SW mean? sorry for my ignorance


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *manoharshetty9* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> what does 6 SW mean? sorry for my ignorance



6 Star wars


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *manoharshetty9* /forum/post/19384577
> 
> 
> what does 6 SW mean?



The 6 Star Wars films


----------



## manoharshetty9

are there any VC cylindrical A-lenses out there. thats what i am looking for. already have a prism based VC A-lens which came with my NEC HT1100. image was good but there are cons to it as far as sharpness and clarity go as compared to the image minus the lens.


i have 2 questions that if possible could be answered objectively without taking for granted even a .01% difference in sharpness and clarity of using a cylindrical A-lens. pincushion of 1% is fine.


1. am upgrading to 1080p native projector (may be the Vango). will the sharpness be affected if using an cylindrical A-lens as compared to not using a cylindrical A-lens. like i said, i dont care about light output or any thing else getting affected.


2. i have a stewart 16:9 electrimask creen so scope screen is not an issue. how do i get a VC Cylindrical A-lens for 2:35 image.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *manoharshetty9* /forum/post/19384623
> 
> 
> 
> 1. am upgrading to 1080p native projector (may be the Vango). will the sharpness be affected if using an cylindrical A-lens as compared to not using a cylindrical A-lens. like i said, i dont care about light output or any thing else getting affected.
> 
> 
> 2. i have a stewart 16:9 electrimask creen so scope screen is not an issue. how do i get a VC Cylindrical A-lens for 2:35 image.



1. The beauty of a cylindrical lens is that the optics are adjustable, so you can get 100% uniformity focus from corner to corner.


2. Any HE cylindrical (in theory anyway) can be reversed and tuned 90 degrees to form a VC.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19383296
> 
> 
> Wolfgang's point is based on the fact that vertically stretching an image means test patterns based on siingle-pixel increments don't look so hot.
> 
> 
> Wow! Who'd a thunk _that_?
> 
> 
> I mean, that's what we watch, right? Test patterns? Gee... I may as well throw in the towel now. The Germans have triumphed yet again.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19384640
> 
> 
> 1. The beauty of a cylindrical lens is that the optics are adjustable, so you can get 100% uniformity focus from corner to corner.



So why the big deal with corner-to-corner focus and uniformity? Isn't it most apparent only in test patterns? Or are we talking about improvements for big (150" plus screen?)?

I mean most movie scenes are focused on the near subject in the center and anyway lack focus on the sides.


And uniformity - seriously I can't make out distortion from side to center (using a HD5000 on a 100" screen). If you have fire a test pattern and measure by a scale to see it, not much point in improving it then.


I definitely do see that the focus can be better than with the HD5000 when looking at static text, but not really with movies.


----------



## manoharshetty9




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19384640
> 
> 
> 1. The beauty of a cylindrical lens is that the optics are adjustable, so you can get 100% uniformity focus from corner to corner.
> 
> 
> 2. Any HE cylindrical (in theory anyway) can be reversed and tuned 90 degrees to form a VC.



thank you for your input CAVX.


are you sure about that or is it just a theory. besides isnt the anti-reflective coating applied to the element where the light exits and is facing the projector? so if reversed that side would face the projector and become the entry point of the lens. will the AR coating affect the entering light beam? also the element now facing the projector will have no AR coating. what are the effects of the above situation. also what happens to the focus and astigmatism adjustmen rings usage? basically what modifications would be required if any to the HE lens to use it as a VC lens and could anyone do it for me.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> So why the big deal with corner-to-corner focus and uniformity?



You misunderstand the position. You need to distinguish picture content from channel content.


Picture content is the program material... the decision of the film-makers.


Channel content is associated with the resolution of the projector.


You should always strive to present picture content in the best possible way, by maximising the presentation of the channel content. Hence, edge-to-edge sharpness is important to the process, as is the least amount of distortion that you can achieve in an affordable way. However a scene is focused in the camera - sharp or blurred in the background - the tiling of the projector pixels should be visibly as sharp as possible, edge-to-edge to best present that content.


Think of it this way: you can play a perfectly recorded and manufactured CD on a crappy boom box, or on a $10,000 (or more) sound system. It will sound different between the two media (or channels). If what you want is the best quality sound you can afford, you tend to purchase towards the hi-fi system, not the boom box.


Wolfgang based his criticism on a test pattern that comprised 1-pixel squares or lines extrapolated in size (vertically) 1.33 to one to fill the screen height. There's no way known that ANY software extrapolation can perfectly preserve a 1-pixel pattern in anything but even multiples (2x, 4x etc.).


Wolfgang's unstated assumption was that Blu-Ray _movie_ material comprised 1-pixel wide detail, which for vastly the main part, it does not. Even a single human hair blowin' in the wind in a movie will occupy several pixels of bandwidth and soften off towards the edges, whether you have a lens-in or lens-out situation. He took a false assumption and then applied it to a meaningless situation.


If we used projectors and anamorphic lenses (for some reason) to look at 1-pixel-mapped PC data displays, he'd have a point, because PC displays are somewhat analogous to test patterns (with 1-pixel wide or high lines being common in these displays). But we don't... we look at continuously toned movies that don't have the resolution of PC data displays. Hence, vertical stretch is perfectly fine and acceptable for watching motion content with anamorphic lenses.



> Quote:
> are you sure about that or is it just a theory. besides isnt the anti-reflective coating applied to the element where the light exits and is facing the projector? so if reversed that side would face the projector and become the entry point of the lens. will the AR coating affect the entering light beam? also the element now facing the projector will have no AR coating. what are the effects of the above situation. also what happens to the focus and astigmatism adjustmen rings usage? basically what modifications would be required if any to the HE lens to use it as a VC lens and could anyone do it for me.



AR coating is applied to BOTH sides of lenses. Light _exiting_ a lens can be reflected at the air-glass interface, just as light _entering_ a lens can.


The reason you can't _practically_ reverse a purpose-built HE anamorphic lens and make it a VC lens is because, although the optics might work (not too well, actually, because the lens is not optimized for this), the lens sizes are exactly reversed from what they should be. The entry lens should be the small one. The exit lens the big one. Reversing a lens makes sure this situation doesn't arise. You'd have severe vignetting in this case, if you reversed a typical HE lens. It'd be like looking through a keyhole, with only the centre of the image showing up on the screen, except in the rarest of cases where the TR is quite large.


A better "quirky" application of changing the positioning of an HE lens is to rotate it 90 degrees and watch "classic" 1.37 ratio movies with it. First, instead of expanding the image _vertically_ you expand the image _horizontally_ so that the ~1.37 ratio becomes ~16:9. Then, with the lens rotated 90 degrees, you _optically_ expand by 1.33, restoring image geometry.


The final result is a 1.37 movie projected using all 1920 x 1080 pixels. Because you have to zoom in a bit to fit image height, the picture will be a lot brighter (concentrating more light into a smaller area).


Note: you need a lens that can rotate 90 degrees in its holder to do this.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19387661
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> You should always strive to present picture content in the best possible way, by maximising the presentation of the channel content. Hence, edge-to-edge sharpness is important to the process, as is the least amount of distortion that you can achieve in an affordable way. However a scene is focused in the camera - sharp or blurred in the background - the tiling of the projector pixels should be visibly as sharp as possible, edge-to-edge to best present that content.
> 
> ...



Strive to maximize the "channel content", yes, but given a blurred background how much difference is it going to be whether the pixels are in perfect focus or not?


And given 1. The cost of current cylindrical lens (at the least the known ones), and 2. That most of the time picture content is blurred on the sides anyway, the improvement with edge-to-edge focus seems to be marginal.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Duke,


I don't want to get into a discussion of _bokeh_ or acutance, but presenting blurred parts of images in a "sharp" way is as old as photography itself.


If you'd like to read up on them try here for bokeh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh 


and here for acutance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance 


I can understand your scepticism, but the fact is that not all content is focused on the center of the screen. To put it a better way, not all focused content is in the center. It's quite common to find panoramic shots where everything is in focus, left to right of screen. One of the basic principles of viewing and reproducing photographic images is that you take best advantage of the channel bandwidth available. There's the entire history of optical design in a nutshell: "Don't blame me if the image seems blurred. Ask the photographer what he was thinking."


Would you put up with a projector company that said in its brochures or its user manual, "We don't worry about the screen edges, because most of the action is in the center"?


I doubt it. In fact, I'm certain you'd avoid purchasing equipment from any manufacturer who said they could have tried harder, but didn't, because most scenes are out of focus in certain areas anyway.


The aim of anamorphic deisgn is to widen the picture without any astigmatism (focus) penalty on the peripheries... and to widen the picture with a minimum of geometric distortion on a flat screen (which most users favour, or can afford).


The aim of the anamorphic lens is to reproduce the projector's image quality, for better of worse, right across the scrren. Sometimes it can _improve_ the projector's quality due to quirks in the optics of both projector and anamorphic lens, and if the user is patient enough to go for fine tweaking of the system as a whole.


But that's a digression... surely you can appreciate the effort to present the image as near to exactly as it is on the original film copy, as transferred to Blu-Ray? To do this you have to make the best of channel resolution, and let the director's and the cinematographer's intent fall where they may.


You CAN see the difference. If you can't you either haven't seen a good range of what's out there and what it can do for you, or you need new glasses


----------



## GetGray

Well, no offense but that's the most lame argument I've ever heard for not wanting a good/better lens. >Most movies are blurred on the sides anyway, so who cares? I expect you could find plenty of movies that aren't just focused in the center of the screen. Then again, maybe *you* can't


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19390058
> 
> 
> You CAN see the difference. If you can't you either haven't seen a good range of what's out there and what it can do for you, or you need new glasses





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19390454
> 
> 
> Well, no offense but that's the most lame argument I've ever heard for not wanting a good/better lens. >Most movies are blurred on the sides anyway, so who cares? I expect you could find plenty of movies that aren't just focused in the center of the screen. Then again, maybe *you* can't



Ya, probably I can't see it now. Maybe I'll settle for a cyl-a-lens when then someone drops it down below 3k and does not require a slide as expensive as the lens.







, then I may get the vision.


Seriously, I am not denying that focus needs improvement with prism, only trying to question the improvement vs price.

Money no object is different discussion.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19380388
> 
> 
> I don't know Wolfgang Mayer from a hole in the wall. Its nothing personal. I don't know him. You posting his choices or findings means nothing to me.



Wolfgang's requirements/budget* are so different than mine, that I agree his conclusions aren't really relevant to my situation (probably for most people here for that matter).


Having said that, I think Wolfgang knows an awful lot about video projection; so his findings carry a lot of credibility, even if it's just in a theoretical way to me.


*I believe his budget is in the six figure range; he's a very early adopter of 3D and generates his own 3D still photography (which also plays into his resolution requirements).


----------



## madshi

As much as Wolfgang definitely knows, if he uses computer type test patterns to judge scaling artifacts, then there's at least one area he doesn't know much about at all...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I am not denying that focus needs improvement with prism, only trying to question the improvement vs price.



To state this as simple as possible - prisms have 2 flat faces and whilst one angle may work optimally, many angles can be made to work. If you look in those long DIY threads, you see prism angles ranging from below 10 degrees to greater then 30 degrees. In other words, prisms are quite forgiving.


A cylindrical lens on the other hand is much more precise. You can't just 'wing it' like you can with some prisms. The lenses have to be made to exacting tolerances and that is where the additional cost comes into the product.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Seriously, I am not denying that focus needs improvement with prism, only trying to question the improvement vs price.



The improvement is vast. A cylindrical can be designed to do almost whatever you want, given enough curved surfaces. The more the better.


Prisms respond in one way only: no matter what angles you use in the prisms themselves, there's a performance bottom line that can't be improved, only subtracted from.


Modest angles in each prism mean that they have to be counter-rotated more, leading to much more astigmatism and CA problems.


Large angles add to weight and space problems: the fatter the prism the heavier it is and the more room it takes up.


The optimum is around 30 degrees (total), plus or minus a little, for the smallest angle. All prism systems perform exactly the same as far a geometry is concerned, as do the simpler anamorphic cylindrical lenses, given astigmatism performance benchmarks are kept to the relatively "high quality" end of the scale. Whatever you add to one side of the equation, you take away from the other side of the equation. Prisms have only flat sides... no degrees of freedom in design. You can tweak prisms, add correctors etc., but there's a ceiling of maximum performance you can't penetrate.


You may think you've got a great picture (as do many HTB and other prism owners), but until you see a really GREAT picture coming off a well-designed cylindrical, you're fooling yourself.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> Ya, probably I can't see it now. Maybe I'll settle for a cyl-a-lens when then someone drops it down below 3k and does not require a slide as expensive as the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , then I may get the vision.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I am not denying that focus needs improvement with prism, only trying to question the improvement vs price.
> 
> Money no object is different discussion.



That argument is totally useless, as it doesn't apply to anyone but yourself. Everyone has different amounts of disposable income and different tolerances/preferences for the performance of their gear, so the performance per dollar ratio will be different for every single person. You might as well tell everyone that they should prefer sirloin over fillet Mignon or a Honda over a Mercedes simply because you don't see the value in the more expensive item. It's absurd.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19393773
> 
> 
> You may think you've got a great picture (as do many HTB and other prism owners), but until you see a really GREAT picture coming off a well-designed cylindrical, you're fooling yourself.



You hit the nail on the head here. Ironically, it's usually the people who have never tasted fillet Mignon or driven a Mercedes who attempt to argue their obscene value as compared to their cheaper counterparts


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/19393839
> 
> 
> That argument is totally useless, as it doesn't apply to anyone but yourself. Everyone has different amounts of disposable income and different tolerances/preferences for the performance of their gear, so the performance per dollar ratio will be different for every single person. You might as well tell everyone that they should prefer sirloin over fillet Mignon or a Honda over a Mercedes simply because you don't see the value in the more expensive item. It's absurd.



Perhaps you mis-understand, or I have not stated clearly, I was looking at HD5000 vs Cylindrical.

In the shootout thread you yourself compared UH480 vs Isco and concluded 90-95%.


Why did you stop at Mercedes? Are there no better cars? Though by luck you got it exactly right, I have only a Honda and have not driven a Mercedes.







. May be in the future...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19393670
> 
> 
> To state this as simple as possible - prisms have 2 flat faces and whilst one angle may work optimally, many angles can be made to work. If you look in those long DIY threads, you see prism angles ranging from below 10 degrees to greater then 30 degrees. In other words, prisms are quite forgiving.
> 
> 
> A cylindrical lens on the other hand is much more precise. You can't just 'wing it' like you can with some prisms. The lenses have to be made to exacting tolerances and that is where the additional cost comes into the product.



And I read your comments saying that you may not have designed the MkIV if had you seen the MK3+Corrector first.



These are the points which raise the question of value. And "value", may I claim, is the exact sales point of the newer cylindricals (MKIV, 5e). Both claim equal performance with Iscos', but at less than half the price.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19394980
> 
> 
> Perhaps you mis-understand, or I have not stated clearly, I was looking at HD5000 vs Cylindrical.



Then how does this fit in:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> only trying to question the improvement vs price.



You can't question it - unless you're making statements about your personal feelings on the subject - because the answer is different for each person.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> In the shootout thread you yourself compared UH480 vs Isco and concluded 90-95%.



Don't quote me out of context. In the writeup for the anamorphic lens test, I clearly said that the projectors were limiting factors as far as determining absolute performance deltas between the ISCO and Panamorph. Neither of the projectors that I used - the BenQ W20K and the JVC RS35 - are considered extremely sharp, nor do they possess high end optics.


A good example of such a projector would be the Sim2 HT3000. If you read my impressions of that projector, you'll find that I state that the difference in image quality - both the appearance of clarity and sharpness - are readily apparent between the Sim2 and the BenQ W20K (the same 20K that was on hand for the anamorphic lens test). Given a more expensive projector like the HT3000, the difference between a cylinder and prism lens could easily become much more apparent.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> Why did you stop at Mercedes? Are there no better cars?



I was making a point about price vs performance - don't lose the forest through the trees.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> And I read your comments saying that you may not have designed the MkIV if had you seen the MK3+Corrector first.



Wow, you must have missed Mark's myriad of other quite emphatic posts about the advantages in PQ of cylindrical lenses over prism-based lenses.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19390532
> 
> 
> These are the points which raise the question of value. And "value", may I claim, is the exact sales point of the newer cylindricals (MKIV, 5e). Both claim equal performance with Iscos', but at less than half the price.



Comparing similar technologies that produce similar results at different price points is one thing; comparing different technologies (prism vs cylinder lenses) that produce measurably different results at significantly different price ranges is another prospect entirely. At that point the question of value can only be decided by the individual consumer, as you have to trade money for performance in a non-linear fashion.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19394980
> 
> 
> And I read your comments saying that you may not have designed the MkIV if had you seen the MK3+Corrector first.



Wasn't there a comment made about not knowing better? If the CAVX Corrector had come out first, I still would have brought out the MK4 eventually as I had already seen a cylindrical lens in action and therefore already knew then that it was possible to better the image.


As it turns out, the MK4 came out first which being cylindrical is superior and I therefore felt obligated to raise the bar of performance for the MK3 because there was such a huge difference between those two products. The CAVX Corrector simply represents a way to bridge that gap. Whilst it corrects astigmatism (*best result is still throw dependent) the Mk3+C still suffers from grid distortion.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/19395089
> 
> 
> Don't quote me out of context. In the writeup for the anamorphic lens test, I clearly said that the projectors were limiting factors as far as determining absolute performance deltas between the ISCO and Panamorph. Neither of the projectors that I used - the BenQ W20K and the JVC RS35 - are considered extremely sharp, nor do they possess high end optics.
> 
> 
> A good example of such a projector would be the Sim2 HT3000. If you read my impressions of that projector, you'll find that I state that the difference in image quality - both the appearance of clarity and sharpness - are readily apparent between the Sim2 and the BenQ W20K (the same 20K that was on hand for the anamorphic lens test). Given a more expensive projector like the HT3000, the difference between a cylinder and prism lens could easily become much more apparent.



So is it that pairing them with lower end projectors (e.g. BenQ W6000 which I have, and which shows CA on its own on the left side), may not show much difference?


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/19395089
> 
> 
> I was making a point about price vs performance - don't lose the forest through the trees.



My original remark was in humor. Let me try again...


How can I see them? Both the forest and trees are on the sides and blurred, perhaps the director was thinking too much of Bokeh


----------



## CAVX

Watch these films: I Robot, Shooter, Australia and American Physco representing four different genre all of which contain some standout demo material that is very much in focus edge to edge.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19393773
> 
> 
> The improvement is vast. A cylindrical can be designed to do almost whatever you want, given enough curved surfaces. The more the better.
> 
> 
> Prisms respond in one way only: no matter what angles you use in the prisms themselves, there's a performance bottom line that can't be improved, only subtracted from.
> 
> 
> Modest angles in each prism mean that they have to be counter-rotated more, leading to much more astigmatism and CA problems.
> 
> 
> Large angles add to weight and space problems: the fatter the prism the heavier it is and the more room it takes up.
> 
> 
> The optimum is around 30 degrees (total), plus or minus a little, for the smallest angle. All prism systems perform exactly the same as far a geometry is concerned, as do the simpler anamorphic cylindrical lenses, given astigmatism performance benchmarks are kept to the relatively "high quality" end of the scale. Whatever you add to one side of the equation, you take away from the other side of the equation. Prisms have only flat sides... no degrees of freedom in design. You can tweak prisms, add correctors etc., but there's a ceiling of maximum performance you can't penetrate.
> 
> 
> You may think you've got a great picture (as do many HTB and other prism owners), but until you see a really GREAT picture coming off a well-designed cylindrical, you're fooling yourself.



Fine.


How do cylindrical lens respond to variances in actual among different installations (and I take figures from your curve calculator, thanks):


1. 12ft throw, 40"inch height = Sagitta of 79mm, 30ft Curve

2. 15ft throw, 40"inch height = Sagitta of 65mm, 36ft Curve


Will the focus still be as good in both cases?


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19395595
> 
> 
> Watch these films: I Robot, Shooter, Australia and American Physco representing four different genre all of which contain some standout demo material that is very much in focus edge to edge.



Let me check I Robot next time. Perhaps animation and CGI would also fall in edge to edge focus.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19395602
> 
> 
> 
> Will the focus still be as good in both cases?



Whilst pincushion would increase for the shorter throw (requiring a smaller radius to correct it), the cylindrical lens's "continuously adjustable astigmatism correction" will allow you to bring the image into focus from corner to corner for both installations.


And I am still using a BenWQ5000 BTW.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19395613
> 
> 
> Whilst pincushion would increase for the shorter throw (requiring a smaller radius to correct it), the cylindrical lens's "continuously adjustable astigmatism correction" will allow you to bring the image into focus from corner to corner for both installations.
> 
> 
> And I am still using a BenWQ5000 BTW.



Are you saying that even at the same throw, focus can achieved for different curves?


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19395613
> 
> 
> Whilst pincushion would increase for the shorter throw (requiring a smaller radius to correct it), the cylindrical lens's "continuously adjustable astigmatism correction" will allow you to bring the image into focus from corner to corner for both installations.
> 
> 
> And I am still using a BenWQ5000 BTW.



Assume a given fixed curve and throw,


1. Projector mounted at top of the screen with lens shift

2. Projector mounted at bottom of the screen with lens shift


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19395627
> 
> 
> Are you saying that even at the same throw, focus can achieved for different curves?



Not quite. Each Curve is specific to the throw. Therefore the shorter the throw, the tighter the curve. However what I will agree on is that once the specific curve is established, that the cylindrical lens can be 'dialed' in for each throw to give corner to corner focus.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19395674
> 
> 
> Assume a given fixed curve and throw,
> 
> 
> 1. Projector mounted at top of the screen with lens shift
> 
> 2. Projector mounted at bottom of the screen with lens shift



This should not matter. I've inverted my projector simply because there was a visible reflection of the globe on screen when shelf mounted, and inverting places that 'hot spot' off axis to my eye line, so now I don't see it. I am typing this right now using the projector as a monitor and my lens is currently sitting in the light path, so the image is stretched (I'm also using REAL on the BenQ for 1:1 pixel mapping) and entire desk top is pixel level clear from the clock in the bottom right to the words AVS Forums in the top left. Same goes for the other direction. There is no prism lens that can do that outside its sweet spot. Again the beauty of a cylindrical lens where it can be dialed in at ANY throw in its range.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19395714
> 
> 
> Not quite. Each Curve is specific to the throw. Therefore the shorter the throw, the tighter the curve. However what I will agree on is that once the specific curve is established, that the cylindrical lens can be 'dialed' in for each throw to give corner to corner focus.



So I understand that given a throw, there is fixed curve associated with it, in which the focus is precise.

If for the same throw, a different curve was used (e.g SI Screens make 25ft and 35ft as standard), what would you comment on the focus?


To be exact, taking the above figures (i.e. pairing the 30ft curve with 15ft throw), 79-65=14mm would be difference at the edges between the curve of precise focus vs curve of the screen, of course ending at 0 difference in the middle...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19395714
> 
> 
> This should not matter. I've inverted my projector simply because there was a visible reflection of the globe on screen when shelf mounted, and inverting places that 'hot spot' off axis to my eye line, so now I don't see it. I am typing this right now using the projector as a monitor and my lens is currently sitting in the light path, so the image is stretched (I'm also using REAL on the BenQ for 1:1 pixel mapping) and entire desk top is pixel level clear from the clock in the bottom right to the words AVS Forums in the top left. Same goes for the other direction. There is no prism lens that can do that outside its sweet spot. Again the beauty of a cylindrical lens where it can be dialed in at ANY throw in its range.



What I meant to ask in these cases was that with both these positions, the actual distance from lens to top of the screen and to the bottom of the screen would be different. I calculate 11mm as the difference in lengths (15ft throw, 40" height).



Or in question, do these differences cause any/much/visible change of focus across the screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19398462
> 
> 
> So I understand that given a throw, there is fixed curve associated with it, in which the focus is precise.



Where the PINCUSHION is corrected. The lens will still bring vertical lines into focus at the same time as the horizontal lines.



> Quote:
> If for the same throw, a different curve was used (e.g SI Screens make 25ft and 35ft as standard), what would you comment on the focus?



Allot of screen manufactures make "standard" curves which are like "one size fits all", which of course it doesn't. You would still be able to focus the lens, but pincushion (the REASON you would use a curved screen in the first place) does not match 100%. I modded a commercial screen to make it thread adjustable to be able to precisely match the curve to the pincushion based on throw.



> Quote:
> Or in question, do these differences cause any/much/visible change of focus across the screen?



As I said last night, my image has pixel level clarity right to the edges. If for some reason it could not be brought into focus 100%, the cylindrical lens would still do better than a prism lens (which has NO adjustments for astigmatism) in the same system.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> So I understand that given a throw, there is fixed curve associated with it, in which the focus is precise.
> 
> If for the same throw, a different curve was used (e.g SI Screens make 25ft and 35ft as standard), what would you comment on the focus?



If you wanted to purchase a commercial screen fixed at a "standard" curvature, you could use my spreadsheet and the "Goal Seek" function of Excel. Fix as a constant either "Throw" or "Constant Screen Height" and then use Goal Seek to calculate the other variable.


As to astigmatism correction (or in plain language: focus), the lens will either be designed for best focus on a flat screen or a curved screen. In either case, there will be some small trade-off in sharpness from edge to edge if you vary the curvature of the screen.


Say my spreadsheet calculates a sagitta of 79mm (as in your example). Now project onto a flat screen and focus as best you can for edge-to-edge performance. Now take a piece of white card, walk to the edge of the screen and hold it 79mm in front of the plane of the screen. The pixels will be slightly softer on the white card than they would be on the flat screen at the same extremity. This is because you have in effect two screens: one 79mm (3.1") closer to the projector than the other. You will probably have to adjust your focus, by minutely sacrificing some centre detail to improve the image at the edges as displayed on the white card. Not by much, but a little.


If you can actually do this experiment, do so. It'll put your mind at ease.


No lens can focus perfectly on two different throw distances, except if it's been designed to focus on a curved screen... in which case it'll have slight problems with a _fla_ screen!


The question is "How much difference?".


The answer is "Not much at all". If you can see pixel tiling edge-to-edge on a flat screen focus, you should be able to see it on a curved screen focus. It's just that the curved screen focus point will be slightly different than the flat screen focus point if you really want to be picky about it. More than a foot or two away from the screen the two focus points will appear just as good as each other even if you don't adjust.


My experience is that projector lenses themselves (i.e. no anamorphic in the system) fall off somewhat when not perfectly straight on to the centre of the screen, and even then they can be uneven in focus. This is especially true of 3-chip projectors, as there is too much to line up - prisms, polarizers and imaging chips - to get everything perfect (except if you want to pay $0000s more for a "top of the line" 3-chipper... and I've _still_ heard some horror stories). Because Home Cinema projectors are generally dimmer than commercial cinema projectors, and because HC projectors are in competition with very bright flat screen TVs, the manufacturers tend to make them as bright as they can by the lazy method of using lower f/-numbers on the projector lenses, which means the image is starting out using too much glass to achieve perfect focus across the screen. The wider the beam angle, hence the lower the throw ratio, the more edge-to-edge performance suffers. Remember: this is without an anamorphic lens, just the raw projector lens.


As a general rule, the smaller in scale anything is, the tighter the tolerances have to be to get near-perfect results that match the expectations of the user. Home Cinema situations test the extremities of optical projection design. The beam angles are large, much larger than in commercial cinemas. The throws are much shorter. And here's the killer: the ambitions of the users are usually much bigger. Add all these together and perfection suffers. It's up to you to decide where your exhaustion point is, where you're prepared to say, "That's great!" and stop worrying.


Having said that, I don't want to scare you. I'm just saying that "perfection" usually boils down to what you're prepared to accept. A well-designed cylindrical lens will certainly and _quite noticeably_ outperform a prism system, when you take focus adjustability, better image geometry and, say, ease of use into account. The two examples you cite above are both over 2.0 in throw ratio, so you should get a pretty good result whether your screen is flat _or_ curved.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19395529
> 
> 
> So is it that pairing them with lower end projectors (e.g. BenQ W6000 which I have, and which shows CA on its own on the left side), may not show much difference?



That is one variable that may contribute to being able to see a difference between anamorphic lenses when viewing real world material. Viewer experience, visual acuity, image brightness, screen size, viewing distance, and other variables also factor in.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> So is it that pairing them with lower end projectors (e.g. BenQ W6000 which I have, and which shows CA on its own on the left side), may not show much difference?



An anamorphic lens of any type won't improve CA, but they CAN improve focus across the screen.


A quirk in my own HT is a case in point.


My JVC HD-100 (= "RS2") seems to have an ashperic element in its zoom lens somewhere that doesn't have the same curvature in the horizontal direction that it has in the vertical direction. This results in unfocused vertical tiling lines at the far right of the screen, particularly when I use offset (my projector is about 1 foot above and 2 feet to the left of the center of the screen due to structural considerations in my house). The horizontal lines are good, just the verticals are blurred.


This isn't CA, like in your case, because it happens with just the individual R, G or B channels switched on and projecting a checkerboard test pattern. If it was CA then you'd expect at least one channel NOT to exhibit the problem.


When I insert my lens it "pulls" these unfocused vertical lines back into focus. Not perfectly, but enough to see them pretty clearly.


At first I thought it might be some error in the lens build, but I've had 4 lenses do the correction now, so unless they all have exactly the same problem, I have to count this as an "unintended feature" of my particular set-up. My lens counteracts the error in the pj's own lens and fixes it somewhat.


Not making any big claims here, just noting serendipity.


----------



## dukeav

Thanks for the replies and patience. Its very interesting that focus has that much tolerance.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Thanks for the replies and patience. Its very interesting that focus has that much tolerance.



Focus has no tolerance at all. It's your eye, your performance thresholds and your expectations that have it.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> Focus has no tolerance at all.



What about the depth of field of a lens as it relates to it's aperture setting (f-stop)? Anyone who has used an SLR knows that this statement isn't true in the real world.










Changing the aperture of a lens from f16 to f4.5 makes a dramatic and obvious difference in the distance range of the image that is clearly in focus.... Of course, if your subject is 500' away, it's not going to matter. If the subject is 10' away, you can clearly see the impact of the depth of field associated with the f-stop you choose.


Vern


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/19407425
> 
> 
> What about the depth of field of a lens as it relates to it's aperture setting (f-stop)? Anyone who has used an SLR knows that this statement isn't true in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the aperture of a lens from f16 to f4.5 makes a dramatic and obvious difference in the distance range of the image that is clearly in focus.... Of course, if your subject is 500' away, it's not going to matter. If the subject is 10' away, you can clearly see the impact of the depth of field associated with the f-stop you choose.
> 
> 
> Vern



Vern, I was referring to absolute perfect focus. There is only one point at which a lens is _perfectly_ focused (i.e. as sharp as it's ever going to get)


Depth of field is a consideration, of course, but even depth of field still depends on how you define "acceptable" focus. Hence my caveat, "It's your eye, your performance thresholds and your expectations that have (tolerance)."


My experience with hyperfocal distances (as represented by the claimed depth of field range inscribed on a photographic lens) is that they're too wide. Objects the camera maker claims will be "focused" are not sometimes, at the margins of hyperfocal distance, sufficiently focused for my liking. That's where the "eye" and "expectations" come into it.


Anamorphic lenses have no formal f/number as they have effective "infinite" focal length. Their performance relies on how you place them relative to the projector, and the projector lens's f/number, plus their own focusing mechanism and optical quality to render the image.


If you place the anamorphic lens closer to the projector you'll use less cylindrical glass to refract the beam through the lens. It's commonly thought that this means the screen image must always be clearer, the closer the lens is mounted to the projector.


But mounting the lens closer also means the ray pencils - the "sub-beams", one from each point on the imaging chip - are wider passing through the anamorphic lens than they would be if you mounted the lens further away. The lens, paradoxically, has to do more "work" with this narrower beam, keeping all the individual rays pointing at that spot on the screen where they'll focus, once again, to a point.


The truth is that ultra-close mounting of the anamorphic lens to the projector is not the recipe for perfect imaging that many think. There is a "sweet spot" for mounting distance of anamorphic lenses, and this varies with set-up, lens and projector. Either side of that and there will be a fall-off in quality. A long way either side of it and the fall-off becomes apparent to the naked eye, even from a casual glance from a few feet away.


Once again, it's up to the user to decide whether this fall-off is worth the trouble of trying to fix it: "expectations" again.


I only think about all this detailed stuff because when I model a lens design I have to nominate how far from the projector it will be mounted, as an input variable. In my case I opted for a sweet spot in the medium distance - around 35mm - from the lens in order to account for recessed lenses. If I have to mount further away, or closer than that, the astigmatism adjustment can be tweaked to eliminate most of the fall-off, as my lens was designed with this ability built-in.


Any lens maker that tells you their lens just works perfectly wherever they place it, and whatever the set-up - projector, zoom angle, throw distance etc. - is either pulling your leg, or hasn't looked into the problem too deeply.


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19399277
> 
> 
> The question is "How much difference?".
> 
> 
> The answer is "Not much at all". If you can see pixel tiling edge-to-edge on a flat screen focus, you should be able to see it on a curved screen focus. It's just that the curved screen focus point will be slightly different than the flat screen focus point if you really want to be picky about it. More than a foot or two away from the screen the two focus points will appear just as good as each other even if you don't adjust.



I tried this out by moving a A4 sheet in front of the screen, and there was not any change which I could notice within a foot or two. Though it told me something else about my screen but that's not related to focus.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dukeav* /forum/post/19411464
> 
> 
> I tried this out by moving a A4 sheet in front of the screen, and there was not any change which I could notice within a foot or two. Though it told me something else about my screen but that's not related to focus.



Color shift?


Gary


----------



## Vern Dias

As dukeAV has seen, it's not a problem in the real world as there is usually suffiicent depth of focus in the typical projection lens to handle typical scrren curvature with no problems.


In the numerical world of simulations and lens design applications, "absolutely perfect focus" may be attainable, but it doesn't translate to the real world because of potential imperfections in screens, lenses, and other optical components within the projector's optical system and also possibly within the human bodies optical system.


Vern


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19411543
> 
> 
> Color shift?
> 
> 
> Gary



The paper appears to be warmer, warmer as in Warm color balance setting. One on one, the white on the screen is no comparison.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> In the numerical world of simulations and lens design applications, "absolutely perfect focus" may be attainable, but it doesn't translate to the real world because of potential imperfections in screens, lenses, and other optical components within the projector's optical system and also possibly within the human bodies optical system.



Which is another way of saying "Good focus is what you're prepared to put up with and pay for."


----------



## coolrda

IMO, why mess with curving the screen when a flat screen can give you better focus. While it does remove pincushion a properly designed system with 2.0 and larger throws pretty much nullifies it anyway. Unless you have an extremely short throw my guess is it's for the aesthetics of it, a certain cool factor.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19500228
> 
> 
> IMO, why mess with curving the screen when a flat screen can give you better focus. While it does remove pincushion a properly designed system with 2.0 and larger throws pretty much nullifies it anyway. Unless you have an extremely short throw my guess is it's for the aesthetics of it, a certain cool factor.



My throw is longer than 2.0:1 and on my curved screen, I now have flat horizontal lines, not ones that slightly (even ever so slightly as the case may be) curved ones.


Cylindrical Lens and flat screen = perfect focus with some pincushion.

Cylindrical Lens and curved screen = perfect focus with no pincushion.


There is a little extra set up to achieve this though.


----------



## sarkleshark

Now I am utterly confused. I have a jvc rs-1 with projector to screen distance 11feet and looking at a 2.40 :1 screen 125 inch diagnal projected from under a table upward. So, with one of the cylindrical lenses would a curved screen such as the elite lunnette 125 be best or flat screen?


Hope someone can help.


Thanks

sarkleshark


----------



## Vlubbers

As best that I can tell, the projector will not illuminate a 125 diagonal at a throw distance of 11 feet. Perhaps I mis-read the projector central calculator or maybe you have a zoom different than that in the calculator.


Best is vague at best (no pun intended). Price? Prestige? Pincushion? Resale? Ease of install? It is your equation to insert the valuation parameters into.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarkleshark* /forum/post/19557819
> 
> 
> Now I am utterly confused. I have a jvc rs-1 with projector to screen distance 11feet and looking at a 2.40 :1 screen 125 inch diagnal projected from under a table upward. So, with one of the cylindrical lenses would a curved screen such as the elite lunnette 125 be best or flat screen?
> 
> 
> Hope someone can help.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> sarkleshark



It can be confusing. Just remember if your using an A-Lens you use the 16:9 ratio (ie: 125" 2.35 is a 100" 16:9). Its this 16:9 screen measurement thats needed. When zooming you use the width of the 2.35 image. This is yet another benefit of and A-Lens. Largest available screen width per depth of room.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda*
IMO, why mess with curving the screen when a flat screen can give you better focus. While it does remove pincushion a properly designed system with 2.0 and larger throws pretty much nullifies it anyway. Unless you have an extremely short throw my guess is it's for the aesthetics of it, a certain cool factor.
Regarding curve screens when watching 16:9 content removing the lens does the pic sit ok on screen? Or do you need lens on?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You can end up with barrel distortion for 16:9 if you remove the lens with a curved screen.


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You can end up with barrel distortion for 16:9 if you remove the lens with a curved screen.
> 
> 
> Gary



Thanks Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19634612
> 
> 
> Regarding curve screens when watching 16:9 content removing the lens does the pic sit ok on screen? Or do you need lens on?



The anamorphic lens introduces pincushion. The curved screen is used to correct this distortion. If you remove the lens for 4 x 3 or 16:9 program on a curved screen, the correction the screen provided (for the lens in the light path) will now have the opposite effect and create a new distortion called barreling. IMO, if you are going to curve the screen, then you are best to leave the lens in place all the time as scale the image. Others may disagree.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19634612
> 
> 
> Regarding curve screens when watching 16:9 content removing the lens does the pic sit ok on screen? Or do you need lens on?



The anamorphic lens introduces a distortion we know as pincushion. The curved screen is used to correct this distortion. If you remove the lens for 4 x 3 or 16:9 program on a curved screen, the correction the screen provided (for when the lens is in the light path) will now have the opposite effect and create a new distortion called barreling. IMO, if you are going to curve the screen, then you are best to leave the lens in place all the time as scale the image for all ARs. Others may disagree.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I was discussing convergance of the new JVCs on another thread and ended up taking some pictures last night with and without my Isco II in place. I thought that they may also be of interest to viewers of this thread. I've often seen it said how using a lens will soften the image, but as you can see from these (admittedly poor) photos that doesn't seem to be the case here.


FWIW My projector is a JVC HD350 at very long throw (approx 2.7 IIRC) minimum zoom on the projector for 2.35:1. The camera was my OH's Pentax Optio 5i in auto setting, with the flash off...it was late and after 2 films and a bottle of wine.







The non lens one isn't great but it's focused higher up, but..I'll try to get two matching sides with and without the lens later if I fire up the projector tonight.


I hope they're of interest.










EDIT: The non lens one is brighter as I forgot to change the projector setting (I have a 4 clicks difference for the iris between the two ARs). I'll try to remember to fix this tonight as well...we're out of wine, so should be better.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If anything, the ISCO looks sharper.










Gary


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19677420
> 
> 
> If anything, the ISCO looks sharper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary



Yes, but I think that's down to my camera skills really. Point is that it's no worse with the lens in place even close up. Here's a better one of without the lens, plus the same with lens for comparison.


Also, as it's Christmas, I've added the one screenshot of a film that seems to have come out well...enjoy (I certainly did, if only for the picture quality, but my Son enjoyed the film anyway







).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Of course







but if it had looked softer, we know what would have happened!


Gary


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/19679916
> 
> 
> Of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if it had looked softer, we know what would have happened!
> 
> 
> Gary



Shhh! it's the scaling that causes the softness.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Mr T Stark looks pretty sharp in my screenshot though.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/19680330
> 
> 
> Mr T Stark looks pretty sharp in my screenshot though.



He does!......but he may look even sharper _not_ being put through a pixel shuffler!


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/19680385
> 
> 
> He does!......but he may look even sharper _not_ being put through a pixel shuffler!



I refer the right honourable gentleman to the pictures I posted earlier in the thread.










I did try zooming for a while...I got better though.


----------



## MikeWojcik

Any news on the lower cost cylindrical lenses being discussed a few months ago?


----------



## GetGray

There are 4,

CAVX's - Limited Availability

The XEIT - Limited Availability

THe Prismasonic - Not avail yet.

And a plastic "entry level" from Schneider - not avail yet.


Which one?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19824677
> 
> 
> There are 4,
> 
> CAVX's - Limited Availability
> 
> The XEIT - Limited Availability
> 
> THe Prismasonic - Not avail yet.
> 
> And a plastic "entry level" from Schneider - not avail yet.
> 
> 
> Which one?



GG,


So was that EL lens shown at CEDIA just a prototype?


----------



## GetGray

Well, it's not in production, so technically I'd say prototype. But they thought it would be ready before now. The fact that it's not indicates problems on one type or another. Quality issues I expect. I'm sure they'll sell like hotcakes when (if) they get them going, but I think I'll pass.


----------



## MikeWojcik

i was not referring to any specific one - you provided exactly what i was looking for. I recall discussion around 3-4 different lenses and do intend to upgrade from my current Prismasonic 5000R. waiting on releases / reviews.


Thanks!

Mike


----------



## coolrda

I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19861840
> 
> 
> I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.



The transport your referring to is the new one from Prismasonic. I'm not sure how practical it is given the height it needs.


----------



## Franin

This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19862048
> 
> 
> This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?



If Prismasonic are as smart as we hope they are, it will


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19861955
> 
> 
> The transport your referring to is the new one from Prismasonic. I'm not sure how practical it is given the height it needs.



It works both ways for those who mount their projector right to the ceiling











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19862048
> 
> 
> This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?



Yes it is machined for Scotts Cineslide as well so you have a choice.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> It works both ways for those who mount their projector right to the ceiling



Excellent!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19862222
> 
> 
> Yes it is machined for Scotts Cineslide as well so you have a choice.



Thanks Alan looks like this lens will be able to cater for all. Cant wait to read the reviews.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19861840
> 
> 
> I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.



Not sure what you saw. But, no the CineSlide cannot be oriented vertically if that's what you mean. The motor is intentionally minimized in size and only has enough torque to accellerate (and decellerate(brake)) the 10lb+ lens horizontally. It would take a huge motor to lift that much weight and hold it under the power of the motor alone.


In order to go vertical there are only a couple of conventional ways to drive it. Neither work very well for this application IMO. A belt driven device would need a big motor or the thing being lifted would have to be counterweighted. Big motors are power hungry and ugly, counterweighting is not very practical in this case due to aesthetics and headroom. Constant tension springs have short life cycles so they are out for reliability reasons. And unless they were very large, they don't have nearly enough pull to offset the weight of a 10+ lb lens anyway. Next are screw drives. Screw driven mechanisims are what put me in business becasue of the long term issues the other manufacturer was having. My first year of sales, several years ago, probably went 25% to replacing those devices where they had failed out of warranty. And those were the ones running in the easy direction (horizontal). Still replacing them.


In the end there's only 3 directions to go with a lens, sideways, vertical, or away (swing out). We could easliy design a device to go in any direction. I chose the direction that fits the most installation scenarios, keeps the device small, light and compact, but still allows for a quick move (aspect change in 1 sec). And allows for a reliable design tested and documented to a 30 year life under normal use (actually double that with no wear evident but I'm being conservative lest I invoke some bad Karma







). The other movement directions had interference issues in the majority of the installations I encountered. Whether it was a port wall issue for swing out designs, or headroom problems for ceiling mounts. Add to that lowered ceilings, projectors that require the unit be no higher than the top of the screen, and theaters with risers (effective lowered ceilings), and the headroom issues are compunded. Installers occasionally whine about how tall the CineSlide is and it's only 3" thick (including the motor).


So while I _could_ make another device, the problem with selling such a device is they all have microprocessors in them (for IR, RS232, and motor controllers). And even little bity motors like the one on the Cineslide (1.3"^3) are EMI (electromagnetic interference) BOMBS. Very hard to contain. If it has a microprocessor, even a little one, it has to pass FCC EMI regulations(and CE for europe and most of the rest of the world). The lab tests for that start at $14,000. If you fail the test (easy to do), you go try to fix whatever is bleeding EMI, come back and plunk down another suitcase of $$ and the lab is happy to test it again for you. Not a fun process. One of the most stressful weeks of my life. If I so much as change a capacitor in the CineSlide it voids it's certifications and it has to be retested. The certification documentation is an extensive report, a good 3-4" thick. They record every component down to the resistor part number, photograph every circuit board in high resolution closeups, document every part. Sometimes people think that having a FCC approved power supply covers it. It does not. That helps becasue otherwise they have to be tested independently (and then you get into UL and TUV safety certifications). No, the whole thing has to be tested as used in the home, including the power supply, and any cabling that *could* be used (RS232, RJ45, triggers, etc.). All in place at the time of the test. The power supply wires alone are like great big EMI antenna. The RS232 and triggers, even though they are opto-isolated, act the same way. Huge PITA to get compliant. And expensive.


But, it's against the law to sell non compliant devices, and the fines for selling a non FCC certified device (the FCC calls the "unintentional radiators" under part 15 of the FCC rules), are astronomical. If it had meant a slap on the hand or ticket for $1000, I might have considered trying to "cheat" with the CineSldie and taken my chances. But the fines in the USA are more like thousands, per day, per device sold, to people caught selling them







. They get surprisingly serious about it. Bankrupt in a day scenarios were not worth the risk.


So the point is, even if I could make a different device, I wouldn't. At a few hundred per year, the market is just too small. It takes a long time to break even on that FCC/CE certification. But not having it is not an option, in the US at least. It's a major stumbling block to import or design a masking system. I can do it easily myself, I can import a nice one easily, but the payback on the regulatory certifications weighs heavy against either in a small market product.


Sorry, probably more than you wanted to know







.


----------



## GetGray

So Franin, you appear to be looking forward to swapping lenses. Are you not happy with your Cinedigitar anymore? Any particular reason or more than one? I don't remember, don't you have the Kino Torsion too? Or their linear transport?


----------



## GetGray

For those interested, I looked it up:

*Failure to Comply with the FCC’s Regulations*
Under section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act, the FCC has authority to assess a maximum forfeiture of *$11,000 for each* violation, or *each day* of continuing violation of its rules, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of *$97,500 for any single* continuing violation. 47 U.S.C §503(b)(2)(C). Under Section 1.80(b)(4) of its rules, the FCC has established a *base* forfeiture amount of *$7,000* for the *importation or marketing* of unauthorized equipment. “Marketing” is defined as selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease, importing, shipping, or distributing for the purpose of selling or leasing. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.801 et seq.



Stinks for low volume products like mine and Annsi's (understatement).


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So Franin, you appear to be looking forward to swapping lenses. Are you not happy with your Cinedigitar anymore? Any particular reason or more than one? I dont' remember dont you have the Kino Tortion too? Or their linear transport?



No who says I'm swapping lenses very happy with mine I just think it's great to see more lenses released.


It's great to get more members into scope.


----------



## GetGray

You just seemed more anxious about this particular lens, that's all. Just came across as more than cheerleading. You know how email goes, hard to read intent sometimes.

I agree, more the better. But of course I would say that







.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Wow! Thats a chunck of change! You weren't kidding about not wanting to flirt with the idea of not having the product certified; that kind of fee would not only put one out of business but bankruptcy would be the only option out.


-Sean


----------



## GetGray

Yep. It stinks. I was almost 2 years into the project (1 year of developent and testing, the rest ramping up) when this requirement was "brought to my attention" by some serious folks. I had some misconceptions about waht was required for sure. I was straightened out. Got a short time frame to get'er done. I about had a heart attack when I found out what the testing cost. But I was too far into it to quit then. After a very stressful and expensive time later, I was thankfully compliant and just barely. I assure you it was no cursory test, rubber stamp, had me your money thing. They put it throughthe EMI testing ringer with more scopes and types of antennae than I'd ever seen in one place.


It stinks, but on the other hand, you'd be ticked if every time your neighbor activated his CineSlide all your TV's and radios went sshshshshsh with a snow screen. Or it casued your cell phone or wireless network to hose, etc.


The fact that there are many, expensive testing labs in the US and EU that do the testing points to the fact that it must be done and they are serious about it. Otherwise, those places would not exist.


Don't even get me started on the TUV testing I went through in Germany. TUV is like our UL, those are 3rd party safety certifications and not required by law like FCC compliance is (And CE for EU contries). But it's made it through that, too.


But I guess I'm getting way OT, sorry.


----------



## CAVX

And why I never bothered with an automated slide for the Mk4. Better to align the stand to work with one that is already certified.


----------



## GetGray

And we are proud and grateful that you did. Thank you.


----------



## 230-SEAN

I hope the guys at Prismasonic already have their lift certified, I don't want anything to hold up the release, I feel like I've been waiting for forever already!


-Sean


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You just seemed more anxious about this particular lens, that's all. Just came across as more than cheerleading. You know how email goes, hard to read intent sometimes.
> 
> I agree, more the better. But of course I would say that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Well I did hear that this lens was going to be cheap and I like to show my support to get everyone on board for scope that's all.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19866484
> 
> 
> And why I never bothered with an automated slide for the Mk4. Better to align the stand to work with one that is already certified.



So your lens works with the cine slide also Mark?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19869358
> 
> 
> So your lens works with the cine slide also Mark?



It's all one word: _CineSlide™_. As in *Cine*mascope. Couldn't make it CinemaSlide, didn't have a good ring to it







.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's all one word: CineSlide(TM). As in Cinemascope. Couldn't make it CinemaSlide, didn't have a good ring to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



That's fine but I think we all get the idea what were talking about.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19872466
> 
> 
> That's fine but I think we all get the idea what were talking about.



Yes, not fussing. I get tickled at how many odd pronunciations I hear. A lot have called it a sEEn-a-slide














. YOurs was WAY better than that or plain ol "sled"


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, not fussing. I get tickled at how many odd pronunciations I hear. A lot have called it a sEEn-a-slide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . YOurs was WAY better than that or plain ol "sled"



Talking about the "cineslide"







I've seen it in action and was very impressed. Once my kino linear ( which I got on a package deal at a great price ) decides to give up I will be looking at the cineslide.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19869358
> 
> 
> So your lens works with the cine slide also Mark?



It does. Here's one of Marks customers with 2 of them in the same installation:


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19872759
> 
> 
> Talking about the "cineslide"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it in action and was very impressed. Once my kino linear ( which I got on a package deal at a great price ) decides to give up I will be looking at the cineslide.



Thanks. That would be great. I mean getting a CineSlide, not your Kino giving out







.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It does. Here's one of Marks customers with 2 of them in the same installation:



Fantastic stuff guys. A credit to both of you guys.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks. That would be great. I mean getting a CineSlide, not your Kino giving out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Lol







when it does happen I'll pm you. You will have to fedex it as I might be able to live a few days without my scope but then after that my patience will be tested.







man needs his scope.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19872989
> 
> 
> man needs his scope.



You've got that right. Even my kids are addicted to it. I might see them more often when I'm older


----------



## GetGray

I need to get a photo of someone's XEIT on a CineSlide. The ones I had were a temp install, not suitable for publication


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You've got that right. Even my kids are addicted to it. I might see them more often when I'm older



My kids do to. They like it when it fills the screen up they say


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I need to get a photo of someone's XEIT on a CineSlide. The ones I had were a temp install, not suitable for publication



Definitely and a few other lenses also just to show what the cineslide can mount too.


----------



## GetGray

OK, last one, got to get back to work. Heres one of the very first CineSlides with your lens on it. It still looks basically the same, but the current Cineslide is very different from this old one:











That mount was an experiment, I stopped making it though. That photo is actually the CineSlide sitting on a table, photo turned upside down


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK, last one, got to get back to work. Heres one of the very first CineSlides with your lens on it:
> 
> 
> That mount was an experiment, I stopped making it though. That photo is actually the CineSlide sitting on a table, photo turned upside down



Thats the winning shot







. I'm glad that my lens work will with your sled and others too.


When you get some more time you should show other lenses with your product Scott.


----------



## coolrda

There's some info here that newcomers may find useful.


----------



## CAVX

This thread or was there a specific link I can't see?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20741262
> 
> 
> This thread or was there a specific link I can't see?



Just the thread. Nothing like a good rehashing.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20741292
> 
> 
> Just the thread. Nothing like a good rehashing.



Hmm so long no one mentions the
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) AUSSIEMORPHIC LENS
or that other
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Australian Made A-Lens
.


So how is your ISCO going anyway?


----------



## coolrda

Yes isn't that interesting. Definitely one of my better purchase, Mark. Except for the constant reminder from the better half of how much I paid it. "It's just a piece of glass". Lol. At least she can't deny the performance. Truly worth ever penny to me. And have you priced diamonds lately. Nuff said.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20752412
> 
> 
> And have you priced diamonds lately. Nuff said.



Yeah I did before I got married in May and the lens was a more cost effective alternative







Lucky for me, my wife loves the lens and what it does for the image in our cinema.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Anyone know if the ISco IIIL will work with the Benq W7000 (identical to w6000) in physical layout? Max zoom and throw is 1.5

Thanks


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/21459094
> 
> 
> Anyone know if the ISco IIIL will work with the Benq W7000 (identical to w6000) in physical layout? Max zoom and throw is 1.5
> 
> Thanks



If it is the same as the W6000, then yes it will. My optics are the same size as those used in an ISCO III and I can use the full zoom without vignetting.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20752671
> 
> 
> Lucky for me, my wife loves the lens and what it does for the image in our cinema.



My wife doesn't care for any of the components in the HT she just wants to watch the damn movie


----------



## CAVX

Ha, nothing wrong with that. At least she wants to watch the movie. I learned at a GTG that many guys' wives (partners etc) won't join them because they see it as the guys hobby and don't want to intrude. your lucky your wife (like mine) wants to share the experience.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21526057
> 
> 
> your lucky your wife (like mine) wants to share the experience.



Definitely


----------



## coolrda

Just had to snag this pic posted by fellow videophile W.Mayer of his dual Barco/Isco 1.25 4K3D projection system. He could quite possibly have the finest projection system in the world. A true spectacle.


----------



## CAVX

That is impressive. For some reason, I though he had turned anti A-Lens, but to use 2 x ISCO 1.25 units, clearly not


----------



## coolrda

Hi Mark. So had I but he discusses in detail on another couple threads about the $15k Isco cinemaDLP 1.25 A Lens and the superiority of it when he compares it to the Isco III. From bouncing around and reading his posts it sounds like his complaint with the distortion which he demonstrates is what we call pincushion. If I understand him right he says the 1.25 doesnt have pincushion and focus is prefect at the extreme edges as well. Is this a fully geometrically corrected lens? Getgray can comment here but he stated both have the identicle glass. Maybe Mayer is seeing the distortion because his new projector's need the 1.25x lens due to the 1.896 AR. Remember these are 17:9 projectors unless run at 2160x3840.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/21850449
> 
> 
> Just had to snag this pic posted by fellow videophile W.Mayer of his dual Barco/Isco 1.25 4K3D projection system. He could quite possibly have the finest projection system in the world. A true spectacle.



That is very impressive indeed.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/21853360
> 
> 
> Hi Mark. So had I but he discusses in detail on another couple threads about the $15k Isco cinemaDLP 1.25 A Lens and the superiority of it when he compares it to the Isco III. From bouncing around and reading his posts it sounds like his complaint with the distortion which he demonstrates is what we call pincushion. If I understand him right he says the 1.25 doesnt have pincushion and focus is prefect at the extreme edges as well. Is this a fully geometrically corrected lens? Getgray can comment here but he stated both have the identicle glass. Maybe Mayer is seeing the distortion because his new projector's need the 1.25x lens due to the 1.896 AR. Remember these are 17:9 projectors unless run at 2160x3840.



There is nothing magic about the 1.25. I stand by what I said in the other thread, although I decided it wasn't good use of my time arguing there. The 1.25 will have the same geometry issues inherent with a 2 doublet A lens. I believe part of the reason he was seeing light drop off was he was vignetting and didn't know it. If the ray pencils are partially obscured at the lens it does not result in an image shadow on screen, but a light drop off as he described. As the 1.25 has less expansion, it will have less artifacts from expansion by definition. But those should be trivial and for the most part unmeasurable. Problem with that Sony and a IIIL is it has a fat beam at the physical exit point of the chassis. Someone that knows how to ensure no vignetting needs to check where it will, and will not fit.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/21862991
> 
> 
> As the 1.25 has less expansion, it will have less artifacts from expansion by definition.



And that alone is the only thing is has to offer IMO. $15K?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21864148
> 
> 
> And that alone is the only thing is has to offer IMO. $15K?



To be fair, it is substantially larger, so vignetting will be less of an issue and you could use it at shorter TRs. Of course it doesn't really cost that much, depending on where it comes from.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Can I assume there is an additional row to this theater? It would be a shame to put that kind of money into it and sit against the rear wall, where are the rear/side speakers?


-Sean


----------



## CAVX

The other thing to consider too is that the ISCO III being 1.33x, was designed to work with HT projection where the ISCO 1.25x is really only made for the 2048 units used in D-Cinema. You could use a 1.25x in the home, but you would need custom scaling where the 1.33x lenses will work with the simple letterbox and 4 x 3 modes.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21865821
> 
> 
> The other thing to consider too is that the ISCO III being 1.33x, was designed to work with HT projection where the ISCO 1.25x is really only made for the 2048 units used in D-Cinema. You could use a 1.25x in the home, but you would need custom scaling where the 1.33x lenses will work with the simple letterbox and 4 x 3 modes.



And that and what Getgray said was why I think he was complaining about the Isco 3L in the first place. Ive seen it in front of several true 4k projector an the pic is stunning. There is no way that even the finest most perfectly aligned 3 chipper beats the Isco 3L when it comes to chromatic abberation. I seen several people comment on the CA when the Isco is in the light path. Of course you do, because your stretching he picture 33% so you notice it more at the edge. Now take the ISCO away and guess what? You have CA you never noticed before. That's why there's nothing like a one chip DLP. It still my favorite, but I cant give up the contrast of my RS40. The other thing people confuse/interpret the increase in pixel density and the smoother picture as a loss of focus, when in fact the picture is better. Viewing true 4k for the last four CES and true 8k this last one was a revelation. The picture is become more analog/organic which is huge benefit. So one thing the top commercial and residential theaters all have in common, Cylindrical Anamorphic Projection and that will continue with higher res projectors.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/21869674
> 
> 
> The other thing people confuse/interpret the increase in pixel density and the smoother picture as a loss of focus, when in fact the picture is better.



A massive PLUS ONE on that


----------



## Kevin 3000

A-lens or not decisions decisions........14`.2" throw 1.97 TR.


JVC RS65 (X90) 3m white 1.2 gain screen 108hours Calibration at 250hrs. Resized only.










Arts Sim HT5000 + A-Lens 4.25m screen


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21889133
> 
> 
> A-lens or not decisions decisions........14`.2" throw 1.97 TR.
> 
> 
> JVC RS65 (X90) 3m white 1.2 gain screen 108hours Calibration at 250hrs. Resized only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arts Sim HT5000 + A-Lens 4.25m screen



You could combine the JVC and anamorphic lens. I have an RS55 with an Isco 3 on a 135" wide 2.35:1 Enlightor 4K screen - my first row is at about .85 SW and I love the effect of the e-shift and anamorphic lens at that close distance. In my tests it seemed that the benefits of e-shift diminished once you reach 1-1.2SW depending on the quality of the source and the screen material.


----------



## Kevin 3000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21889424
> 
> 
> You could combine the JVC and anamorphic lens. I have an RS55 with an Isco 3 on a 135" wide 2.35:1 Enlightor 4K screen - my first row is at about .85 SW and I love the effect of the e-shift and anamorphic lens at that close distance. In my tests it seemed that the benefits of e-shift diminished once you reach 1-1.2SW depending on the quality of the source and the screen material.



Thanks for the reply Hogpilot

Your A-lens is giving you more lumens needed for your 3.4m screen which is good if needed but what else is the A-lens doing to improve the picture?

If extra lumens are not required, menus visible all good but is the picture quality something you can photograph to show A/B comparisons or is it more like a perceptual improvement?

The 6million odd e-shifted pixels and no SDE remaining without the A-lens and lower lumens degrade picture quality enough to buy the A-lens?


Just trying to understand, i can purchase an A-lens with a 2 week full refund if needed but to save the hassle hear i am, extra lumens would be nice as lamp ages but really asking about picture quality..


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It's notoriously hard to appreciate the difference an A lens can make just using photographs (you need the full res available otherwise it's a waste of time), and usually only a demo can provide what's needed.


Gary


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21889966
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply Hogpilot
> 
> Your A-lens is giving you more lumens needed for your 3.4m screen which is good if needed but what else is the A-lens doing to improve the picture?



I'd say the lumens are the biggest contribution. I haven't had a chance to A/B with and without the lens in my final setup (zoom vs. lens). I have yet to notice any extra CA, but the Isco is about as good as they come in this respect so no surprise here. What's your viewing distance?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21889966
> 
> 
> If extra lumens are not required, menus visible all good but is the picture quality something you can photograph to show A/B comparisons or is it more like a perceptual improvement?



I would love to take some pics, but I'm currently deployed to the Middle East until July, so unfortunately my theater will be sitting and waiting unused until then







Sorry I can't offer more help on this...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21889966
> 
> 
> The 6million odd e-shifted pixels and no SDE remaining without the A-lens and lower lumens degrade picture quality enough to buy the A-lens?



Only you can really answer that question, but I'll offer this up - when I was A/B'ing the Enlightor 4K screen material against the Seymour AV CenterStage XD, the 4K clearly had the edge in terms of lack of screen surface visibility, yet my eye was constantly drawn to the image on the XD because it was noticeably brighter. So I guess what I'm saying is not to underestimate the benefit that the extra brightness will give you. Whether or not it's worth the cost...everyone has a different answer as to how much money is "enough" - hence the rather heated debates on the subject in this forum











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21889966
> 
> 
> Just trying to understand, i can purchase an A-lens with a 2 week full refund if needed but to save the hassle hear i am, extra lumens would be nice as lamp ages but really asking about picture quality..



I would say that extra brightness contributes to PQ significantly. Since you have the 2-week grace period, I'd recommend you give the lens a shot and see if you like the result. If you don't, at least you're not out any money.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/21890006
> 
> 
> It's notoriously hard to appreciate the difference an A lens can make just using photographs (you need the full res available otherwise it's a waste of time), and usually only a demo can provide what's needed.
> 
> 
> Gary



+1! Couldn't agree more...


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21890054
> 
> 
> +1! Couldn't agree more...



Thanks for being there for us, Hog. Fly safe.







May I use your Isco 3 while your away?


----------



## Kevin 3000

Thanks Hogpilot i do sit 1SW back, looks like i will have to see for myself. Prismasonic Finland must be confident giving 2 weeks grace if disappointed, i will check again though.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/21890128
> 
> 
> Thanks for being there for us, Hog. Fly safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I use your Isco 3 while your away?



Sure, just fix the inop slide for me while you're at it and we'll call it even







It's a re-branded Panamorph slide, which may be part of the problem...


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21890307
> 
> 
> Thanks Hogpilot i do sit 1SW back, looks like i will have to see for myself. Prismasonic Finland must be confident giving 2 weeks grace if disappointed, i will check again though.



Be sure and start a thread with your impressions, please. I'd sure like to hear them, and I'm sure others would.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21890409
> 
> 
> Sure, just fix the inop slide for me while you're at it and we'll call it even
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a re-branded Panamorph slide, which may be part of the problem...



Motorized, I presume.?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/21890762
> 
> 
> Motorized, I presume.?



Yes indeed. And I didn't mean to insinuate that Panamorph makes sub-par equipment; quite the contrary, my personal opinion is that their stuff is by far the best bang for your buck in terms of price/performance ratio.


However I don't think that the slide was meant to handle the heavier weight of an Isco 3, hence my suspicion that the motor may be burnt out. However it may be more than that - the unit won't even turn on, so it may be something on one of the small circuit boards under the cover. I meant to send it away to a guy over on Curt Palme's forum so he could look at it before I left, but I ran out of time so it will have to wait until I get back. Or maybe I'll just trade up to a CineSlide...


----------



## Kevin 3000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/21891103
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. And I didn't mean to insinuate that Panamorph makes sub-par equipment; quite the contrary, my personal opinion is that their stuff is by far the best bang for your buck in terms of price/performance ratio.
> 
> 
> However I don't think that the slide was meant to handle the heavier weight of an Isco 3, hence my suspicion that the motor may be burnt out. However it may be more than that - the unit won't even turn on, so it may be something on one of the small circuit boards under the cover. I meant to send it away to a guy over on Curt Palme's forum so he could look at it before I left, but I ran out of time so it will have to wait until I get back. Or maybe I'll just trade up to a CineSlide...



With your JVC is there a need for a slide with these menu options?


Manual quotes

Anamorphic The video images are projected after being enlarged in the vertical direction of the panel

resolution. This setting is used when one uses the anamorphic lens to enlarge them in the

horizontal direction.

If a 3D signal is fed in when Anamorphic mode is set to A or B, Anamorphic mode is

automatically turned Off.

Settings: A, B, Off [Off]


A: Video with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is enlarged in the vertical direction of the panel resolution and then projected.


B: Video with an aspect ratio of 16:9 are displayed by reducing them in the horizontal direction, without changing their size in the vertical direction.


Off: Used when watching video images other than those with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio while using an anamorphic lens. 2.35:1 video images are projected without any changes. (Black bands appear on all sides)


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21893263
> 
> 
> With your JVC is there a need for a slide with these menu options?
> 
> 
> Manual quotes
> 
> Anamorphic The video images are projected after being enlarged in the vertical direction of the panel
> 
> resolution. This setting is used when one uses the anamorphic lens to enlarge them in the
> 
> horizontal direction.
> 
> If a 3D signal is fed in when Anamorphic mode is set to A or B, Anamorphic mode is
> 
> automatically turned Off.
> 
> Settings: A, B, Off [Off]
> 
> 
> A: Video with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is enlarged in the vertical direction of the panel resolution and then projected.
> 
> 
> B: Video with an aspect ratio of 16:9 are displayed by reducing them in the horizontal direction, without changing their size in the vertical direction.
> 
> 
> Off: Used when watching video images other than those with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio while using an anamorphic lens. 2.35:1 video images are projected without any changes. (Black bands appear on all sides)



I haven't personally played with that feature (my Lumagen Radiance does all the processing), but yes it sounds like you are correct, no need for a slide if you want to use the JVC's built-in scaling functions.


----------



## Kevin 3000

Am i right in thinking with an A-lens I leave my pic in 16:9 mode (mid zoom) let the A-Lens fill the screen gaining 12,500 on/off CR (X90) + 25% Lumens 425?


Cine4home table:

-------------Zoom IRIS Lumens X70 X90

High / D65 Max Closed 370 53000:1 80000:1

High / D65 Min Closed 310 69000:1 105,000:1


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin 3000* /forum/post/21897641
> 
> 
> Am i right in thinking with an A-lens I leave my pic in 16:9 mode (mid zoom) let the A-Lens fill the screen gaining 12,500 on/off CR (X90) + 25% Lumens 425?
> 
> 
> Cine4home table:
> 
> -------------Zoom IRIS Lumens X70 X90
> 
> High / D65 Max Closed 370 53000:1 80000:1
> 
> High / D65 Min Closed 310 69000:1 105,000:1



You'll maintain the CR, but you won't "gain" lumens - you'll still only have the quoted number of lumens, you just won't lose any to the overspill you'd have if you were zooming.


The only time you "gain" light output from using an anamorphic lens in numerical terms is when you're measuring light off the screen in foot-Lamberts, since that measures light per unit area.


----------



## coolrda

Its been along time since I posted here but I must say that my lens continues to hold its value to me. New dedicated theater in a new home with a new projector and new screen but despite all of this I remain using the A lens. At least for me, resolution or pixel count doesn't change anything. The lens transparently passes the pixels. Auto zoom is cool and may be my choice over a prism but having played with different setups I still prefer the lens. I will however for the first time look to getting a Cineslide as 4K comes in the two flavors, 3840 and 4096. 4096x2160 is scaled to 3840x2025 which looks kinda goofy window boxed. So I'll use the lens for ALL widescreen content. The quality of 4k content is from better than 1080P to flawless as when the file sizes are 10+gb. Tears of Steel is a good example of what uncompressed can do. They even have a DCP file. Theres some 4k 2.35 content but I haven't run across any anamorphic yet.


----------



## Cam Man

coolrda said:


> Its been along since I posted here but I must say the my lens continues to hold its value to me. New dedicated theater in a new home with a new projector and new screen but despite all of this I remain using the A lens. At least for me, resolution or pixel count doesn't change anything. The lens transparently passes the pixels. Auto zoom is cool and may be my choice over a prism but having played with different setups I still prefer the lens. I will however for the first time look to getting a Cineslide as 4K comes in the two flavors, 3840 and 4096. 4096x2160 is scaled to 3840x2025 which looks kinda goofy window boxed. So I'll use the lens for ALL widescreen content. The quality of 4k content is from better than 1080P to flawless as when the file sizes are 10+gb. Tears of Steel is a good example of what uncompressed can do. They even have a DCP file. Theres some 4k 2.35 content but I haven't run across any anamorphic yet.


The loyal hardcore are still in the club.  My preference for screen size for an anamorphic release is about 42 degrees. This is something of a personal curse from the movie business; the need to "keep my arms around" the image so I can study the frame/framing best. This puts me at about 1.4 to 1.5 screen width, which is just starting to reach the limits of 1080p. For this reason, I don't think that 4K resolution will be a big need, but the other benefits of UHD will be nice. It also means that I'll probably always be able to enjoy CenterStage XD.

I also have always liked the lack of futzing one has with an A-lens. Once it's done right, it's a great convenience as well as a gorgeous image.


----------



## Eksohek

has anyone tried a prime A-lens, say the ISCO III S/L on a native 4K projector, such as the Sony one with 2.35 content ?
All these posts have lots of info, but as they go far back, it's difficult to say if anything's been tested for 4K.


Cheers
Ekso


----------



## GetGray

Eksohek said:


> has anyone tried a prime A-lens, say the ISCO III S/L on a native 4K projector, such as the Sony one with 2.35 content ?
> All these posts have lots of info, but as they go far back, it's difficult to say if anything's been tested for 4K.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Ekso


Esko:
First, yes, I know the XEIT is being used extensively on Sony 4k's. I've had several customers with Schneider on 4k as well. Second, note that the Isco III S/L are no more. They are now branded Schneider M/XL. Same glass, made in the same place by the same people, just a different case for the glass.


----------



## Aussie Bob II

One of the main problems with Sony 4K projectors - as far as anamorphic lenses are concerned - is that the projection lens in the Sony is 35mm recessed into the case. This means that the beam is pretty fat by the time it clears the case. Throw ratios need to be longer, especially where tilting of the anamorphic lens is required, in order to avoid vignetting. TRs of around 1.9 and up are advisable.

In taking into account the minimum TR required, it's not just a simple calculation of projector distance versus screen height that's necessary.

As most 'scope movies today are of 2.40:1 aspect ratio - 800 pixels high - when they are digitally vertically expanded by exactly 4/3 (1.33x) prior to anamorphic horizontal expansion, the full pixel height of the projector panel is not used. 800 x 1.33 equals only 1067 pixels. There is a sliver of black at the top and bottom of the screen around 8 pixels high. Inserting a "fudge factor" of around a quarter to half an inch so that the image can bleed a little onto the masking, the TR is consequently reduced. With all anamorphic lenses, of all brands - prismatic or cylindrical - there is also a slight reduction in height due to refraction of the beam as it passes through the optically unpowered vertical plane of the glass. This is a constant amount no matter what the size of the image, but in critical areas needs to be taken into account.

At Xeit we have a spreadsheet model that accurately calculates and reflects all these extra factors in order to deliver a true indication of practical zoom factor required to fit the screen exactly, without under or over-shoot. Our web site also contain a full suite of test patterns for accurate fitting of the image to the screen.

In such critical situations we perform the calculation so that there are no unpleasant surprises on installation day, especially if the site is thousands of kilometres away in an overseas job. This spreadsheet also calculates pincushion that will be produced and the correct curvature of screen to get rid of it exactly. For even more critical calculations, the results from this spreadsheet can be fed into an optical modelling software package for sub-millimetre accuracy and pixel-by-pixel examination of the image at any point on the screen.

I used this modelling recently on a particularly tricky installation. I gave the curvature required as 41'3.5", and advised the systems integrator to use a stock "40-foot" curvature screen. Imagine my surprise next day when he phoned me back wanting to know whether the ".5" in "3.5" was critical! They were actually going to build a custom curved screen on-site, to the exact specifications I had provided. In the end it worked perfectly, exactly as predicted. It took a week to build and stretch the screen, then to mount it. The screen maker slept on site until the job was finished. He kept calling me back asking whether I was sure about the dimensions as he thought the curvature (depth of sagitta) would be too much. But I stuck to my guns and it all came out well.

As far as "4K" compatibility is concerned, Xeit lenses are calibrated and tested out to "6K" standards, so that they are certified to definitely cope accurately with 4K projectors, as well as delivering the well-known Xeit lower horizontal distortion factors (i.e. less stretching at the sides and hence better overall evenness of illumination), zero color aberration or ghosting, infinite focusability (no "corrector" lenses, no focus steps or focus "sweet spots"), and no color cast when inserted into the beam. As Get Gray attests, they have been used many times with Sony 4K projectors.


----------



## coolrda

I built a DIY curved screen which is a topic for another time. Just wanted to mentioned that I used AB2's curved screen calculator and was skeptical of the 30.7ft radius it calculated that I would need. Well, it nailed it. Sagitta was dead on. Props to you, Aussie Bob.


----------



## Aussie Bob II

Why, thank you Cooldra.

I had a similar, if vicarious experience recently when an installer/integrator asked me for a calculation of the curvature needed for a prestige installation. I came back to him saying, "41 feet 3-and-a-half inches, make it 40 feet."

A day later he replied asking if the "half inch" in "three and a half inches" was critical. It was only then that I realized he was going to have the screen built on site by Oz Theater screens.

Rich from Oz Theater camped on site for a day or so and built the screen. Like you he was sceptical of the recommended sagitta (the sagitta is the depth of the curvature at the center of the screen), but I told him to just go ahead.

Turned out it worked perfectly.

A 40 footer would have had a tiny, say 1 or 2mm pincushion, not really noticeable, and would probably have been a lot cheaper than a custom build, but the customer was fastidious. It was a whopping big screen, 160 inches, with quite a short throw, using a Wolf Cinema projector which had been purchased specially by wolf direct for the job.

All's well that ends well. You can't argue with the physics, even though it seems to be all wrong (Global Warming deniers please note).


----------



## coolrda

Eksohek said:


> has anyone tried a prime A-lens, say the ISCO III S/L on a native 4K projector, such as the Sony one with 2.35 content ?
> All these posts have lots of info, but as they go far back, it's difficult to say if anything's been tested for 4K.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Ekso


I've went back and forth on this but after extensive testing with 4K downloads by way of sliding the lens in and out, I've gone back to leaving the lens in and scaling 4K. I see no resolution benefit, only the increase in light with the lens not in the light path on 16x9 compared to lens in and 16x9 scaled. Light is no longer an issue for me even with 3D due to the good light output at max zoom with my X500. I'm even more amazed by the 3L's transparency now. With the way things are appearing to play out this lens is going to be in my system for a long time to come.


----------



## Eksohek

thanks for the feedback. confirms my ISCO lens investment was good !


----------



## jh901

This thread hasn't been bumped in a while. Have A-lens owner's remained satisfied? Does true 4K change anything?


----------



## Seegs108

jh901 said:


> This thread hasn't been bumped in a while. Have A-lens owner's remained satisfied? Does true 4K change anything?


Some say yes, but it doesn't really change a thing for me. I love my ISCO IIIL and I don't think I'd ever get rid of it.


----------



## Cam Man

Seegs108 said:


> Some say yes, but it doesn't really change a thing for me. I love my ISCO IIIL and I don't think I'd ever get rid of it.


Same for me (Panamorph). I'm answering here because your question seemed more anamorphic in general rather than specifically cylindrical.


----------



## RapalloAV

jh901 said:


> This thread hasn't been bumped in a while. Have A-lens owner's remained satisfied? Does true 4K change anything?


Hasn't changed anything for me, I will never let my Isco IIIL lens go!


----------



## coolrda

Same here. As long as projectors use 16x9 chips I'll always use my lens. For everything. It doesn't matter the resolution or the projector, aspect ratio of content or source.


----------



## Andreas21

The same goes for me, I will never (never say never ) let go of my Isco 4XL and Cineslide.


----------



## CAVX

I feel the same about my cylindrical lens. It is here to stay. 

It seems some of the 4K SONYs have a 17:9 imaging chip, but they can be switched back to 16:9 for use with the 1.33x lens. The full 17:9 chip requires a 1.25x lens. I'll be staying with 1080 for a while yet, though I do believe my lens will pass the full detail of UHD when I eventually make the upgrade.


----------



## CAVX

Double post


----------



## RapalloAV

CAVX said:


> I feel the same about my cylindrical lens. It is here to stay.
> 
> It seems some of the 4K SONYs have a 17:9 imaging chip, but they can be switched back to 16:9 for use with the 1.33x lens. The full 17:9 chip requires a 1.25x lens. I'll be staying with 1080 for a while yet, though I do believe my lens will pass the full detail of UHD when I eventually make the upgrade.



Are there any 1.25x lenses available for HT?


I have tried the full chip on my VW1100 with my Isco IIIL lens and the image is wider than my scope screen, if one was to use it this way is the image distorted in anyway?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

There are some 1.25 stretch ISCO lenses out there - I think ISCO DCI lenses, but they don't come up that often on ebay.

Gary


----------



## Dirk44

I have a ISCO 1.25 DCI Lens in Front of my VW 1100 works perfect together.
The Ring of Lens match in the Projector Frontring...like is made for this.


----------



## GetGray

RapalloAV said:


> Are there any 1.25x lenses available for HT?
> 
> 
> I have tried the full chip on my VW1100 with my Isco IIIL lens and the image is wider than my scope screen, if one was to use it this way is the image distorted in anyway?


Isco Cinema DLP 1.25x commercial lens. Lists for $17k. Just installed a pair of them on a Sony 1100 double stack not long ago. Nice lens.


----------



## R Harkness

Not a cylindrical, but on the subject of 4K affecting A-lens ownership....

I love my Panamorph A-lens, but my JVC projector gives me 4K-like pixel density and if I didn't need the A-lens to get the image width I require, I would sell it. (Same would go if I had a cylindrical, lens). I doubt a projector will come out any time with a significantly wider zoom ratio than my JVC, so I'll be needing my A-lens as far into the future as I can see. Luckily the A-lens allows for excellent quality images.


----------



## Andreas21

RapalloAV said:


> Are there any 1.25x lenses available for HT?
> 
> 
> I have tried the full chip on my VW1100 with my Isco IIIL lens and the image is wider than my scope screen, if one was to use it this way is the image distorted in anyway?


I just sold my Isco Cinema DLP 1.25x lens for 3500$, and it was in almost perfect condition. I now use a Isco 4XL with my X500.


----------



## coolrda

Andreas21 said:


> I just sold my Isco Cinema DLP 1.25x lens for 3500$, and it was in almost perfect condition. I now use a Isco 4XL with my X500.


Now if someone could jailbreak my Roku 4 so I could watch 4K movies. Was hoping for 4K/60 sync like I get with the Oppo 103D at least for unprotected 4K content.


----------



## Seegs108

I'd be careful what you decide to watch. Always check IMDB technical info to see what's actually mastered in 4K because Edge of Tomorrow only has a 2K digital intermediate, which means the "4K" version you'd stream is simply upscale 2K.


----------



## CAVX

RapalloAV said:


> Are there any 1.25x lenses available for HT?
> 
> 
> I have tried the full chip on my VW1100 with my Isco IIIL lens and the image is wider than my scope screen, if one was to use it this way is the image distorted in anyway?


No "HT" lenses as far as I know. The ISCO lens is made for the D-Cinema projectors because they are 2048 or 4096 wide, not 1920 or 3840 wide. 

I did discuss the possibility of getting 1.25x optics made with the supplier of the lenses in my A-Lens, but nothing came of that. It would be an awesome option to have though.


----------



## GetGray

Yes, the "Cinema DLP lens" made by Isco (now Schneider). Just installed a pair of them with a Sony 1100 double stack recently. Very expensive. You see them on eBay in questionalbe condition about once or twice a year. You can get them new from me. We have to make the lens mount for them though which is also expensive. 

Here's an old photo with a discontinued lens mount. I make a replacement now that's better.











Here's a photo of the Sony 1100 doublestack rack (partially filled).


----------



## R Harkness

GetGray,

Can you manage to match the precision and clarity of a single Sony 1100 when you double stack them? I'd imagine it would be tough to impossible to get them perfectly aligned.


----------



## GetGray

It was tough, but they are aligned. The stand was designed to accommodate fine adjustments and be rock solid stable once aligned. Room to change bulbs on both PJ's without disturbing them. Ken Whitcomb did the install. It's even setup to account for thermal variations as the unit warms up. The nice thing about lenses is they don't change. This would be impossible with lens memories.


----------



## R Harkness

Interesting set up, thanks.


----------



## coolrda

It's been awhile but I think it's good to reassess this from time to time. Looking back it looks like I had a Benq DLP when I purchased my lens new. To date it's the largest purchase for a single I've made for my HT to date. At the this includes the 7 projectors, countless amps, pre amps, cd & dvds players and on and on. My thoughts at that time were that this would payoff in the long run, that 16x9 chipped projectors were here to stay. That has proved to be the case. 

My glass has now fronted its fourth projector. Of the three previous, the Benq was given to a relative. My first JVC died out of warranty and also was given away and I still have my X500. While the projectors did their job, I basically have nothing to show for it. A good amount of us here do this. Some sell them and get a portion of the money back but for those that projector cycle, it's more or less like a vacation or fine dining. It's good to get away and you have great memories but when it's over it's done. 

I didn't know for sure how this would turn out when I purchased mine, theres was talk of 2.35 chipped projectors. So I bet on the tried and true 16x9 projectors and that has proved to be the right choice as 235 projectors were a one hit wonder and disappeared. When I prorate the purchase, it has proved to be even better than anticipated. I was hoping for 10-15 years or more and I'm half way there. It's really is a heirloom quality AV purchase. If there can be such a thing.


----------



## CAVX

CAVX said:


> No "HT" lenses as far as I know. The ISCO lens is made for the D-Cinema projectors because they are 2048 or 4096 wide, not 1920 or 3840 wide.
> 
> I did discuss the possibility of getting 1.25x optics made with the supplier of the lenses in my A-Lens, but nothing came of that. It would be an awesome option to have though.


I am quoting myself here because last year the 1.25x version of the 1.33x version (I have) became available with the release of the SONY 520 (4096 x 2160).


----------



## coolrda

Seegs108 said:


> I'd be careful what you decide to watch. Always check IMDB technical info to see what's actually mastered in 4K because Edge of Tomorrow only has a 2K digital intermediate, which means the "4K" version you'd stream is simply upscale 2K.


Good point. I look here now. realorfake4k


----------



## nigwhyritos

So I didn't see this in any thread. How and where do you service the A lens. Mine has accumulated a lot of dust. I am afraid to try and polish the glass myself.
Isco 2 rebranded as runco. Had it for almost a year in the basement setup. Sorry I have a ghetto rig. I'm debating ceiling mounting my epson 6020 but I need a longer pipe. Throw is 21 feet


----------



## GetGray

nigwhyritos said:


> So I didn't see this in any thread. How and where do you service the A lens. Mine has accumulated a lot of dust. I am afraid to try and polish the glass myself.
> Isco 2 rebranded as runco. Had it for almost a year in the basement setup. Sorry I have a ghetto rig. I'm debating ceiling mounting my epson 6020 but I need a longer pipe. Throw is 21 feet


I've always used a relatively inexpensive product to clean the lenses. Google Peca Products Formula MC. Get it and the tissues that go with it. For internal, I don't know anyone who will disassemble and clean. If it has dust or something else on the inside something is probably wrong anyway, as it should have been sealed.


----------



## nigwhyritos

Dang then something went wrong cause I think I see a few particles on the inside. I'll try a vacuum and see if the particles move.


----------



## GetGray

nigwhyritos said:


> Dang then something went wrong cause I think I see a few particles on the inside. I'll try a vacuum and see if the particles move.


If it's just a few specs just leave them be. They won't hurt anything. They aren't in the focal point and you won't see anything onscreen. If you suck anything out then you are pullign something in somewhere else, like dust or humidity. Potentially doing more harm than good.


----------



## CAVX

I decided to pull that little CN made 1.33x A-Lens apart as it never seemed to focus. What I discovered was by flipping the lenses and adding a bit of length to the barrel, that this would focus aa sharp as my own MK5.









Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

What patterns do you guys use to check the focus of the system? 
I found these in the service menu of my BenQ to be really helpful. 

One of the most annoying things to me is when text, particularly rolling credits change in focus from bottom to top. The vertical lines pattern is the easiest way to see if there is a problem. Other patterns just help prove over all focus. 

NB the projector defaults to native lamp which looks really green and the camera had made those other artifacts visible. 
The camera may not be showing true focus of the image. 









Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## typecase

CAVX said:


> I feel the same about my cylindrical lens. It is here to stay.
> 
> It seems some of the 4K SONYs have a 17:9 imaging chip, but they can be switched back to 16:9 for use with the 1.33x lens. The full 17:9 chip requires a 1.25x lens. I'll be staying with 1080 for a while yet, though I do believe my lens will pass the full detail of UHD when I eventually make the upgrade.



Can someone help me understand this. If all 4K BD content is natively 16:9, then what's the point of a native 17:9 chip. Also, how do you use a 1.25:1 anamorphic lens on this 16:9 content without getting the wrong aspect ratio.? Finally, if I upgrade to a Sony projector with this weird aspect ratio, are there any drawbacks to using a 1.33 anamorphic lens?


----------



## GetGray

typecase said:


> CAVX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about my cylindrical lens. It is here to stay.
> 
> It seems some of the 4K SONYs have a 17:9 imaging chip, but they can be switched back to 16:9 for use with the 1.33x lens. The full 17:9 chip requires a 1.25x lens. I'll be staying with 1080 for a while yet, though I do believe my lens will pass the full detail of UHD when I eventually make the upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone help me understand this. If all 4K BD content is natively 16:9, then what's the point of a native 17:9 chip. Also, how do you use a 1.25:1 anamorphic lens on this 16:9 content without getting the wrong aspect ratio.? Finally, if I upgrade to a Sony projector with this weird aspect ratio, are there any drawbacks to using a 1.33 anamorphic lens?
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to type it up. If you want to call I'll be happy to explain in detail. PM for number.


----------



## CAVX

typecase said:


> Can someone help me understand this. If all 4K BD content is natively 16:9, then what's the point of a native 17:9 chip. Also, how do you use a 1.25:1 anamorphic lens on this 16:9 content without getting the wrong aspect ratio.? Finally, if I upgrade to a Sony projector with this weird aspect ratio, are there any drawbacks to using a 1.33 anamorphic lens?


1K is the same as a bite or 1024, so everytime we have number "XK", it is a multiple of 1024.

2K = 2048
4K = 4096

4 x 3 formats like DVD were based on 720 x 540 and DVD had non square pixels to work with PAL and NTSC. 

1080 is twice that of SD or 2x 540. 
UHD 2160 is twice that of HD or 2x 1080.

4096 / 2160 = 1.9 not 1.78, so true 2K and 4K systems are 17:9, not 16:9.

16:9 was a compromise that supposed to represent a half way way point between 4 x 3 and Scope. Personally, I think 1.9 or even 2.0 would have been better. 

The anamorphic lens allows us to use the full panel. Therefore for systems based on 1.33 like 16:9, a 1.33x lens is needed. in a 2K/4K system, a 1.25x lens is required.

The SONY projectors offer a 16:9 mode, so they back off the panel at the 1.78:1 limits. A 1.33x lens works with these systems. I have done this with one of my lenses and the SONY 520.


----------



## typecase

CAVX said:


> 1K is the same as a bite or 1024, so everytime we have number "XK", it is a multiple of 1024.
> 
> 2K = 2048
> 4K = 4096
> 
> 4 x 3 formats like DVD were based on 720 x 540 and DVD had non square pixels to work with PAL and NTSC.
> 
> 1080 is twice that of SD or 2x 540.
> UHD 2160 is twice that of HD or 2x 1080.
> 
> 4096 / 2160 = 1.9 not 1.78, so true 2K and 4K systems are 17:9, not 16:9.
> 
> 16:9 was a compromise that supposed to represent a half way way point between 4 x 3 and Scope. Personally, I think 1.9 or even 2.0 would have been better.
> 
> The anamorphic lens allows us to use the full panel. Therefore for systems based on 1.33 like 16:9, a 1.33x lens is needed. in a 2K/4K system, a 1.25x lens is required.
> 
> The SONY projectors offer a 16:9 mode, so they back off the panel at the 1.78:1 limits. A 1.33x lens works with these systems. I have done this with one of my lenses and the SONY 520.



Thank you CAVX. I apologize. I must have not been clear on my query. I understand all of the above. I already have a CIH setup. 

What I don't understand is that the inherent ratio of both BD and UHD BD are both 16:9 and content for HDTV, BD and UHD is encoded at ratio of 16:9 (1920x1080 and 3840 × 2160 resolution, respectively), so what's the advantage of using a 17:9 panel except to monkey things up? 16:9 content (HDTV, UHD BD, BD) won't fill the whole panel (I presume it would have black bars on the sides). 

I do understand that you can use these projectors in 16:9 mode but there would be these small black bars on the side and presumably black bars and overspill when I horizontally stretch that picture with my anamorphic lens.

Is there an advantage to using a 17:9 panel?


----------



## CAVX

typecase said:


> Thank you CAVX. I apologize. I must have not been clear on my query. I understand all of the above. I have an ISCO III aready.
> 
> What I don't understand is that the inherent ratio of both BD and UHD BD are both 16:9 and content encoded at ratio of 16:9 (1920x1080 and 3840 × 2160 resolution, respectively), so what's the advantage of using a 17:9 panel? 16:9 content (HDTV, UHD BD, BD) won't fill the whole panel (I presume black bars on the sides). Is there an advantage to using a 17:9 panel?
> 
> I understand that you can use the Sony in 16:9 mode but there would be these black bars on the side and presumably black bars and overspill when I horizontally stretch that picture with my anamorphic lens.


They are encoded at 16:9 yet both formats have a 21:9 option. The studios won't turn it on based on the lack of Ultra Wide TVs. 

So we scale. And at 4K, 1:1 mapping is irrelevant. 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## coolrda

typecase said:


> Is there an advantage to using a 17:9 panel?


No. This is primarily the DCI standard for commercial cinema projection. As CAVX stated 2048/4096 is commercial 2k/4k. Residential uses 1920/3840 for 2k(1080) and 4k. A 1.25x Lens is used with the DCI Resolution.


----------



## typecase

So what happens to the extra bit of image on the left and right on a 16:9 screen? Has anyone used a 1.33 lens like the ISCO III with a DCI 4K projector in 16:9 mode?


----------



## CAVX

typecase said:


> So what happens to the extra bit of image on the left and right on a 16:9 screen? Has anyone used a 1.33 lens like the ISCO III with a DCI 4K projector in 16:9 mode?


I have and it goes unnoticed. The projector blanks that portion out and then it basically gets projected off the screen. 

What I did find awesome though was seeing jaggies at 4K with my MK5.


----------



## ScottAvery

CAVX said:


> I have and it goes unnoticed. The projector blanks that portion out and then it basically gets projected off the screen.
> 
> What I did find awesome though was seeing jaggies at 4K with my MK5.


Is this a problem with the scaling in the Sony?


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> Is this a problem with the scaling in the Sony?


Yes and no. The Sony locked up when fed UHD but the OPPO 203 was able to apply VerticalStretch. 
The jaggies showed that my lens is truly transparent as it resolved pixel level clarity at true 4k rez. I was impressed. 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

Here is the setup with the MK5 and Sony520.

The Sony wants to scale the image to fit the fill 4096 with. This means it generates only 20% black bar and not the normal 25% of the 2160 vertical rez. 

Even thought there are a choice of either 1.24x or 1.32x in the set up menu, as soon as it detects a UHD signal, it wants to remap as if zooming was the only option. No stretch. Probably a carry over from the DCI and D-Cinema which all zoom now. 

So if you want to use the full 17:9 chip for Scope, you would need the 1.25x version of my lens (which came available last year) but you also need the ability to custom scale as even the OPPO is still based on 1.33x, not 1.25x. 

As far as I know, there is just one scaler that can do this and it is about $6K.


----------



## coolrda

Just got back from Justice League in new AMC Prime locally. It had a decent sound system but I was shocked to see they went CIH 2.40AR screens. Got a 12 screen SMG opening next month and it will be interesting to see how that’s done.


----------



## sceptre-lcd

CAVX said:


> Here is the setup with the MK5 and Sony520.
> 
> The Sony wants to scale the image to fit the fill 4096 with. This means it generates only 20% black bar and not the normal 25% of the 2160 vertical rez.
> 
> Even thought there are a choice of either 1.24x or 1.32x in the set up menu, as soon as it detects a UHD signal, it wants to remap as if zooming was the only option. No stretch. Probably a carry over from the DCI and D-Cinema which all zoom now.
> 
> So if you want to use the full 17:9 chip for Scope, you would need the 1.25x version of my lens (which came available last year) but you also need the ability to custom scale as even the OPPO is still based on 1.33x, not 1.25x.
> 
> As far as I know, there is just *one scaler that can do this and it is about $6K*.


Is this $6K scaler lumagen radiance pro ?


----------



## CAVX

sceptre-lcd said:


> Is this $6K scaler lumagen radiance pro ?


I think so. 

You would like to think other manufacturers could also create HDMI 2.0 with HDR and WCG support for less than $6k .

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk


----------



## Pirate_at_40

CAVX said:


> Here is the setup with the MK5 and Sony520.
> 
> The Sony wants to scale the image to fit the fill 4096 with. This means it generates only 20% black bar and not the normal 25% of the 2160 vertical rez.
> 
> Even thought there are a choice of either 1.24x or 1.32x in the set up menu, as soon as it detects a UHD signal, it wants to remap as if zooming was the only option. No stretch. Probably a carry over from the DCI and D-Cinema which all zoom now.
> 
> So if you want to use the full 17:9 chip for Scope, you would need the 1.25x version of my lens (which came available last year) but you also need the ability to custom scale as even the OPPO is still based on 1.33x, not 1.25x.
> 
> As far as I know, there is just one scaler that can do this and it is about $6K.



So, if you feed regular 16:9 content (UHD or not) to the Sony running in 1.24x mode, then what you are saying is that the Sony re-scales it to use only a 16:9 portion of the 17:9 panel (as if it were in 1.32x mode)? Is there any downside to the image/aspect ratio, other than just not using the full 4k capability of the panel?

Any idea if this is how the VW885 also handles a 16:9 signal in 1.24x mode? Anyone have experience with how the VW5000 handles?

I wonder if Sony or Oppo could put in a custom scaling from 16:9 to 17:9... avoiding need for a $6k Lumagen.


----------



## CAVX

Pirate_at_40 said:


> So, if you feed regular 16:9 content (UHD or not) to the Sony running in 1.24x mode, then what you are saying is that the Sony re-scales it to use only a 16:9 portion of the 17:9 panel (as if it were in 1.32x mode)? Is there any downside to the image/aspect ratio, other than just not using the full 4k capability of the panel?
> 
> Any idea if this is how the VW885 also handles a 16:9 signal in 1.24x mode? Anyone have experience with how the VW5000 handles?
> 
> I wonder if Sony or Oppo could put in a custom scaling from 16:9 to 17:9... avoiding need for a $6k Lumagen.


I didn't get to test the 1.24x mode as I didn't have those optics on hand on the day. The MK5 lens in the image is using 1.33x optics, so we used the 1.32x option on the SONY. 

Yes when fed BD or any source that was not UHD, not a problem. The display just locked up to full 17:9 mode as soon as it detected UHD. In retrospect, was this due to HDR flags? Given that players like OPPO can strip away this metadata, does that change anything? Not sure. This is not my gear, so I can't just go in and play. 

The OPPO was able to vertically stretch the UHD content we had on hand on the day. There was a time when it could not do this with JAVA BD, so I am not sure if OPPO has been able to FW fix this or if UHD simply doesn't use JAVA. 

OPPO has done great work recently with the introduction of Fixed and Moveable Lens options on their 203/205 UHD players.


----------



## coolrda

Added link to AB’s lens setup to front page.


----------



## coolrda

What do you guys use to clean your lens? Keep dust attraction down? 

Took some time to align my projector then the lens and found both were needed. Aligned the light path through the center of all lenses. It made a noticeable difference with uniform sharpness side to side, top to bottom. 










With HDR and WCG the thing that stands out too me is how real fire and explosions, streetlights and headlights at night look and clouds and skyscape colors during different times of day.


----------



## GetGray

coolrda said:


> What do you guys use to clean your lens? Keep dust attraction down?


My lens doesn't attract any dust. But when I do clean them I use a specific cleaner. Google "Formula MC". I use that and their wipes. Aussie bob uses pure acetone on his, which always scared me LOL. Isco recommended the Formula MC to me many years ago.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> What do you guys use to clean your lens? Keep dust attraction down?
> 
> Took some time to align my projector then the lens and found both were needed. Aligned the light path through the center of all lenses. It made a noticeable difference with uniform sharpness side to side, top to bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With HDR and WCG the thing that stands out too me is how real fire and explosions, streetlights and headlights at night look and clouds and skyscape colors during different times of day.


I've never really cleaned my lens. I've just observed it looks quite clean unless my eyes are deceiving me.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## Killroy

Has there ever been a pdf file with the installation instructions/recommendations for the ISCOs? Google has failed me to find anything.


----------



## coolrda

GetGray said:


> My lens doesn't attract any dust. But when I do clean them I use a specific cleaner. Google "Formula MC". I use that and their wipes. Aussie bob uses pure acetone on his, which always scared me LOL. Isco recommended the Formula MC to me many years ago.


Got their kit ordered. Thanks.


----------



## nonstopdoc1

Guys,

Is there a fixed mount for these lens for PJ mounted on ceiling? Also, there are several versions of Cine Digitar 1.33x lens it seems e.g. M, MF, XL - Are they just different in size? How do you choose the right one? Is there an individual PJ compatibility list for different lenses?

Thanks


----------



## ScottAvery

GetGray said:


> My lens doesn't attract any dust. But when I do clean them I use a specific cleaner. Google "Formula MC". I use that and their wipes. Aussie bob uses pure acetone on his, which always scared me LOL. Isco recommended the Formula MC to me many years ago.


Formula MC did not work for me. Streaked and smeared. dries instantly upon touching the lens, even cold, so there is no chance to use a one wipe technique.


----------



## Killroy

OMFG!!! Whoever picked up this ISCO DLP Cinema 1.25x anamorphic lens for only $2075 I HATE you so much right now!!!! Congrats!!!


----------



## CAVX

Killroy said:


> OMFG!!! Whoever picked up this ISCO DLP Cinema 1.25x anamorphic lens for only $2075 I HATE you so much right now!!!! Congrats!!!


Awesome if he has a 17:9 (true 4096 X 2160). If he does not, and is wanting to use this lens with a 16:9 (3840 X 2160), he will be disappointed. 

Still using and loving my cylindrical by the way. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Killroy

CAVX said:


> Awesome if he has a 17:9 (true 4096 X 2160). If he does not, and is wanting to use this lens with a 16:9 (3840 X 2160), he will be disappointed.
> 
> Still using and loving my cylindrical by the way.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


I really wanted it for my RS3000 but I knew that if I won the auction I would need to get a CineSlide and I could not get that expenditure past the Mrs...so I will be happy with my IIIL and just keep it at 16:9 mode.


----------



## RapalloAV

Killroy said:


> I really wanted it for my RS3000 but I knew that if I won the auction I would need to get a CineSlide and I could not get that expenditure past the Mrs...so I will be happy with my IIIL and just keep it at 16:9 mode.


 Much better idea i think! Im using a cineslide with my Isco IIIL lens and the NX9, the results are fantastic, I dont care about not using the full panel. Upscaling everything to 4K with madvr is the icing on the cake! 145" curved scope Stewart microperf Studio Tec 130 screen with automated masking the system is perfection. I will never let this lens go.


----------



## Vern Dias

Vern Dias said:


> I have had my anamorphic lens for about 6 years now. I will never need to upgrade or replace it. However, I am on my third projector, not counting 4 previous CRT projectors.
> 
> 
> Vern



CAVX then posted "Can you share some details about your lens and maybe post a photo?" 

I was reviewing this thread and only now realized I had never replied to your question. 

First of all, I have to apologize, as I have recently moved and have not had time to do more than create a functional HT in our new (and much smaller) home. Repainting is on the list of things to do.

The theatre is small, 12' wide by 13' deep. The screen is 4' 6" tall by 12' wide, measured on the chord (2.65:1).

The lenses are Isco Cinema DLP lenses with a horizontal expansion ratio of 1.5:1. The each weigh a good 25 or 30 lbs.

I picked them up in a surplus outlet in Dallas around 15 years ago. I suspect they were built for Texas Instruments when they were developing their Cinema DLP line of projectors for commercial use as they have no markings on them. 

I will refrain from mentioning a $ amount to avoid serious envy from anyone who had to pay a 4 figure amount for their lenses.

I use HTPC's for media players, primarily with J River software, MadVR, and LAV Filters. Projectors are JVC RS35 and RS57.

Aspect ratio presets include 1.77:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.40:1, 2.55:1 and 2.65:1.

I particularly enjoy 3D BD movies and wish that they had not fallen out of favor with the studios.

Again,sorry for the late reply. Better late then never, I Guess


----------



## RapalloAV

Vern Dias said:


> CAVX then posted "Can you share some details about your lens and maybe post a photo?"
> 
> I was reviewing this thread and only now realized I had never replied to your question.
> 
> First of all, I have to apologize, as I have recently moved and have not had time to do more than create a functional HT in our new (and much smaller) home. Repainting is on the list of things to do.
> 
> The theatre is small, 12' wide by 13' deep. The screen is 4' 6" tall by 12' wide, measured on the chord (2.65:1).
> 
> The lenses are Isco Cinema DLP lenses with a horizontal expansion ratio of 1.5:1. The each weigh a good 25 or 30 lbs.
> 
> I picked them up in a surplus outlet in Dallas around 15 years ago. I suspect they were built for Texas Instruments when they were developing their Cinema DLP line of projectors for commercial use as they have no markings on them.
> 
> I will refrain from mentioning a $ amount to avoid serious envy from anyone who had to pay a 4 figure amount for their lenses.
> 
> I use HTPC's for media players, primarily with J River software, MadVR, and LAV Filters. Projectors are JVC RS35 and RS57.
> 
> Aspect ratio presets include 1.77:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.40:1, 2.55:1 and 2.65:1.
> 
> I particularly enjoy 3D BD movies and wish that they had not fallen out of favor with the studios.
> 
> Again,sorry for the late reply. Better late then never, I Guess


Do these differ to a Isco IIIL Anamorphic Lens which is 1.33?


----------



## Vern Dias

RapalloAV said:


> Do these differ to a Isco IIIL Anamorphic Lens which is 1.33?



Yes, they do. They are designed for commercial cinema use and are much larger and heavier.


They will also output a final aspect ratio of 2.65:1 when used with a 16x9 projector which will require the use of a dedicated scaler or an HTPC.


Their unique advantage for use in a home theatre is the ability to output a 2.65:1 image which supports full image height of the Cinerama 2.65:1 aspect ratio without cropping the sides and also supports the Ultra Panavision 2.76:1 aspect ratio with a very minimal vertcal or horizontal crop.


Based on the small number of titles released in both these formats, I don't recommend that the typical Home theatre user concern themselves with these lenses due to the complications of a wider screen and additional complications of a HTPC scaling.


In my case, the lenses came first when I stumbled across them in an electronics surplus store in Dallas. The wider screen and the HTPC scaling were required to make use of the lenses.


Vern


----------



## RapalloAV

Vern Dias said:


> Yes, they do. They are designed for commercial cinema use and are much larger and heavier.
> 
> 
> They will also output a final aspect ratio of 2.65:1 when used with a 16x9 projector which will require the use of a dedicated scaler or an HTPC.
> 
> 
> Their unique advantage for use in a home theatre is the ability to output a 2.65:1 image which supports full image height of the Cinerama 2.65:1 aspect ratio without cropping the sides and also supports the Ultra Panavision 2.76:1 aspect ratio with a very minimal vertcal or horizontal crop.
> 
> 
> Based on the small number of titles released in both these formats, I don't recommend that the typical Home theatre user concern themselves with these lenses due to the complications of a wider screen and additional complications of a HTPC scaling.
> 
> 
> In my case, the lenses came first when I stumbled across them in an electronics surplus store in Dallas. The wider screen and the HTPC scaling were required to make use of the lenses.
> 
> 
> Vern


Yes I thought they wernt easy for the average A lens user to implement.


----------



## LeeG23

RapalloAV said:


> Yes I thought they wernt easy for the average A lens user to implement.


 "average A lens user"... now were getting really niche...


----------



## psyduck103

A little late to the party. Prismasonic HD6000,12.5 ft throw to a 142" screen. Now I can finally fill it. I watched Thunderball last night and it was like it was when I saw it at Lowes State when I was a kid. Worth every penny. Lens and sled for $1200. I had to reverse the sled so the lens did not park in front of the hot air exit on the 6050.


----------

