# Tease, new Prismasonic cylindrical lens and remote motorized sled.



## Alan Gouger

Here is a little preview of a new hi performance cylinder lens about to hit the market from a proven manufacture. Everyone will be very happy with its cost.

Nothing has been spared in the design & manufacturing of this lens. Stay tuned.


Enjoy!


----------



## HogPilot

Cool! The shape of the case seems reminiscent of Prismasonic's prism-based models, of course minus the knobs










Whoever makes it, I can't wait to read some more about it!


----------



## CRGINC

Maybe Prismasonic is going the same route as Mark Techer of CAVX?


----------



## dukeav

From the picture I literally make out its HD6000.


----------



## Aussie Bob

But does it use fluorite?


----------



## Stereodude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19279764
> 
> 
> But does it use fluorite?



We'll have to get JD on the case.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Should have titanium screws too. Absolutely essential, with rare earth coatings. I read somewhere that Canon use them.


----------



## MichaelCarey

Well, no one can argue that CIH devotees have a lack of choice when it comes to what HE lens they want to buy!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19279764
> 
> 
> But does it use fluorite?

















thats classic


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Looks a bit like a very well made welder's mask, but I guess you don't sit looking at the lens when you're watching a film.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Looks like a Prismasonic:


















Similar case and stand. Is it Alan?


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/19280851
> 
> 
> but I guess you don't sit looking at the lens when you're watching a film.



Wierdo










Gary


----------



## BladeRnR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19279764
> 
> 
> But does it use fluorite?



It uses a material called "RoyalLite". They used it to make suitcases in the 1950's. Oh and Robby The Robbot in Forbidden Planet. See? A very futuristic material indeed










Blade


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is a little preview of a new hi performance cylinder lens about to hit the market from a proven manufacture. Everyone will be very happy with its cost.
> 
> Nothing has been spared in the design & manufacturing of this lens. Stay tuned.
> 
> 
> Enjoy!



How long before released Alan?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19281153
> 
> 
> How long before released Alan?



This is coming from "Prismasonic" and while they are optimistically shooting for the holiday season I always expect these things could go out a little further. I am excited for this one for several reasons but more to come soon.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19281797
> 
> 
> This is coming from "Prismasonic" and while they are optimistically shooting for the holiday season I always expect these things could go out a little further. I am excited for this one for several reasons but more to come soon.



Looking forward to reading more about it.


----------



## SteveHorn

Nice looking lens. And a much better mount than the $8k one offered by Schneider via Dreamvision.


----------



## GetGray

That's not Schneider's mount, I can assure you.


----------



## Jedi

...judging from the two slots, it looks like another coin operated lens. Good news, only $499.95 up front; bad news 50 cents for 15 minutes stretch time.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19286270
> 
> 
> That's not Schneider's mount, I can assure you.



I agree schnieder only has two at the moment that I know of.


----------



## Ranger

Alan posted this lens at Under 3K Projector forum and based on his comments this lens should go for 3K or less. I am excited !! competition is good


----------



## Peter Nielsen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19286502
> 
> 
> I agree schnieder only has two at the moment that I know of.



Three for all I know: Kino-Linear (motorized slide mount) Kino-Torsion (motorized swivel mount), and Kino-Torsion Manual (manual swivel mount).


This is what Schneider's least expensive mount looks like:










https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecom...=1388&IID=7053


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19286270
> 
> 
> That's not Schneider's mount, I can assure you.



That pix was lifted from the Dreamvision website. See also Tom Norton's review of the Dreamvision Starlight1 w/this lens in the October 2010 Home Theater mag.


I thought it was pretty cheesy for a Schneider lens and commented as such in this post in the Cylindrical A-Lens subforum.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ranger* /forum/post/19286906
> 
> 
> Alan posted this lens at Under 3K Projector forum and based on his comments this lens should go for 3K or less.



Yeah and he also posted this in the $20K+ with the same blurb.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peter Nielsen* /forum/post/19286924
> 
> 
> Three for all I know: Kino-Linear (motorized slide mount) Kino-Torsion (motorized swivel mount), and Kino-Torsion Manual (manual swivel mount).
> 
> 
> This is what Schneider's least expensive mount looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecom...=1388&IID=7053



Didnt even know they had the manual swivel mount thanks Peter.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ranger* /forum/post/19286906
> 
> 
> Alan posted this lens at Under 3K Projector forum and based on his comments this lens should go for 3K or less. I am excited !! competition is good



If that is the price that is very cheap. Looking forward to read about it's performance.


----------



## Pete












Not sure if the URL link will work (not good at this) but if it does, here is an image of the new Schneider lens with motorized Kino Torsion that will go for $4500. I imagine when used with the manual bracket it will cost much less.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19290612
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if the URL link will work (not good at this) but if it does, here is an image of the new Schneider lens with motorized Kino Torsion that will go for $4500. I imagine when used with the manual bracket it will cost much less.



That's a very good price. Looks like there is a good choice to choose from.


We know have 4 good lenses at great prices.


Schneider EL

Primasonic ( new one )

Crystalmorphic

Cavx MK IV


----------



## GPowers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19288905
> 
> 
> If that is the price that is very cheap. Looking forward to read about it's performance.



Let's hope the price is that good?


----------



## GetGray

Price is right. Performace is yet to bee seen. If it's as good as their glass lenses, they may as well shut down the glass grinding division in Germany. Since I dont' see that as a business model for them, the question will be, how much worse is it, and how will the quaility be from lens to lens. It was introduced over a year ago and is still not in production. That begs the question why not? It can't be becasue they had problems with the mechanicals, they have those designs down pat. Only one other component could be the issue. Which concerns me.


What will be interesting is the choice between an incumbents foray into a new-for-them technology (moulded plastic lenses) vs. the other new options coming from 3 different sources (CAVX, AB, and Prismasonic) that are all ground glass. We shall see.


----------



## Pete

My eye glasses have plastic lenses and they work very well -- except when I scratch them or scuff them. As I understand it, the Schneider EL will have glass front and back with the plastic in-between. I'm sure it will have slightly less detail and contrast than their all-glass lenses, but the question is how much less. In my opinion, there's a big performance gap between a Panamorph and a standard ISCO/Schneider. I'm hoping the Schneider EL will slot in between these two...not as soft looking as a Panamorph, not as highly resolved as an all-glass ISCO/Schneider. In the absence of comparison, the Panamorph looks pretty good. I'm anticipating that the EL will look better, but we shall see.


----------



## GetGray

I wasn't aware of any glass in it, but, I agree their "target" is Panamorph (quality).


----------



## russelliht

The new Schneider lens has 10% light loss due the the plastic and glass design.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *russelliht* /forum/post/19292334
> 
> 
> The new Schneider lens has 10% light loss due the the plastic and glass design.










If that's right, I know someone who will have a big smile when they get up in a little while.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19291261
> 
> 
> Price is right. Performace is yet to bee seen.



You didn't see it?


----------



## GetGray

Hi Mark, yes I did. This year and last year. But only at the booth. Never in a critical enviroment.


----------



## russelliht

They had it on their spec sheets they were passing out at CEDIA. It shows the comparison between the lenses and that was the rating for their plastic lens.


----------



## GetGray

Very interesting. I didnt bother to pick one up. Shame on me. Still, very interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19291873
> 
> 
> My eye glasses have plastic lenses and they work very well -- except when I scratch them or scuff them. As I understand it, the Schneider EL will have glass front and back with the plastic in-between. I'm sure it will have slightly less detail and contrast than their all-glass lenses, but the question is how much less. In my opinion, there's a big performance gap between a Panamorph and a standard ISCO/Schneider. I'm hoping the Schneider EL will slot in between these two...not as soft looking as a Panamorph, not as highly resolved as an all-glass ISCO/Schneider. In the absence of comparison, the Panamorph looks pretty good. I'm anticipating that the EL will look better, but we shall see.



If you know me by now, you'd know there's a very complicated explanation for why equating plastic eyeglass lenses with plastic projection lenses isn't valid. But I'll spare you all that.


Plastic eyeglass lenses are truly woeful for projection. I tried it for kicks (cost a few bucks) several years ago. Eyeglass lenses' curvature is measured in 1/4 diopters, with +/- 0.09 diopter tolerances (by australian standards anyway), which can amount up to about a 2% tolerance on a glass curvature... utterly unacceptable for projection purposes. On a 250mm nominal focal length lens you could have bits of that were 244mm focal length and other bits that were 256mm focal length, all mixed up together on the same surface: hardly the stuff of legendary optical performance. A flat spot on a glass lens of just 0.1% difference to the rest of its surface makes that lens a reject, as you can never focus it evenly.


For projection lenses you're talking 0.25% radius tolerance all over a large lens, _as a starting point_, and consistent over the entire surface, better, if your manufacturer can manage it. You really _would_ need glasses - the kind you mail-order off the back of Superman comic books - to view a picture projected through eyeglass-quality plastic lenses. That, and the human eye has an ability to adapt to slight inconsistencies in eyeglass focal lengths and still deliver a reasonable image on the retina. There's no "adaptive" process in projection. You have to get it right first and all other times (which is why most use, and always have used, glass).


I'm not quick to naysay the new Schneider lens, because I don't have a clue under what conditions it was made. Plastic eyeglass lenses I _have_ experience with. They're fun, but useless for even half-serious viewing.


The "10%" light loss figure could have been misunderstood, or quoted out of context. I do know that some plastics are _clearer_ than glass, and are used in preference to it in some cases. They are certainly cheaper - by the thousand - but the setting up of dies and so on costs a literal fortune. So, unless Schneider are intending to make these lenses by the thousand, or at least many hundreds, I can't personally see the point. But as I said, of course I'm not at all privy to their business plan.


When you're using plastics in doublets (as I assume any decent projection lens would have to do) the problems increase, as matching indices of refraction across a large production run is often batch-dependent. Even slight variations, sometimes within a batch, can make errors more glaring at the margins.


It does seem like a retrograde step - going back to plastic - but if anyone can do it and garner OK results, I guess a big firm like Schneider can. However, glass is still the preferred option, for mine, but I _would_ say that, wouldn't I?


P.S. Japan Dave... you have zero sense of humour mate.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19291904
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of any glass in it, but, I agree their "target" is Panamorph (quality).



Panamorph quality?? I thought Panamorph was equal or even better than an ISCO/Schneider so I have been told.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/19294322
> 
> 
> Panamorph quality?? I thought Panamorph was equal or even better than an ISCO/Schneider so I have been told.



Given I was either misquoted or simply mis-understood about when I spoke to Mr.Kelly, I'll say this again. It was HIS claim, not mine that his VC was better than ISCO III. This is HIS opinion and he is entitled to that. I DO NOT agree with that as I have made prisms VCs, Prism HEs and now a HE a cylindrical lens and whist a 2 prism VC is better then a 2 prisms HE, it is not as good as what I have now. That is MY opinion BTW.


I am sure the guy at the Schnieder display said that the lens on demo (ie the one used on the projector) was their new plastic/glass combo lens EL lens. If it was, then it was impressive. I got to hold the lens out side and it was very light, yet still extremely well built.


----------



## Pete

Mark,

I don't think I've seen any reference as to the cost for your MK4. If you can't state it here, please PM me with it...thanks


----------



## CAVX

Sorry, against forum rules for me to post a price here


----------



## 230-SEAN

So, is there any new news on this? Price range, throw ratio specs (big one for me, as I currently run a rather short throw), etc?


-Sean


----------



## Kevin Snyder

Alan seemed to indicate that this new Prismasonic lens would be significant in size to accommodate the beam at lower throw ratios. Perhaps he can expound further. I suppose we'll all find out soon enough.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19332414
> 
> 
> So, is there any new news on this? Price range, throw ratio specs (big one for me, as I currently run a rather short throw), etc?
> 
> 
> -Sean



The lens has variable focus, it will accommodate and be able to be dialed in for different throw distance just like the Isco or Schneider.

I will have more info as Prismasonic gets closer to launch. I also posted this in the


----------



## dukeav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19334320
> 
> 
> I also posted this in the


----------



## Taz1

Waiting for the latest news.


----------



## Vao

So the price will be more like a few thousand then a few hundred?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vao* /forum/post/19358681
> 
> 
> So the price will be more like a few thousand then a few hundred?



That's the ballpark. Considering others are 10 grand range...depending on the final price, it should be in the price range of the well reviewed prism lens.


----------



## W00lly

Man I would love to see a powerbuy on these when they do release







as I want one


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *W00lly* /forum/post/19423196
> 
> 
> Man I would love to see a powerbuy on these when they do release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I want one



That would be cool, I'm stil interested in the specs. Any idea on a time frame for this lens? I'm gonna upgrade the PJ here in the next few months and would like to move on from my DIY Prism lens.


-Sean


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19431895
> 
> 
> I'm gonna upgrade the PJ here in the next few months and would like to move on from my DIY Prism lens.



The best move you will make. You'll live the clarity of a cylindrical lens


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19431995
> 
> 
> The best move you will make. You'll live the clarity of a cylindrical lens



I know I will Mark! I just have to find a lens that will work with my TR and work with my bank account, lol.


-Sean


----------



## 230-SEAN

Sorry to double post, but after having looked at the rendering next to the pic of the H5000R, the case appears to be the same size. Does that mean that the TR would be limited to the same TR specs found on the H5000? Or not since this new lens ins't prism based, there for offering a larger area for the light beam to pass through?


-Sean


----------



## Franin

This will be the lens that will have many interested especially due to price.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19432343
> 
> 
> Sorry to double post, but after having looked at the rendering next to the pic of the H5000R, the case appears to be the same size. Does that mean that the TR would be limited to the same TR specs found on the H5000? Or not since this new lens ins't prism based, there for offering a larger area for the light beam to pass through?
> 
> 
> -Sean



No, it should be much more flexible because the glass looks to fill the full width of the case, where the prisms had to fit inside the case (with room for rotation), so were much smaller.


----------



## oztheatre

Even though the glass is wider allowing a closer throw, you really should be opting to get the PJ back as far as you can so your pin cushion is not an issue.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *oztheatre* 
Even though the glass is wider allowing a closer throw, you really should be opting to get the PJ back as far as you can so your pin cushion is not an issue.
Have to agree there ever since I moved my projector back, what a difference


----------



## 230-SEAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by *oztheatre* 
Even though the glass is wider allowing a closer throw, you really should be opting to get the PJ back as far as you can so your pin cushion is not an issue.
I totally understand this, but my current apartment only allows a TR of 1.5 at best with the new JVC PJ's, so I am on a hunt for the perfect lens (meaning a lens that will work with the JVC at a 1.5 TR). I guess I could just go with a different PJ that isn't as deep as the JVC, but then I would be giving up PQ on all aspect ratios.


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

Prismasonic hopes for a delivery in time for the holiday season but that could go

a little beyond into January. I hope to have an evaluation piece in a few weeks.

This lens will offer a very large aperture beyond the Isco 3.


Also to follow targeting "first qtr" a motorized 'sled' system. Very

compact and attractive, something we have not yet seen. There will be a

motorized focusing option as well which will use the same remote and power

plug as the 'sled' system. Both the sled and remote focus option will be aggressively priced. Prismasonic has been busy









US customers will be able to order and purchase through AVS!!!


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19519264
> 
> 
> Prismasonic hopes for a delivery in time for the holiday season but that could go
> 
> a little beyond into January. I hope to have an evaluation piece in a few weeks.
> 
> This lens will offer a very large aperture beyond the Isco 3.
> 
> 
> Also to follow targeting "first qtr" a motorized 'sled' system. Very
> 
> compact and attractive, something we have not yet seen. There will be a
> 
> motorized focusing option as well which will use the same remote and power
> 
> plug as the 'sled' system. Both the sled and remote focus option will be aggressively priced. Prismasonic has been busy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US customers will be able to order and purchase through AVS!!!



This is the best news I've read in a while! Of course I still haven't seen the prices, but hopefully this is gonna be awesome!


-Sean


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19519264
> 
> 
> There will be a
> 
> motorized focusing option as well which will use the same remote and power
> 
> plug as the 'sled' system. Both the sled and remote focus option will be aggressively priced. Prismasonic has been busy



Sorry, why would anyone want a "remote focusing system" on a cylindrical lens?


Once set, it is usually does not have to be re-done unless your changing your TR. Looking at the image of the lens, it appears to use the same thread adjusted action I use in the Aussiemorphic MK4 (threaded adjuster turned by allen key). So, given the fact that the difference between perfect focus and just out can be less then 1/8 of a turn, I do have to question their logic here.


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19520847
> 
> 
> Sorry, why would anyone want a "remote focusing system" on a cylindrical lens?
> 
> 
> Once set, it is usually does not have to be re-done unless your changing your TR. Looking at the image of the lens, it appears to use the same thread adjusted action I use in the Aussiemorphic MK4 (threaded adjuster turned by allen key). So, given the fact that the difference between perfect focus and just out can be less then 1/8 of a turn, I do have to question their logic here.



Maybe some people with a ceiling mounted setup would rather focus by remote rather than climb up and down a step ladder (after they remember where they put their allen key).


Besides, if you don't want the remote focusing system, then don't buy it.


I don't see the problem here. You're talking like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Highjinx

One can stand closer to the screen and focus with better results due to better visibility than standing at the projector.........and heck don't us boys love our toys.....a push button soultion, nice!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kilgore* /forum/post/19521691
> 
> 
> You're talking like it's a bad thing.



All I am saying is that the astigmatism adjustment of an anamorphic lens is not the sort of thing you'd play with on a daily basis like you might do with the projectors focus.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19520847
> 
> 
> Sorry, why would anyone want a "remote focusing system" on a cylindrical lens?
> 
> 
> Once set, it is usually does not have to be re-done unless your changing your TR. Looking at the image of the lens, it appears to use the same thread adjusted action I use in the Aussiemorphic MK4 (threaded adjuster turned by allen key). So, given the fact that the difference between perfect focus and just out can be less then 1/8 of a turn, I do have to question their logic here.



Depends on the amount of teeth in the focusing system. I think it's a great idea for reasons kilgore and HJ have just mentioned. Not sure people would muck around with projector focus either once setup, but that hasn't stopped the likes of JVC, Mitsubishi, Panasonic and a host of others implementing motorized focus, zoom and lens shift. Those using Constant image area would benefit from this and those showcasing such projectors for clients and displaying various screen sizes would also benefit. I use my JVC focus, zoom and lens shift almost every time I do a demo. Having used manual versions I would never go back. Motorized is much better. Besides all that, it is there for those who want it, it's an add on option anyway.


What I would like to see on PJ's is a 1 to 100 scale so one knows exactly where the focus was or should be (like sharpness etc), rather than having to use your eye right up next to the screen each time.. this would not cost much to implement. Still it beats the hell out of manual methods used on cheaper models whether it's used daily, weekly or monthly.


So good on your prismasonic and Alan for bringing a 4 element cylindrical lens into the market at price point never seen before.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19522199
> 
> 
> So good on your prismasonic and Alan for bringing a 4 element cylindrical lens into the market at price point never seen before.



Is the said $3kUSD confirmed yet or are people still assuming $3K because it was posted in the under $3K projector forum? If so, it was also posted in the $20K+ section, and we all know it is not going to cost anywhere near that.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19522239
> 
> 
> Is the said $3kUSD confirmed yet or are people still assuming $3K because it was posted in the under $3K projector forum? If so, it was also posted in the $20K+ section, and we all know it is not going to cost anywhere near that.



I'm sure Alan will confirm when he's ready. I have heard 3K from a few sources now. Even at 3.5K it's only 15% more and still a great price for the size that it is.


It's Alan's forum after all, he can post it wherever he chooses.


Aggressive pricing seems to be the idea so I imagine Alan would be buying more than 10 at a time to enable great pricing....


Looks like the competition is heating up either way.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Hello everyone. I understand the speculation during silent passages waiting for final product launch. I can share what has been passed down to me. Consider the following tentative and while things could change pricing should be close to the following at worse.

At launch we will offer the lens at a sale price under $2900. We will try to keep the everyday price at 3.5 to 4k there about.

The target price for the remote motorized sled if all goes well will be at an everyday price of $900. Add motorized focus for $400.


I should have a worthwhile update in a few weeks.


Thanks everyone.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19522803
> 
> 
> At launch we will offer the lens at a sale price under $2900. We will try to keep the everyday price at 3k or there about.
> 
> The target price for the remote motorized sled if all goes well will be at an everyday price of $900. Add motorized focus for $400.
> 
> 
> I should have a worthwhile update in a few weeks.
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone.



Wow! Alan, are you planning a review or at least some test measurements before these are generally available?


Also, I'd love some info on the sled control: IR, trigger, RS232, .. As I understand the automated prisim lens from Prismasonic that use IR require a continuous IR signal until the stop postion is reached which is a little harder to automate than a simple trigger.


Thanks.


----------



## 230-SEAN

These prices sound awesome! Now I just have to wait on TR numbers and hope for the best, but you said its bigger than the Isco III, would that be the "L" model? If so, this bad boy has a good chance of sitting in front of my PJ someday soon!


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/19523445
> 
> 
> Wow! Alan, are you planning a review or at least some test measurements before these are generally available?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I hope to. Remember I am not an optical engineer I can only compare vissually ( will take pictures ) to the Isco 3 using common test patterns targeting chroma aberration, contrast, brightness etc.


----------



## W00lly

Can't wait to see the reviews


----------



## WilsonL

can't wait to see what this lens will do.


----------



## Spizz

Any update?


Any photos of the sled?


----------



## 230-SEAN

Will this be out before Christmas?


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

Will share an update soon. Thanks for the interest.


----------



## Pete

Has anyone seen a review or a working sample of the Schneider EL yet? I'm wondering how it might compare.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19614672
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen a review or a working sample of the Schneider EL yet? I'm wondering how it might compare.



I believe it was on show at Schneider's stand at CEDIA. The unit seems well built and was very light due to the plastic lenses.


----------



## madshi

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
The unit seems well built and was very light due to the plastic lenses.
Being well built and very light are two nice attributes, which however don't say anything at all about image quality.


----------



## Pete

It seems unlikely that Schneider would produce or release anything that wasn't worthy. I'm just curious to see how it compares with other options in its general price range.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> t seems unlikely that Schneider would produce or release anything that wasn't worthy.



Which makes you wonder why it isn't released yet, doesn't it?


The slightest imperfection in the fabrication of a projection lens causes grief on-screen. If these molded plastic lenses are as big as you'd think they'd have to be, the potential for grief escalates. I bet this plastic lens wasn't actually being used at CEDIA for demos.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/19618753
> 
> 
> Being well built and very light are two nice attributes, which however don't say anything at all about image quality.



I don't know 100% if it was the EL lens on show or not. The lens on show produced an extremely sharp image. If it was the EL, then buyers of this lens would be very happy with their purchase.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19619659
> 
> 
> It seems unlikely that Schneider would produce or release anything that wasn't worthy. I'm just curious to see how it compares with other options in its general price range.



The only lens in its 'price range' will be the lens this thread is about. Everything else is well above that in cost.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19621582
> 
> 
> Which makes you wonder why it isn't released yet, doesn't it?



Does indeed...about both actually.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Pete*
Has anyone seen a review or a working sample of the Schneider EL yet? I'm wondering how it might compare.
I'm interested to read it's review when it's released also.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Will have an update with pictures in a few days.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19669334
> 
> 
> Will have an update with pictures in a few days.



Now I'm getting excited!


-Sean


----------



## schlitzie

Me too -- I want to compare this versus the Aussie Bob lens that also looks very interesting... Big changes are coming to my theater as I seriously consider changing from 16 X 9 to cinemascope - I've learned enough at this point to do it the right way, one time, instead of trying to economize and trade up in a short time.


----------



## W00lly

Me too


----------



## Franin

Can't wait to see the pics!! If the price is right we will end up having more scope members.


----------



## Gotchaa

While this lens is not out yet, is it suppose to be in the same class as a Panamorph lens or better? I understand the Isco's are considered one of the best...


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> While this lens is not out yet, is it suppose to be in the same class as a Panamorph lens or better? I understand the Isco's are considered one of the best...



I guess if you require the size, than yes.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/19705533
> 
> 
> While this lens is not out yet, is it suppose to be in the same class as a Panamorph lens or better? I understand the Isco's are considered one of the best...



I would say no...panamorph lens are prism vs the "new" prismasonic is cylindrical design. Historically, both have produced prism lens and would be classified as similar in class. In practice and theory, the cylindrical design should be superior to the prism design.


----------



## 230-SEAN

It is a cylindrical lens, so it will be better than the Panamorph (as it is prisms) and should be a strong contender with the Isco. Also, the best thing about it is that it is larger than the Isco and should be able to accommodate short throws including PJs with recessed lenses, a feature I am very excited about.


-Sean


----------



## W00lly

I'm getting giddy I want to see it


----------



## schlitzie

Anybody remember Dwin?


Two Weeks!


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19705842
> 
> 
> It is a cylindrical lens, so it will be better than the Panamorph (as it is prisms) and should be a strong contender with the Isco. Also, the best thing about it is that it is larger than the Isco and should be able to accommodate short throws including PJs with recessed lenses, a feature I am very excited about.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Wow this is really good news seeing how I am just putting my first FPS together, I guess my timing is good. I would be putting an RS50 at about 12ft distance hanging from about 9ft high, I was planning on a 9ft wide screen but concerned I need to move the PJ back as the A-lens would not be able to handle the short throw, if this new lens can do that, and the price is what we're hearing then it sounds like a great option.


When viewing a calibrated RS50 I did notice a drop in brightness/contrast when a Panamorph lens was used, I am wondering if we should expect the same with this type of lens. If this price is a breakthrough for this class of lens, I am assuming there is going to be some takeoff's...


----------



## 230-SEAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* 
When viewing a calibrated RS50 I did notice a drop in brightness/contrast when a Panamorph lens was used, I am wondering if we should expect the same with this type of lens. If this price is a breakthrough for this class of lens, I am assuming there is going to be some takeoff's...
I don't have first hand experience with a cylindrical lens, but from what I've heard they have far less picture degradation than a prism lens. You apparently can expect a cylindrical lens to look "invisible", as in you shouldn't be able to tell that you just put the lens in front of the PJ as far as picture quality is concerned (obviously you'll see that the image is now a new aspect ratio, but with little to no side effects).


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *schlitzie* 
Anybody remember Dwin?


Two Weeks!
Is that where that started









Expect a nice update with pictures on Monday. Using the holiday as an excuse to stay away from work.

Regards!!


----------



## schlitzie

Yep -- goes back a long time...


Looking forward to the upcoming info!


----------



## mark haflich

Actually the Dwin line was TWO MORE WEEKS.


----------



## Tom Bley

Pics & info yet?


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19709001
> 
> 
> Is that where that started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expect a nice update with pictures on Monday. Using the holiday as an excuse to stay away from work.
> 
> Regards!!



It is Monday Alan, where is the update????? Lol, I have lens money burning a hole in my pocket! (and bank account) Between, hopefully this lens, the RS40, and the BDP-93 I'm going to be broke by the end of January, ahaha.


-Sean


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I don't have first hand experience with a cylindrical lens, but from what I've heard they have far less picture degradation than a prism lens.



A cylindrical is just like any other lens. If it's well made and designed you can expect to see improvements over prisms.



> Quote:
> You apparently can expect a cylindrical lens to look "invisible", as in you shouldn't be able to tell that you just put the lens in front of the PJ as far as picture quality is concerned (obviously you'll see that the image is now a new aspect ratio, but with little to no side effects).



Some things to look for are:


* *Contrast performance (CR)*: ON/OFF and ANSI varieties.


* *Stray light performance*: how much non-image light is passed through the lens onto the screen? (related to CR)


* *Sharpness*: edge-to-edge and top to bottom.


* *Ghosting*: (or rather, lack of it).


* *Distortion*: how evenly the image is expanded (should be as close as possible to 1.33 across the screen).


* *Brightness*: how much light is lost in transmission through the lens (this is somewhat dependent on distortion performance and should be measured after distortion is evaluated),


* *Low Color Aberration (CA)*: again, edge to edge and top to bottom.


* *Focus range* - minimum throw to maximum throw.


* *Orthogonality*: how closely the individual lenses in the device are lined up to the optical axis (lenses straight from a factory are rarely perfect in this regard and the final assembly must have been calibrated before shipping)


* *Stand functionality*: does the stand design allow independent free movement up and down, left and right, tilt and yaw as well as (very important during installation) rotation of the lens?


* *Beam capacity*: how wide a beam can the lens accommodate?



All of these are measureable/observable and verifiable. In a real test "Wow! It looks great!" is not enough.


Note: Pincushion distortion is the odd man out here. Although many think otherwise, pincushion is about the same on every lens.


----------



## schlitzie

"Pincushion distortion is the odd man out here. Although many think otherwise, pincushion is about the same on every lens."


So, given the choice, would you recommend a curved screen or a flat screen with an anamorphic? And specifically, yours?


----------



## schlitzie

"...pincushion is about the same on every lens."


OOPS - Just re-read that -- I guess the same recommendation goes for all then! So curved or flat?


----------



## Alan Gouger

Hello everyone here is the promissed update .


Below are some product details pertaining the new lens and mount. Prismasonic is hoping for delivery is March. That could change ether way.

We will offer a one time pre order special soon for any of the combination's below. The motorized sled might be slightly delayed and will follow the delivery of the Lens but this could also change for the better.

Will post pre order information in two more weeks







( just kidding on the 2 weeks ) next week.

The lens is available with or without motorized Focus. The mount is centered balanced

with contemporary styling. The following will be available as a combo or separate.

The sled is not needed with current Prismasonic lens and will not fit as the new lens is larger with a larger entrance then the Isco3 and the current lens design does not require it be removed from the projectors optical path as it changes ratios while in place however the new universal mount will work with all Prismasonic lens.

Below are some details.


The following are the new product offerings from Prismasonic


HD-6000F: (table stand + manual focus):

HD-6000FX: (table stand + motorized focus):

HD-6000R: (motorized lift stand + manual focus):

HD-6000RX: (motorized lift stand + motorized focus):

CB-500: (Universal ceiling mount):



Common lens details.

-------------------

- Very large aperture 4-element optics, which allows throw ratios down to 1.25

- Continuous focus correction for throw distances down to 1.5 meters

- Focus does not change when removing the lens

- Chromatic aberration correction

- Multilayer AR-coatings


"HD-6000F" is the stand along lens.

--------

- Comes with a Cineslide compatible table stand

- Focus adjusting is done manually from front with L-wrench

- Upgradeable to HD-6000FX, HD-6000R and HD-6000RX models


HD-6000FX

--------

- Comes with a Cineslide compatible table stand

- The focus control is motorized and adjusted by the remote controller

- Upgradeable to HD-6000R and HD-6000RX models


HD-6000R

------------

- Comes with a table stand, which has a motorized, remote controlled lift mechanism

- Focus adjusting is done manually from front with L-wrench

- Can be ceiling mounted with CB-500

-'pass' position never covers the exhaust fan of projector

- Switching the mode does not change the center of the gravity point, thus allowing better the 'one pipe' ceiling mounting

- Upgradeable to HD-6000RX model


HD-6000RX

------------

- Comes with a table stand, which has a motorized remote controlled lift mechanism

- The focus control is motorized and adjusted by the remote controller

- The same remote controller and power plug goes for both motorized focus and lift mechanisms

- Can be ceiling mounted with the CB-500

-'pass' position never covers the exhaust fan of projector

- Switching the mode does not change the center of the gravity point, thus allowing better the one pipe ceiling mount concept


Universal ceiling mount CB-500

--------------------------------


- extremely sturdy custom made construction to ceiling mount all Prismasonic lens models with almost all projectors in market

- allows also projectors with asymmetric optics location

- allows ceiling to be slanted up to 45 degrees to any direction

- fine tilt of setup to both directions by using the L-wrench

- all cables can be routed inside the pipe

- the ceiling box can have up to 3 electrical outlets inside.

- cables can be routed from ceiling box to any direction or through the ceiling

- the pipe length is tailored to customer needs (up to 1 meter drop)


Here are a few pictures:


----------



## schlitzie

Uh oh - so the lens shifts up/down? That will be a problem for those of us with a low ceiling having to accommodate the range...


Oy, there's always one in the crowd, isn't there?


----------



## Alan Gouger

I will get more information lets see if the sled can also go down instead of up.


----------



## mark haflich

It looks like you could just mount the mechanism upside down. Also a possibility would be to reverse the end plates if needed.


----------



## David Susilo

can someone please educate me:


if a complex multi-lensed Flourite material lenses with multiple mechanical parts can be sold for less than $3,000 (say my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS), why can't an anamorphic lens be sold for less than, say, $500?


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schlitzie* /forum/post/19716067
> 
> 
> "...pincushion is about the same on every lens."
> 
> 
> OOPS - Just re-read that -- I guess the same recommendation goes for all then! So curved or flat?



Personally I have no preference either way. Both have their problems.


Let me just say a curved screen can actually ADD to distortion if the projector is off-axis (e.g. roof mounted too high, or offset to one side). Then there's the problem of barrel distortion of the 16:9 image.


A flat screen, at reasonable throw ratios, has only small pincushion (can be less than 1% of the screen height, which is hardly noticeable at all). A flat screen is cheaper and easier to manage.


The decision is really one of how "finicky" you want to be.


*************************


On topic... how do you adjust roll on the Prismasonic lens? It doesn't seem to have a rotate mechanism. Tilt, yes. Vertical offset, yes. Rotate... can't see how.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> can someone please educate me:
> 
> 
> if a complex multi-lensed Flourite material lenses with multiple mechanical parts can be sold for less than $3,000 (say my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS), why can't an anamorphic lens be sold for less than, say, $500?



Simple answers, more or less in order of priority:

*1. Economies of Scale*

They make tens of thousands of camera lenses, even the high-falutin' ones. At best only a few hundreds, maybe a couple of thousands of anamorphic lenses are made in any model.

*2. Size Matters*

Anamorphic lenses utilise truly huge, expensive optics and these optics are cylindrically ground and polished. This means:


(a) use of special cylindrical lens machines (completely different to spherical grinding machines which are used to make ordinary camera lenses), and


(b) their size implies many, many extra hours of grinding and polishing (we're talking DAYS, not hours, on a machine).


(c) Doublets have to be put together to excruciatingly high standards in order to align their optical axes, unlike spherical doublets, where there is no such thing as "off-axis" rotation.


All this adds up to expense, like up to thirty times more expensive for the bigger lenses.

*3. Loss Leaders*

Camera lenses are usually integrated into a range of not only lenses, but also camera bodies and other accessories. You don't buy a lens. You buy a _system_ that you may one day be able to afford to upgrade. Prestige lenses can afford to make a financial loss on the actual lens itself, as long as their very existence as a possibility one day to purchase entices the average camera buff to perservere with the _system_.


----------



## David Susilo

thanks for the education... although I have to disagree with point 3 (loss leaders). I don't think any company's f/2.8 lens (in 90% of the case, you can't go higher end than f/2.8 zoom lens - there is nowhere else to upgrade) can be considered as loss-leaders. Because if so, where are they going to make the money other than accessories (such as batteries etc) because I know for a fact that camera bodies are their loss leaders.


The most expensive Canon I've used was "only" about $10k (at the time) and it was hand made and had to be pre-ordered (less than 1,000 produced in the world, AFAIK)


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19715411
> 
> 
> It is Monday Alan, where is the update????? Lol, I have lens money burning a hole in my pocket! (and bank account) Between, hopefully this lens, the RS40, and the BDP-93 I'm going to be broke by the end of January, ahaha.
> 
> 
> -Sean



At least you have a screen


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/19716744
> 
> 
> thanks for the education... although I have to disagree with point 3 (loss leaders). I don't think any company's f/2.8 lens (in 90% of the case, you can't go higher end than f/2.8 zoom lens - there is nowhere else to upgrade) can be considered as loss-leaders. Because if so, where are they going to make the money other than accessories (such as batteries etc) because I know for a fact that camera bodies are their loss leaders.
> 
> 
> The most expensive Canon I've used was "only" about $10k (at the time) and it was hand made and had to be pre-ordered (less than 1,000 produced in the world, AFAIK)



Those opinions are just that... my opinions. I bow to your superior knowledge of camera economics. Makes sense too, kinda like printer manufacturers make all their money from the ink and/or replacement drums.


************************


Incidentally, are these actual photographs or are they 3D renders? There is no text on the Panasonic lens ring and no trademarking that I can see. Also, utterly blemish-free casing with no reflections at all.


Just askin....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19716625
> 
> 
> 
> On topic... how do you adjust roll on the Prismasonic lens? It doesn't seem to have a rotate mechanism. Tilt, yes. Vertical offset, yes. Rotate... can't see how.



They probably consider it a non issue if the projector and screen are set up level to start with. I've never had to roll adjust the MK4 in my system - height, tilt and yaw only.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19716181
> 
> 
> I will get more information lets see if the sled can also go down instead of up.



Measurements for the disengaged (either above or below the projector plane) would be helpful for us with vertically challenged projector mount locations. It looks to be approx. the height of the lens itself (not including the ceiling mount hardware) but since we don't know what that is....


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> They probably consider it a non issue if the projector and screen are set up level to start with. I've never had to roll adjust the MK4 in my system - height, tilt and yaw only.



Ah, but there's the issue. Even a cumulative 1/4 of a degree out in the combined mounting of screen, A-lens and projector works out to one side of the image being 1/2 an inch higher than the other in a 120" screen width.


For an 1/8th of a degree make that a quarter-inch image tilt.


Are all installations so precise?


----------



## sarkleshark

Is the lens sealed from dust?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19717117
> 
> 
> Are all installations so precise?



No.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19717117
> 
> 
> Ah, but there's the issue. Even a cumulative 1/4 of a degree out in the combined mounting of screen, A-lens and projector works out to one side of the image being 1/2 an inch higher than the other in a 120" screen width.



I'm not sure what they have done with their plate, mine has threaded holes for jacking screws should that ever be an issue.


----------



## Moggie

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* 
I will get more information lets see if the sled can also go down instead of up.
Alan, I'd also like a little more info on the remote control options of the sled. IR, RS232, trigger, etc.


Also, does the sled require the CB-500 ceiling mount or can it be configured with an existing Chief ceiling projector mount.


Thanks.


----------



## Kevin Snyder

Looks great from the outside!!


I really like this product if for no other reason than the single mounting apparatus as well as the vertical motion of the motorized lens.


My projector is 1.5ft from the ceiling, and a single mount extending that far will look far less intrusive than 3 mounting legs (projector and 2 for the lens)


Can't wait for more info!!


Kevin


----------



## 230-SEAN

Looks great! I am interested in the yaw as well, but its deffinately gonna find a home at my place!


-Sean


----------



## 141Kuro9g4me

Has there been tentative pricing set of the four different models as of this time? I am waving the big adult ADD flag on this one, because my attention span is all but non-existent. I have scoured this post many times and have only been able to see very minor speculation. I recall something being stated that it was thought that the base lens would fall into the sub $3,000 range. Since all four model numbers and their given configuration is known, I was in hopes of trying to get a feel for pricing once they are released. I know it's stated (and I suppose somewhat expected) that there will be a pre-order, or AVS member discount that will be applied. That is all wonderful, but I don't want to keep my JVC living in it's box, waiting for a lens that I won't be able to buy anyway if it comes in a higher price than originally anticipated. I have been in want and need for an anamorphic lens and a 2.35:1 screen in the 110-120" diagonal range for quite some time. I have not had much luck on either item so far. I have to really make the dollars stretch right now, as I have been off from work since before Thanksgiving. I just hate to try to cut corners and buy an inexpensive 16:9 screen, only to realize in 3 months I should have been more patient.


Also, is the ceiling mount that they are illustrating with the pics of the lens an actual design of mount that is currently in production? That is another item I will need to buy, but not really ready for it until I figure out a screen and/or lens. What I have seen though doesn't remotely resemble that mount, which is very industrial looking, but yet with a contemporary flair. It also looks exceptionally sturdy and would prevent as much vibration as possible. This will be of the utmost importance to me, due to living less than a mile from a multi-million dollar computerized tank range at Ft. Knox. When they are firing off those rounds, it will literally move the pictures on the walls, and rattle anything that isn't welded down. In fact, it transmits enough vibration to cause stress cracks in the drywall. Suffice it to say that I don't want to projector jiggling around like Aunt Martha's Jell-O mold!


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> It also looks exceptionally sturdy and would prevent as much vibration as possible. This will be of the utmost importance to me, due to *living less than a mile from a multi-million dollar computerized tank range at Ft. Knox. When they are firing off those rounds, it will literally move the pictures on the walls, and rattle anything that isn't welded down.*



I was going to comment that it seemed to be "built like a tank", but I thought that sounded facetious.


However, as always, truth is stranger than fiction.


Is this the first ever lens that will need to withstand artillery fire?


Which begs the question: is it radiation proof as well?

_(am naturally asking this on behalf of our Nevada forum members)._


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19722967
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the first ever lens that will need to withstand artillery fire?



Does the SACD of Telarc's 1812 with 'DSD Cannons' count? When played loud, it shakes pictures in the room next to my cinema. And the MK4 didn't go out of alignment either


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19716069
> 
> 
> Hello everyone here is the promissed update .
> 
> 
> Below are some product details pertaining the new lens and mount. Prismasonic is hoping for delivery is March. That could change ether way.
> 
> We will offer a one time pre order special soon for any of the combination's below. The motorized sled might be slightly delayed and will follow the delivery of the Lens but this could also change for the better.
> 
> Will post pre order information in two more weeks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( just kidding on the 2 weeks ) next week.
> 
> The lens is available with or without motorized Focus. The mount is centered balanced
> 
> with contemporary styling. The following will be available as a combo or separate.
> 
> The sled is not needed with current Prismasonic lens and will not fit as the new lens is larger with a larger entrance then the Isco3 and the current lens design does not require it be removed from the projectors optical path as it changes ratios while in place however the new universal mount will work with all Prismasonic lens.
> 
> Below are some details.
> 
> 
> The following are the new product offerings from Prismasonic
> 
> 
> HD-6000F: (table stand + manual focus):
> 
> HD-6000FX: (table stand + motorized focus):
> 
> HD-6000R: (motorized lift stand + manual focus):
> 
> HD-6000RX: (motorized lift stand + motorized focus):
> 
> CB-500: (Universal ceiling mount):
> 
> 
> 
> Common lens details.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> - Very large aperture 4-element optics, which allows throw ratios down to 1.25
> 
> - Continuous focus correction for throw distances down to 1.5 meters
> 
> - Focus does not change when removing the lens
> 
> - Chromatic aberration correction
> 
> - Multilayer AR-coatings
> 
> 
> "HD-6000F" is the stand along lens.
> 
> --------
> 
> - Comes with a Cineslide compatible table stand
> 
> - Focus adjusting is done manually from front with L-wrench
> 
> - Upgradeable to HD-6000FX, HD-6000R and HD-6000RX models
> 
> 
> HD-6000FX
> 
> --------
> 
> - Comes with a Cineslide compatible table stand
> 
> - The focus control is motorized and adjusted by the remote controller
> 
> - Upgradeable to HD-6000R and HD-6000RX models
> 
> 
> HD-6000R
> 
> ------------
> 
> - Comes with a table stand, which has a motorized, remote controlled lift mechanism
> 
> - Focus adjusting is done manually from front with L-wrench
> 
> - Can be ceiling mounted with CB-500
> 
> -'pass' position never covers the exhaust fan of projector
> 
> - Switching the mode does not change the center of the gravity point, thus allowing better the 'one pipe' ceiling mounting
> 
> - Upgradeable to HD-6000RX model
> 
> 
> HD-6000RX
> 
> ------------
> 
> - Comes with a table stand, which has a motorized remote controlled lift mechanism
> 
> - The focus control is motorized and adjusted by the remote controller
> 
> - The same remote controller and power plug goes for both motorized focus and lift mechanisms
> 
> - Can be ceiling mounted with the CB-500
> 
> -'pass' position never covers the exhaust fan of projector
> 
> - Switching the mode does not change the center of the gravity point, thus allowing better the one pipe ceiling mount concept
> 
> 
> Universal ceiling mount CB-500
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> 
> - extremely sturdy custom made construction to ceiling mount all Prismasonic lens models with almost all projectors in market
> 
> - allows also projectors with asymmetric optics location
> 
> - allows ceiling to be slanted up to 45 degrees to any direction
> 
> - fine tilt of setup to both directions by using the L-wrench
> 
> - all cables can be routed inside the pipe
> 
> - the ceiling box can have up to 3 electrical outlets inside.
> 
> - cables can be routed from ceiling box to any direction or through the ceiling
> 
> - the pipe length is tailored to customer needs (up to 1 meter drop)
> 
> 
> Here are a few pictures:



Fantastic guys, well done.


----------



## Spizz

Very nice. Now we just have to wait for the reviews.


----------



## madshi

@GetGray, do you plan to compare this one to the Isco IIIL, too?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spizz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Very nice. Now we just have to wait for the reviews.



Apart from size and shape I believe this will equal to all other lenses out there in quality.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schlitzie* /forum/post/19716131
> 
> 
> Uh oh - so the lens shifts up/down? That will be a problem for those of us with a low ceiling having to accommodate the range...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19716181
> 
> 
> I will get more information lets see if the sled can also go down instead of up.



We can relax I confirmed the sled can be mounted so it drops down. There is a rail extension kit for this. Being able to mount the sled to go in ether direction makes it very flexible.


----------



## schlitzie

Well not really... A low ceiling is a low ceiling; doesn't really matter much if someone clocks themselves in the head with the lens or the bottom of the projector... Is there an option to have the lens slide sideways?

While it looks like a great unit it just might not work for certain applications of course... Any idea when substantive details will be released?


----------



## RedTopDown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19716069
> 
> 
> Universal ceiling mount CB-500
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> 
> - extremely sturdy custom made construction to ceiling mount all Prismasonic lens models with almost all projectors in market
> 
> - allows also projectors with asymmetric optics location
> 
> - allows ceiling to be slanted up to 45 degrees to any direction
> 
> - fine tilt of setup to both directions by using the L-wrench
> 
> - all cables can be routed inside the pipe
> 
> - the ceiling box can have up to 3 electrical outlets inside.
> 
> - cables can be routed from ceiling box to any direction or through the ceiling
> 
> - the pipe length is tailored to customer needs (up to 1 meter drop)



Alan,


Just to confirm, is the CB-500 is a ceiling mount that mounts the projector as well as the lens? I think that's what the description is saying, but just wanted to make sure since the mount looks customized to the projector in the pictures you posted.


Thanks!


Steve


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *schlitzie* /forum/post/19726637
> 
> 
> Well not really... A low ceiling is a low ceiling; doesn't really matter much if someone clocks themselves in the head with the lens or the bottom of the projector... Is there an option to have the lens slide sideways?
> 
> While it looks like a great unit it just might not work for certain applications of course... Any idea when substantive details will be released?



If your ceilings are lower then then the standard 8 feet the stand is also ready for the Cineslide


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedTopDown* /forum/post/19726814
> 
> 
> Alan,
> 
> 
> Just to confirm, is the CB-500 is a ceiling mount that mounts the projector as well as the lens? I think that's what the description is saying, but just wanted to make sure since the mount looks customized to the projector in the pictures you posted.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Steve



Hi Steve yes that is correct and the mount is a heavy duty universal mount. More info soon.


----------



## RedTopDown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Steve yes that is correct and the mount is a heavy duty universal mount. More info soon.



Great! Looks like a wonderful setup. Looking forward to the updates!


----------



## emf

*Thanks for photos of mount, elevator, A-adapter*


Matte black products together present a techno-industial kind of elegance. Prismasonic products seem to go well with Panasonic 4000.


----------



## Alan Gouger

*Product is now listed in our store. Click here .


For those interested click on the "put me on the waiting list" to receive the one time special discount pricing. There are no commitments or obligations. You will be notified once Prismasonic gets closer to shipping sometime first qtr 2011. The discount is offered on all combos covering the Sled as well as the motorized or manual focus lens.

There will be a review posted before shipping with detailed pictures and measurements.


Stay tuned.


Happy 2011.*


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19779025
> 
> *Product is now listed in our store. Click here .
> 
> 
> For those interested click on the "put me on the waiting list" to receive the one time special discount pricing. There are no commitments or obligations. You will be notified once Prismasonic gets closer to shipping sometime first qtr 2011. The discount is offered on all combos covering the Sled as well as the motorized or manual focus lens.
> 
> There will be a review posted before shipping with detailed pictures and measurements.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> 
> Happy 2011.*



Badass


-Sean


----------



## fledwinter

Forgive my newb question but I am confused by the product description of the CB-500. Is the box that looks like a PJ included in the CB-500 or is that just a mockup of a PJ sitting on the platform provided by the CB-500? Is the item that looks like a PJ the "ceiling box" or is the part touching the ceiling the "ceiling box"? The part touching the ceiling looks open from the pictures which makes me think that is not the "ceiling box" as per the description.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19779025
> 
> 
> For those interested click on the "put me on the waiting list to receive the one time special discount pricing. There are no commitments or obligations....



Alan, Is it safe to assume that the exact order (w/wo sled, w/wo auto focus, etc.) can be firmed upon product availability? That is, getting on the list now does not commit one to a specific ordering option.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fledwinter* /forum/post/19784311
> 
> 
> Forgive my newb question but I am confused by the product description of the CB-500. Is the box that looks like a PJ included in the CB-500 or is that just a mockup of a PJ sitting on the platform provided by the CB-500? Is the item that looks like a PJ the "ceiling box" or is the part touching the ceiling the "ceiling box"? The part touching the ceiling looks open from the pictures which makes me think that is not the "ceiling box" as per the description.



Read post #139, a few posts up by Alan, the CB-500 is a universal PJ mount that can also have the lens and its motorized lift attatched to it. It is a mount made specifically for this lens setup. The "box that looks like a PJ" is a rendering of a Panasonic AE1000-AE4000, just to show you how the whole setup will look with a PJ installed.


*Projector NOT included*


-Sean


----------



## Agauos

Awesome, how long did it take?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19785118
> 
> 
> The "box that looks like a PJ" is a rendering of a Panasonic AE1000-AE4000, just to show you how the whole setup will look with a PJ installed.



I thought the whole image was a render


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19788316
> 
> 
> I thought the whole image was a render



I believe it is, I was just trying to explain the PJ part.


-Sean


----------



## fledwinter

A picture of the mount without the projector would have helped. Having not owned a PJ or A-lens before I am trying to understand exactly how the projector mounts to the CB-500. I am also trying to understand if this setup precludes the use of a hushbox, which I assume is the case.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fledwinter* /forum/post/19791276
> 
> 
> A picture of the mount without the projector would have helped. Having not owned a PJ or A-lens before I am trying to understand exactly how the projector mounts to the CB-500. I am also trying to understand if this setup precludes the use of a hushbox, which I assume is the case.



The mounts I've seen have holes drilled in locations that match one or more projector mounting holes (on the bottom; usually in place of the rubber leveling feet). The PJ is then mounted upside down on the mounting plate so that it hangs bat-style. Other mounts accept the PJ in an upright position; essentially providing a shelf.

Its hard to tell from the pix here which mount style is the case with the CB-500 since the PJ is not real.... for that matter either is the mount or the lens or the lift. Maybe some real photos will be forthcoming.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19791715
> 
> 
> for that matter either is the mount or the lens or the lift. Maybe some real photos will be forthcoming.



They are real and a few prototypes exist of each










A further tease, expect later this year a curved screen with an affordable masking system. The masking system is an add on you can add at any time and will work with other manufactured screens.

More later.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger*
They are real and a few prototypes exist of each










A further tease, expect later this year a curved screen with an affordable masking system. The masking system is an add on you can add at any time and will work with other manufactured screens.

More later.
Fantastic news!!


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* 
They are real and a few prototypes exist of each










A further tease, expect later this year a curved screen with an affordable masking system. The masking system is an add on you can add at any time and will work with other manufactured screens.

More later.
Will you be able to custom order them to size Alan?


----------



## Vlubbers

This lens/mount combination can be specified with motorized focus. I had an ISCO for a number of years and while I recall fiddling and tweaking at installation, after that I do not recall touching it. If the projector was awkwardly inaccessible I could see some need for a motorized focus. But, failing that, why would I opt for motorized focus? The motorized lift is a convenience element as well, but one that will see periodic use. I understand that.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/19820833
> 
> 
> This lens/mount combination can be specified with motorized focus. I had an ISCO for a number of years and while I recall fiddling and tweaking at installation, after that I do not recall touching it. If the projector was awkwardly inaccessible I could see some need for a motorized focus. But, failing that, why would I opt for motorized focus? The motorized lift is a convenience element as well, but one that will see periodic use. I understand that.



I wondered about that as well, since the motorized focus option adds $300-$380 to the price. But, according to Alan's announcement, the focus and lift options can be added later. So I suppose if focus became an issue you could retrofit the auto focus hardware.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/19820833
> 
> 
> This lens/mount combination can be specified with motorized focus. I had an ISCO for a number of years and while I recall fiddling and tweaking at installation, after that I do not recall touching it. If the projector was awkwardly inaccessible I could see some need for a motorized focus. But, failing that, why would I opt for motorized focus? The motorized lift is a convenience element as well, but one that will see periodic use. I understand that.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/19823740
> 
> 
> I wondered about that as well, since the motorized focus option adds $300-$380 to the price. But, according to Alan's announcement, the focus and lift options can be added later. So I suppose if focus became an issue you could retrofit the auto focus hardware.



I was also thinking the same, but looking at the sale prices on the avs site, the motorized focus is a difference of $300. So, I'm thinking if I'm going to spend $3,670 on the lens and lift, at that point I might as well throw in another $300 for the focus. Plus I assume it will be easier to get the focus exact when its motorized than manual? That's what people say who have motorized focus on their PJs at least.


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

The motorized focus will come in handy for those of us with a long throw or a projector firing through a port hole from another room. You can stand close to the screen watching for the best focus.


----------



## SteveHorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* 
The motorized focus will come in handy for those of us with a long throw or a projector firing through a port hole from another room. You can stand close to the screen watching for the best focus.
Good point. I visited a HT last week with a JVC in a hush box/port hole setup. Adjusting focus on that one, standing on a recliner's arms would have been a pita. That it (remote focus) can be retrofitted I think is a benefit, if it turns out to be a problem to refocus.


----------



## aamenabar

For those of us trying to wait is there any update on the release dates?


----------



## 230-SEAN

Any news? New pics? Anything?


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

New pictures around the corner.


----------



## falcon2000ex

I cannot find the mount in the AV store. What is the price on the mount or is it included with the lens set up? The mount states universal for most projectors, so is there a list of projectors it isn't compatible with? (I have the JVC rs40 on order). Thanks.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19876598
> 
> 
> New pictures around the corner.



Awesome, thank you!


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *falcon2000ex* /forum/post/19877515
> 
> 
> I cannot find the mount in the AV store. What is the price on the mount or is it included with the lens set up? The mount states universal for most projectors, so is there a list of projectors it isn't compatible with? (I have the JVC rs40 on order). Thanks.



Will have the mount information avail shortly.


----------



## falcon2000ex

This might be a dumb question since I'm so new, but would you be able to mount the lens set up to an existing mount like the Chief RPAU?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Will have the mount information avail shortly.



That's good


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *falcon2000ex* /forum/post/19878208
> 
> 
> This might be a dumb question since I'm so new, but would you be able to mount the lens set up to an existing mount like the Chief RPAU?



If the mount is sturdy enough, sure. What many people seem to not to take in to consideration is the sudden weight shift when you move the lens. If you talking big lenses like an ISCO III or even my own MK4, that is some 10 or 11 pounds that moves and if the mount is not 100% stable, bad stuff happens.


----------



## FlyingCheese

Would purchasing something like this before deciding on a projector be a wise choice? I'm currently building out my theater and probably won't be done for at least another year. Originally I had planned to go CRT (which is another discussion), but am really leaning towards going digital with an A-lens. I'd likely end up with something like a JVC RS-whatever....


THis seems like a pretty decent price and I'd consider purchasing now while the initial price was a bit lower, but I don't know if it's a wise choice.


To make things worse, Mrs. FlyingCheese is actually on-board with my spending $4k on a piece of glass....


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FlyingCheese* /forum/post/19903532
> 
> 
> Would purchasing something like this before deciding on a projector be a wise choice? I'm currently building out my theater and probably won't be done for at least another year. Originally I had planned to go CRT (which is another discussion), but am really leaning towards going digital with an A-lens. I'd likely end up with something like a JVC RS-whatever....
> 
> 
> THis seems like a pretty decent price and I'd consider purchasing now while the initial price was a bit lower, but I don't know if it's a wise choice.
> 
> 
> To make things worse, Mrs. FlyingCheese is actually on-board with my spending $4k on a piece of glass....



Lol @ Mrs. FlyingCheese. If you are wondering about PJ to Lens compatability, this lens is supposed have the largest enterance/exit making it the most universal lens reference throw ratio, pj lens recession, etc. Now, whether or not a native CIH PJ will be out in another year is a different question, I'd say not likely and if it did exist it wouldn't be cheap. If you are wanting a CIH setup using an anamorphic lens, then I would say this would be the one to buy pre PJ purchase due to its price and universability, however nobody has ever seen/used this lens in real life so the numbers, performance quality, and specs arn't confirmed as of yet so its up to you. The pre-order price is sweet, but you're kinda buying in the dark.


-Sean


----------



## FlyingCheese




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ Mrs. FlyingCheese. If you are wondering about PJ to Lens compatability, this lens is supposed have the largest enterance/exit making it the most universal lens reference throw ratio, pj lens recession, etc. Now, whether or not a native CIH PJ will be out in another year is a different question, I'd say not likely and if it did exist it wouldn't be cheap. If you are wanting a CIH setup using an anamorphic lens, then I would say this would be the one to buy pre PJ purchase due to its price and universability, however nobody has ever seen/used this lens in real life so the numbers, performance quality, and specs arn't confirmed as of yet so its up to you. The pre-order price is sweet, but you're kinda buying in the dark.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Thanks for the input, I'm gonna struggle with this one...it's very tempting. I will have to decide if I can let it sit on the shelf for a year or more until I'm ready to use it.


I did put my name on the preorder list, just in case....we'll see what Mrs. FlyingCheese says about it when it's time to drop the cash...


----------



## SteveHorn

Two thoughts here:

1) If Mrs. FlyingCheese (LOL 2) is for it, you better buy it before she changes her mind... or your priorities.

2) If you do get it at the lower price and your situation changes you can always sell it and maybe even make a few clams.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Two thoughts here:
> 
> 1) If Mrs. FlyingCheese (LOL 2) is for it, you better buy it before she changes her mind... or your priorities.
> 
> 2) If you do get it at the lower price and your situation changes you can always sell it and maybe even make a few clams.



I agree.


----------



## FlyingCheese

Quote:

Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* 
Two thoughts here:

1) If Mrs. FlyingCheese (LOL 2) is for it, you better buy it before she changes her mind... or your priorities.

2) If you do get it at the lower price and your situation changes you can always sell it and maybe even make a few clams.
Mrs. Flying Cheese won't change her mind.... She's always been pretty supportive of this process. We made a deal two years ago when we built our current place - I get the theater, she gets the rest of the house...And for what we spent on the kitchen, $4k for a lens looks like a down-right bargain. Heck, throw in a nice PJ and it's still a bargain...


We'll see what happens I suppose. I had planned to go digital at some point anyway, may as well go all-in. Annual bonuses are coming up pretty quick, so that may make the decision a bit easier.


----------



## Gotchaa

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* 
New pictures around the corner.


Alan when is the expected shipping date of these lenses, do you have a firm delivery date yet?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/19925315
> 
> 
> Alan when is the expected shipping date of these lenses, do you have a firm delivery date yet?



as stated earlier in March is the expected shipping date. There has not been a firm date posted yet...my guess is that it hasn't been established. Alan has been very good about providing information as soon as it's available.


----------



## 230-SEAN

I wonder if throwing money at them will get the lens out any sooner?


-Sean


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19927995
> 
> 
> I wonder if throwing money at them will get the lens out any sooner?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Since AVS has already take pre-orders...in a way, those pre-orders is already "throwing money at them".


My guess is they will release them when they first have the appropriate amount of stock to take care of pre-orders and some stock for on hand orders. One assumes they've already reached final production model, if they are to release product in March. I am just spit-balling and do not have inside information.


----------



## bigjas

Also put my name down for this. Will they ship to the UK do you think? Also how many of us will be pulling the trigger on this as soon as they become available i.e. Before any independent reviews are published. Buying blind / into the hype is risky never mind at these prices (however good they may turn out to be).


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Quote:

Originally Posted by *bigjas* 
Also put my name down for this. Will they ship to the UK do you think? Also how many of us will be pulling the trigger on this as soon as they become available i.e. Before any independent reviews are published. Buying blind / into the hype is risky never mind at these prices (however good they may turn out to be).
Put your name on the preorder list yourself by going to the AVS store and go to the HD-6000 Anamorphic Lens product and you will then see a link to get in on the preorder!



...Glenn


----------



## Alan Gouger

For those outside of US and over seas we welcome your order through AVS we are glad to support our neighbors but also ck direct with Prismasonic in case there is a savings in shipping if they are closer.

As promised new pictures shortly.


Thank you!


----------



## flint350

Sigh, time marches on. My 5000R and Sim2 C3X have performed well together a couple of years now, though I imagine the larger opening on the new lens will work even better. I probably should be considering upgrading both, but have been very content so far. I do have a question though - is Anssi going to rename the company ---- Cylindrisonic?


----------



## bigjas

Cheers didn't think of going to the site directly.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/19928703
> 
> 
> Since AVS has already take pre-orders...in a way, those pre-orders is already "throwing money at them".
> 
> 
> My guess is they will release them when they first have the appropriate amount of stock to take care of pre-orders and some stock for on hand orders. One assumes they've already reached final production model, if they are to release product in March. I am just spit-balling and do not have inside information.



I have yet to pay anything nor was I aware that they were taking payments already. I gave my name and email to Jason about 2 months ago reference this lens, this was prior to the AVS store email list. I've been assuming that I was automatically put on this list but maybe that wasn't the case? I guess I will go to the AVS store and add myself there, it couldn't hurt to be on the list twice, right?


Now, reference buying the lens without any reviews/knowledge of the product prior to payment and reciept of the product, will there be any grace period or return policy on the product?


-Sean


----------



## rigman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/19931309
> 
> 
> Also put my name down for this. Will they ship to the UK do you think? Also how many of us will be pulling the trigger on this as soon as they become available i.e. Before any independent reviews are published. Buying blind / into the hype is risky never mind at these prices (however good they may turn out to be).



I contacted Prismasonic a few weeks ago and they said I could order via AVS and they would ship direct from Finland to the UK.


However

I was showing my wife this thread and mentioned the Isco 3 so she said "Just get one of them then"

I now have a Isco 3 and cineslide after finding a second hand (but never used) one for a great price.

So looks like I will not be getting the Prismasonic after all.


----------



## Kevin Snyder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19933986
> 
> 
> I have yet to pay anything nor was I aware that they were taking payments already. I gave my name and email to Jason about 2 months ago reference this lens, this was prior to the AVS store email list. I've been assuming that I was automatically put on this list but maybe that wasn't the case? I guess I will go to the AVS store and add myself there, it couldn't hurt to be on the list twice, right?
> 
> 
> Now, reference buying the lens without any reviews/knowledge of the product prior to payment and reciept of the product, will there be any grace period or return policy on the product?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Sean,


I am on the list through the AVS Store. No payments given yet. I think rboster meant that Prismasonic has a general idea of what to expect given the pre-orders in the can.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin Snyder* /forum/post/19934405
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> 
> I am on the list through the AVS Store. No payments given yet. I think rboster meant that Prismasonic has a general idea of what to expect given the pre-orders in the can.



Ok, thats good to hear, for a minute there I thought I was being left out!










-Sean


----------



## Gotchaa

So since most of us pre-ordered or have considered doing so, isn't anyone concerned this lens may not be comparable to the ISCO or other Cylindrical lenses that have been reviewed and used by many on this forum?


It's amazing how much ppl will spend based on brand reputation, hope this turns out to be good or it's going to be an expensive early adopter's nightmare...


Would be great if Prismasonic got this lens in the hands of one of the well respected calibrator's like UMR to take for a test spin!


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/19935238
> 
> 
> So since most of us pre-ordered or have considered doing so, isn't anyone concerned this lens may not be comparable to the ISCO or other Cylindrical lenses that have been reviewed and used by many on this forum?
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much ppl will spend based on brand reputation, hope this turns out to be good or it's going to be an expensive early adopter's nightmare...
> 
> 
> Would be great if Prismasonic got this lens in the hands of one of the well respected calibrator's like UMR to take for a test spin!



I can say you can't include me as far as buying based on brand reputation (not saying that Prismasonic has a bad reputation, or at least not that I've heard), but I'm buying based on the specs mentioned earlier reference short throw ratio capabilities with recessed lenses such as the newer JVC models. I'm just hoping this lens will be able to work with the new JVCs at a TR of 1.4 or maybe even 1.3? It would be more settling to have a review to confirm specs prior to purchase, but who knows if that will happen?


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/19935238
> 
> 
> So since most of us pre-ordered or have considered doing so, isn't anyone concerned this lens may not be comparable to the ISCO or other Cylindrical lenses that have been reviewed and used by many on this forum?
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much ppl will spend based on brand reputation, hope this turns out to be good or it's going to be an expensive early adopter's nightmare...
> 
> 
> Would be great if Prismasonic got this lens in the hands of one of the well respected calibrator's like UMR to take for a test spin!



I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.

Will post more with pictures soon.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19935327
> 
> 
> I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.
> 
> Will post more with pictures soon.



That's always great to hear! Also, can you confirm that you have not started taking deposits as of yet? As much as I want confirmation of specs before purchase, I also want to be one of the first in line, lol, I know that kind of negates each other but oh well.


-Sean


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin Snyder* /forum/post/19934405
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> 
> I am on the list through the AVS Store. No payments given yet. I think rboster meant that Prismasonic has a general idea of what to expect given the pre-orders in the can.



That is exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.


Ron


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19935327
> 
> 
> I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.
> 
> Will post more with pictures soon.



Wow










Bargain alert!


Gary


----------



## 230-SEAN

Also Alan, what are the chances the price will go down more than currently advertised on the AVS site for the pre-order? As it currently is listed at $2990.00 for just the lens, it was previously stated that it would initially be offered for under $2900.00, was that wishfull thinking or is that still a possible price?


-Sean


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19935322
> 
> 
> I can say you can't include me as far as buying based on brand reputation (not saying that Prismasonic has a bad reputation, or at least not that I've heard), but I'm buying based on the specs mentioned earlier reference short throw ratio capabilities with recessed lenses such as the newer JVC models. I'm just hoping this lens will be able to work with the new JVCs at a TR of 1.4 or maybe even 1.3? It would be more settling to have a review to confirm specs prior to purchase, but who knows if that will happen?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Based on specs is as good as marketing without a solid review. But I'm right there with you, my RS50 is waiting for this lens, I have it sitting on a table waiting for a ceiling mount with the A-Lens, I just hope this turns out to be as good as Alan's saying. I've passed on a few A-Lens thus far to wait on this, and if a shorter throw can work, it will make my wife happy as far as placement!


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19935327
> 
> 
> I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.
> 
> Will post more with pictures soon.



Which ISCO3 the L or S?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/19941457
> 
> 
> I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.



Send one to me, lets have a look. I predict the same; price & weight.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19941505
> 
> 
> Send one to me, lets have a look. I predict the same; price & weight.



Ouch! Hopefully a few more areas! Your opinion would be highly accepted I'm sure, and maybe it will impress you more than you think (fingers crossed).


-Sean


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I assure you this lens equals if not out performs the Isco3 in a few areas.
> 
> Will post more with pictures soon.



Definitely looking forward to the review. I'm curious to know where it will out preform the ISCO III.


Maybe it's me but I thought the glass had a lot to do with the lens performance, hence the ISCO III price.


----------



## 230-SEAN

This is gonna kick ass. (in the voice of the girl with braces from The 40 Year Old Virgin)










-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

A few new pictures. The lens is on time for delivery end of next month. We will update order details soon. The mount will be ready one to two months after the first batch of lens ship. Price and picture of mount to follow.


----------



## 230-SEAN

That looks nice! Can't wait for more info!


-Sean


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That looks nice! Can't wait for more info!
> 
> 
> -Sean



I agree


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19988250
> 
> 
> ... We will update order details soon. The mount will be ready one to two months after the first batch of lens ship.



Presumably the "mount" is the lift.

Also, pls include dimensions of the lift assembly.

Nice to see something that looks like real pictures and not Google Sketchup.


----------



## GetGray

Is that light shining under and around the exit element? Not being sealed would concern me if so.


----------



## Gotchaa

Can someone explain if you have a ceiling mounted RS50, using Chief RPMA281, what are the options for mounting this lens? I've got an adjustable 18-24" pole and it's at 24" right now. So the lens + what mount is going to work with this? is the Cineslide an option?


It's kind of pointless to have a lens you can't use if the mount is not available. The one shipping after the lens looks really nice but how is one suppose to mount it with an existing setup? Looking for motorized mount for the lens, that would work with the motorized focus...


----------



## Alan Gouger

SteveHorn and Gotchaa will get more detail and clarification to your questions. Expect a followup early next week.


----------



## matthewa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A few new pictures. The lens is on time for delivery end of next month. We will update order details soon. The mount will be ready one to two months after the first batch of lens ship. Price and picture of mount to follow.



Excuse the dumb question, if this is a cylindrical lens then shouldn't the photo of the lens have a round casing rather than rectangular?


----------



## HopefulFred




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *matthewa* /forum/post/19994844
> 
> 
> Excuse the dumb question, if this is a cylindrical lens then shouldn't the photo of the lens have a round casing rather than rectangular?



Not really. Cylindrical refers to the geometry of the optics (that's probably not the best description) not the shape the lens is cut into. In the same way that you can cut eyeglass lenses to fit a wide variety of frames, the outside shape of the casing is not relevant to the optical characteristics.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HopefulFred* /forum/post/19995264
> 
> 
> Not really. Cylindrical refers to the geometry of the optics (that's probably not the best description) not the shape the lens is cut into. In the same way that you can cut eyeglass lenses to fit a wide variety of frames, the outside shape of the casing is not relevant to the optical characteristics.



Think of looking at the lens in plan (top view) and a plano concave lens will will look as if a cylinder has been removed from it. From the side, the same lens will appear as a rectangle.









It actually costs more to produce "round" lenses than square ones, so probably contributes to why this lens can be offered for the price it is and why I also elected to run with a square front lens for the MK4.


----------



## kenlong69

Hi all,


This looks great!


Can someone confirm if the current (older) ceiling mount from Prismasonic (the C-200) will be compatible with this new lens?


Cheers.

Ken


----------



## rigman

Yes it will be but obviously it would be constantly in the light path.


The CB200 mount is the worst designed mount I have ever used. I paid a premium to get it as it was designed to hold the projector and the FE5000R.


I regreted the purchase withing minutes of starting the install. As soon as the lens is installed it pulls the front of the projector down and if you tighten the bolts it just crushes the tube


----------



## kenlong69

Seriously???? ah crap!


I bought it as I needed a mount with a super long extension arm, and I was going to go with a Prismasonic lens in the near future... so the C200 was a no brainer.


I guess I'll have to spring the extra for the C-500...


Thanks for the info,

Ken


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rigman* /forum/post/20012961
> 
> 
> Yes it will be but obviously it would be constantly in the light path.
> 
> 
> The CB200 mount is the worst designed mount I have ever used. I paid a premium to get it as it was designed to hold the projector and the FE5000R.
> 
> 
> I regreted the purchase withing minutes of starting the install. As soon as the lens is installed it pulls the front of the projector down and if you tighten the bolts it just crushes the tube



When you add a lens to an existing mount, you have to find the new centre of gravity for both items and move the ceiling mount accordingly.


I made a mount from some MDF which had a part sticking out in front of the pj and mounted the lens to that. The mdf attached to the pj, and the ceiling mount attached to that. I balanced the pj front/back and then either side on my fingers (or you can use some dowels) to get a rough idea where the centre was, and that was good enough to find the balance point.


If you have a lens which you move out of the light path on a sled, it's often better to have it on a separate mount so that the side to side movement doesn't wobble the pj which can lead to it moving out of alignment.


Gary


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rigman* /forum/post/20012961
> 
> 
> Yes it will be but obviously it would be constantly in the light path.
> 
> 
> The CB200 mount is the worst designed mount I have ever used. I paid a premium to get it as it was designed to hold the projector and the FE5000R.
> 
> 
> I regreted the purchase withing minutes of starting the install. As soon as the lens is installed it pulls the front of the projector down and if you tighten the bolts it just crushes the tube



Are you sure you have tighten the correct screws. The screws with red circles are for adjusting the system tilting for both directions, and they have to be tighten very well. Also the system has to be well positioned to the center of the gravity point




I admit that the CB-200 mount is not very easy to install, and has to be done very carefully, but it can be done.


The new CB-500 is much more convenient for attaching the heavy loads. Also the adjusting is way more easier, since for example the tilt adjusting to both directions is done with 10 mm set screws, instead of 'on/off' type tightening screws.


Alan will inform about the pricing of CB-500 shortly..


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you have tighten the correct screws. The screws with red circles are for adjusting the system tilting for both directions, and they have to be tighten very well. Also the system has to be well positioned to the center of the gravity point
> 
> 
> I admit that the CB-200 mount is not very easy to install, and it has to be done very carefully.
> 
> 
> The new CB-500 is much more convenient for attaching the heavy loads. Also the adjusting is way more easier, since for example the tilt adjusting to both directions is done with 10 mm set screws, instead of 'on/off' type tightening screws.
> 
> 
> Alan will inform about the pricing of CB-500 shortly..










well done prismasonic


----------



## rboster

Anssi:


A couple of quick questions:


I currently am using a panamorph AKX Pro attachment plate...which is basically a heavy duty plate that the cheif universal mount attaches to and with the predrilled holes, one can perfectly allign the lens mount to the plate with the projector.


This isn't the exact plate, but you can get the general idea from this link

http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/elpalk/elpalkig.pdf 



I understand that the holes may not line up properly and I'll have to drill additional holes to accomodate the "mount/stand" that the lens is attached to. I see what look like four holes on top of the stand that I assume I could mount to the existing attachment plate, so the lens was near flush with the projector lens...then adjust up or down accordingly.


I'm ready to switch to prismasonic from panamorph, but would like to use the existing chief mount, extention column and current lens/projector attachment plate for cost and convenience sake. If I had to start completely over from scratch, the change wouldn't be very appealing (this will be my last upgrade for a couple of years, but don't quote me on it.







)


Thanks and looking forward in being a charter member.


Ron


PS: I've dealt with prismasonic and Anssi and can attest to their high level of customer service and focus.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rboster* 
Anssi:


A couple of quick questions:


I currently am using a panamorph AKX Pro attachment plate...which is basically a heavy duty plate that the cheif universal mount attaches to and with the predrilled holes, one can perfectly allign the lens mount to the plate with the projector.


This isn't the exact plate, but you can get the general idea from this link

http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/elpalk/elpalkig.pdf 



I understand that the holes may not line up properly and I'll have to drill additional holes to accomodate the "mount/stand" that the lens is attached to. I see what look like four holes on top of the stand that I assume I could mount to the existing attachment plate, so the lens was near flush with the projector lens...then adjust up or down accordingly.


I'm ready to switch to prismasonic from panamorph, but would like to use the existing chief mount, extention column and current lens/projector attachment plate for cost and convenience sake. If I had to start completely over from scratch, the change wouldn't be very appealing (this will be my last upgrade for a couple of years, but don't quote me on it.







)


Thanks and looking forward in being a charter member.


Ron


PS: I've dealt with prismasonic and Anssi and can attest to their high level of customer service and focus.


Ron,


Just curious, which model Panamorph do you currently own?











...Glenn


----------



## rboster

Glenn: If memory serves it's the 440 or 480 with the manual slide. When I sell it, I'm going to package it with my extra attachment plate, slide and lens. I've decided not to keep the slide, since I leave the lens in place when watching all material.


Ron


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20014423
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the holes may not line up properly and I'll have to drill additional holes to accomodate the "mount/stand" that the lens is attached to. I see what look like four holes on top of the stand that I assume I could mount to the existing attachment plate, so the lens was near flush with the projector lens...then adjust up or down accordingly.
> 
> 
> I'm ready to switch to prismasonic from panamorph, but would like to use the existing chief mount, extention column and current lens/projector attachment plate for cost and convenience sake. If I had to start completely over from scratch, the change wouldn't be very appealing (this will be my last upgrade for a couple of years, but don't quote me on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Yes I suppose this is well possible for fixed installation with HD-6000F and HD-6000FX models without the 'lift'.


----------



## rigman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20013042
> 
> 
> Are you sure you have tighten the correct screws. The screws with red circles are for adjusting the system tilting for both directions, and they have to be tighten very well. Also the system has to be well positioned to the center of the gravity point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that the CB-200 mount is not very easy to install, and has to be done very carefully, but it can be done.
> 
> 
> The new CB-500 is much more convenient for attaching the heavy loads. Also the adjusting is way more easier, since for example the tilt adjusting to both directions is done with 10 mm set screws, instead of 'on/off' type tightening screws.
> 
> 
> Alan will inform about the pricing of CB-500 shortly..



It is not the bolts which are circled which are the problem it is the one above it which pivots.

The centre of gravity can eventually be found (just) with a lot of time spent getting it right. My current much cheaper mount was right within minutes.


Iirc there were complaints from others who had also bought the mount on the feedback forum on your website (which does not exist anymore)


I currently have the Isco 3 on a cineslide but if I was to try and install a FE5000R again I would hang it separately on its own mount.


The FE5000R was an excellent lens and I do wish you all the best with your new one


----------



## GeorgeHolland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19988250
> 
> 
> A few new pictures. The lens is on time for delivery end of next month. We will update order details soon. The mount will be ready one to two months after the first batch of lens ship. Price and picture of mount to follow.



Alan, have you been able to confirm dimensions yet? I am building a shelf behind my rear theater room wall into my basement crawlspace this weekend and could really use the height, width and depth of the lens, lift and focus motor when using a shelf mounted configuration.


Thank you.


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20018669
> 
> 
> Yes I suppose this is well possible for fixed installation with HD-6000F and HD-6000FX models without the 'lift'.



Can you advise if this new lens is possible to mount with an 18" fixed column with a Chief rpa281 mount for the RS50? Ideally the lens will move up and down, but I don't have an idea if it will work with your mount.


Is there some sort of attachment plate or adapter that can be used?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GeorgeHolland* /forum/post/20031958
> 
> 
> Alan, have you been able to confirm dimensions yet? I am building a shelf behind my rear theater room wall into my basement crawlspace this weekend and could really use the height, width and depth of the lens, lift and focus motor when using a shelf mounted configuration.
> 
> 
> Thank you.



The soonest I can have this for you will be Monday. If I get the information sooner I will pass it along. Ive sent this along, stay tuned.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/19988250



So does the front or rear lens move to adjust astigmatism Alan?


----------



## prismasonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GeorgeHolland* 
Alan, have you been able to confirm dimensions yet? I am building a shelf behind my rear theater room wall into my basement crawlspace this weekend and could really use the height, width and depth of the lens, lift and focus motor when using a shelf mounted configuration.


Thank you.
On behalf of Alan


The overall dimensions can be found from drawing below











If you are about to make the hole in the rear wall, which is not much taller than the projector, the lens has to be mounted so that it is 'in' at up position. This is because the IR receiver of lift (locating on top) has to have a visual contact to the room from where it is remote controlled. This means that lens has to be mounted to a lower shelf in front of the projector, or the projector has to sit on some podium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
So does the front or rear lens move to adjust astigmatism Alan?
It is the front lens


----------



## SteveHorn

For those metrically challenged:

13.29 high x 8.52 wide x 6.11 deep


Thanks!


----------



## GeorgeHolland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20038160
> 
> 
> On behalf of Alan
> 
> 
> The overall dimensions can be found from drawing below
> 
> 
> If you are about to make the hole in the rear wall, which is not much taller than the projector, the lens has to be mounted so that it is 'in' at up position. This is because the IR receiver of lift (locating on top) has to have a visual contact to the room from where it is remote controlled. This means that lens has to be mounted to a lower shelf in front of the projector, or the projector has to sit on some podium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the front lens




Anssi,


Just to confirm I understand; the lens could be in the up or lifted position while stretching the image and then lowered out of the way. Essentially the opposite of the normal set up in order to make sure the IR is visible.


How much lower would the shelf need to be in order to have your lens placed directly in front of a JVC RS50 lens while in the up position?


I assume an IR sensor and a Pronto TSU9400 would work allowing the sensor to be behind the wall although I think I like your suggestion better. I would likely use an IR sensor anyway.


Thank you.


----------



## diamond design

I think it would be beneficial if you could post the distance from the ceiling to the projector and the total distance of the lens in the down position in the inverted setup for those with shorter ceilings. I know I'm very interested.


----------



## SteveHorn

Has anyone figured out how the lift... lifts? Screw driven? Notched belt? I don't see anything in the pix to indicate how it raises/lowers the lens. I suspect the horizontal sleds (e.g. CineSlide, et al) use either a servo-driven belt or a linear actuator. But this one... I don't know. And I don't know that it matters as long as its positioning is accurate and repeatable. Just curious.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GeorgeHolland* /forum/post/20038834
> 
> 
> Anssi,
> 
> 
> Just to confirm I understand; the lens could be in the up or lifted position while stretching the image and then lowered out of the way. Essentially the opposite of the normal set up in order to make sure the IR is visible.



This is correct



> Quote:
> How much lower would the shelf need to be in order to have your lens placed directly in front of a JVC RS50 lens while in the up position?



This depends on the vertical position of projector's optics. I added more dimensions to the drawing from which you can calculate the needed drop with your projector. Please note that lens has to be tilted to the direction of beam, and this tilting (depending on the angle) will change the vertical lens positions. So it is good to leave some margin between the lift motor box and lens motor box at the topmost position of the lens.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *diamond design* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think it would be beneficial if you could post the distance from the ceiling to the projector and the total distance of the lens in the down position in the inverted setup for those with shorter ceilings. I know I'm very interested.



The minimum drop from ceiling for lift lens models combined with the CB-500 is around the total height of the lift lens, which is around 34 cm. So this is a drop from ceiling to the bottommost part of the projector+lens combo. The lift lens models cannot be mounted upside down.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20041726
> 
> 
> Has anyone figured out how the lift... lifts? Screw driven? Notched belt? I don't see anything in the pix to indicate how it raises/lowers the lens. I suspect the horizontal sleds (e.g. CineSlide, et al) use either a servo-driven belt or a linear actuator. But this one... I don't know. And I don't know that it matters as long as its positioning is accurate and repeatable. Just curious.



Looks Like a screw driven by a belt.


LHS slot on the vertical


----------



## Knackers

Looks cable driven to me, from the renders that have been shown...


Cheers,


Chris


----------



## GeorgeHolland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20043058
> 
> 
> This is correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This depends on the vertical position of projector's optics. I added more dimensions to the drawing from which you can calculate the needed drop with your projector. Please note that lens has to be tilted to the direction of beam, and this tilting (depending on the angle) will change the vertical lens positions. So it is good to leave some margin between the lift motor box and lens motor box at the topmost position of the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum drop from ceiling for lift lens models combined with the CB-500 is around the total height of the lift lens, which is around 34 cm. So this is a drop from ceiling to the bottommost part of the projector+lens combo. The lift lens models cannot be mounted upside down.



Thank you.


----------



## dj7675

I am upgrading my RS1 to an RS40 very soon and will going with a chief mount. I am considering upgrading my current lens in favor of this new one (with motorized sled) but I don't like the idea of having to remount the projector with the prismasonic mount. My question is what other options would there be to ceiling mount the lens/sled without the Prismasonic projector/lens mount? Would it seem to be very complex or difficult? This is really the one thing that is holding me back from preordeing the lens/sled.

Any others in this boat?


Darin


----------



## SteveHorn

JMHO, but as you've decided to use a Chief mount for the PJ, and the conventional wisdom by those here in the know about A-lenses and their affect on PJ balance, etc, you should be working toward a totally separate mount for the lens+sled/lift. Depending upon what the ceiling is, that could be something as simple as threaded rods (4) affixed to a plywood base, upon which the lift/sled+lens is mounted. Of course, you will need to account for clearance for the lift's height. I guess I don't see the need to go fancy ($$) for a mount that accommodates both the proj and the lens+lift (or sled). But that's just me...


----------



## bigjas

Any news on reviews yet? Is it ready to ship yet? I'm intending to shelf mount my JVC350 so presumably as long as the shelf has enough room I can screw the mount onto the same shelf? Any suggestions/ recommendations?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20060038
> 
> 
> Any news on reviews yet? Is it ready to ship yet? I'm intending to shelf mount my JVC350 so presumably as long as the shelf has enough room I can screw the mount onto the same shelf? Any suggestions/ recommendations?



The last update said end of March for shipping. I would doubt that we'll hear anything review wise until closer to the ship date.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You will have similar issues with any A lens since they all change the centre of gravity and can cause wobble if the sled moves side to side. A separate pole doesn't look as tide, but it does mean you don't have to touch the pjs mount so makes the install more robust in the long term IMHO.


An up and down 'sled' rather than side to side may have less impact on the pj so might be the best option after having a fixed lens set up (and scale for 16:9) attached to the same mount as the pj.


Gary


----------



## bigjas

What about placing the PJ and lens on a shelf together? Am I likely to have problems? Just how big and heavy are these things?? Are the motors powered by V8 's with carbon disc brakes all round?


----------



## GetGray

12 lb plate, surely not. But if it is, add the weight of the lens, hardware and now the PJ. Now check the weight limit rating on the mount (RPM or RPA). Anyway, it's not the attachment rigidity that's an issue, it's trivial to make such a mount. The flex is in the gimbals and ceiling plates. Don't take my word for it though. The wiggle goes away in under a minute for short posts. Depends on how long you build the pendulum.


As for "purported", haven't seen one yet that wasn't "purported".


----------



## rigman

Is the up/down movement of the CB-500 a one press of the relevant button which then uses limit switches to cut the power or do you need to keep your thumb on the buttons until the lens is in the right position?


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20089299
> 
> 
> 12 lb plate, surely not. But if it is, add the weight of the lens, hardware and now the PJ. Now check the weight limit rating on the mount (RPM or RPA). Anyway, it's not the attachment rigidity that's an issue, it's trivial to make such a mount. The flex is in the gimbals and ceiling plates. Don't take my word for it though. The wiggle goes away in under a minute for short posts. Depends on how long you build the pendulum.
> 
> 
> As for "purported", haven't seen one yet that wasn't "purported".



Head over to the DC-1 thread, I'll post pictures there.


----------



## Kenster48

Does this lens come with lens caps for when it's not in use?


Is it sealed?


Will dust get onto the inside surfaces?


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kenster48* /forum/post/20094817
> 
> 
> Does this lens come with lens caps for when it's not in use?
> 
> 
> Is it sealed?
> 
> 
> Will dust get onto the inside surfaces?



We haven't really heard any details on it as of yet. Hopefully sometime soon we will get to see all of the specs, I feel like I've been waiting FOREVER for this lol.


-Sean


----------



## Kenster48




> Quote:
> We haven't really heard any details on it as of yet.



It's a pretty basic detail: whether the case has gaps around the lenses that will let dust and other contaminants in, or not.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kenster48* /forum/post/20107901
> 
> 
> It's a pretty basic detail: whether the case has gaps around the lenses that will let dust and other contaminants in, or not.



Hey, don't shoot the messenger, lol. I understand that it's a basic detail, but like I said before very little details have been given. Hopefully we'll get tons of info on it in the near future.


-Sean


----------



## prismasonic

Hello,


Please find some information from the following links.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000f.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000fx.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000r.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000rx.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_cb500.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/specs.shtml


----------



## 230-SEAN

From the product description "As a nice feature the housing has a removable bottom plate. Thus it is convenient to clean the optics from both sides." I assume (you know what that does) that the lens is in fact not sealed, but as stated can be cleaned.


-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20112451
> 
> 
> From the product description "As a nice feature the housing has a removable bottom plate. Thus it is convenient to clean the optics from both sides." I assume (you know what that does) that the lens is in fact not sealed, but as stated can be cleaned.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Knowing very little about lenses, I'll admit that I don't know whether the fact that it can be cleaned via removal of a panel is good or bad. Good because you have the capability to clean it; bad because there is now a perceived way for it to get dusty. Maybe out resident lens wizards can clarify (no pun...).


----------



## jkscherk

So does this statement... "A very large aperture 4-element optics allows to setup for throw ratios down to 1.25. To adjust a razor sharp focus of no compromise, the lens has a continous focus correction for throw distances down to 1.5 meters, and the focus does not change when removing the lens for 1.78:1 material."....mean that I won't have pincushion problems if I'm at a throw ratio of 1.6 or 1.7 to 1?


----------



## GetGray

No, it will have pincushion at that TR. Sorry. How much is yet to be seen. There are other more important things to worry abotu with lenses. But for the PC, you won't see it with normal video material unless it's severe.


----------



## Kenster48




> Quote:
> From the product description "As a nice feature the housing has a removable bottom plate. Thus it is convenient to clean the optics from both sides."



I guess that's a "Yes" to the dust question.


You wouldn't need a mechanism to clean it internally if it was sealed against dust.


----------



## SteveFred

I hope they are ready to ship soon!!


I am now thinking about going with a 2:40 Curved 156" Screen(have a 119" 16:9 now)..I have just enough wall for it by 1/2 an inch LOL


One question: Once you have a curved screen and then switch back to watch HD(cable), it will obviously have black on the sides, but will it look ok on a curved screen?, since I will be moving the lens out of the way(going to get the motorized lens)


Thanks

Steve


----------



## taffman

You will have barrel distortion of 16:9 HD images ( and less so 4:3 images) when projecting on a curved screen with the A-lens removed. If you leave the lens in place to project 16:9 HD images, you will eliminate the barrel distortion on the curved screen, but you will have to do an electronic horizontal compression of the image and that will eliminate 33% of the horizontal resolution, so this is not a good idea.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If the barrel distortion is visible, you can overscan the image a little to hide, in much the same way you can to eliminate pincushion on a flat screen when using an A lens.


Gary


----------



## SteveFred

Thanks for the info..I kind of figured that...I probably watch 90% movies/10% cable/PS3...So I can live with that...or just save my 119" 16:9 screen and use that when special events come up(Superbowl/Etc)


----------



## bigjas

The silence is deafening....


----------



## Kevin Snyder

I'm not sure how long it has been there, but the new Prismasonic ceiling mount to go with the new lens/sled is now on the AVScience site.


They are accepting waiting list spots on this at this point.


Kevin


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin Snyder* /forum/post/20205000
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how long it has been there, but the new Prismasonic ceiling mount to go with the new lens/sled is now on the AVScience site.
> 
> 
> They are accepting waiting list spots on this at this point.
> 
> 
> Kevin



It's been available for pre-order for sometime now.



We are near the end of March, I sure Alan will be updating us shortly on where the release of this product stands.


----------



## Kevin Snyder

Knew about, and have been on the lens/sled waiting list for a while.


Hadn't seen the actual ceiling mount, though.


(P.S. Also just wanted to celebrate my reaching 200 posts JUST prior to my 10 year membership anniversary!!! I certainly am glad that others post more, as I truly have enjoyed reading and learning from everyone.)


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin Snyder* /forum/post/20205459
> 
> 
> Knew about, and have been on the lens/sled waiting list for a while.
> 
> 
> Hadn't seen the actual ceiling mount, though.



gotcha...



I'm excited about the new product. I'm looking forward to hearing Alan's review and (maybe) comparisons to other Cylindrical lens.


----------



## rigman

It will be nice to get an impartial review of this at some point.


----------



## vsop

I skimmed thru the thread but could not find out from anything if the Lens mount on the 500 mount can drop down instead of going up. My PJ will be at the back of the room so no issue with someone hitting into the lens but I have an 8' ceiling.


----------



## GeorgeHolland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vsop* /forum/post/20207891
> 
> 
> I skimmed thru the thread but could not find out from anything if the Lens mount on the 500 mount can drop down instead of going up. My PJ will be at the back of the room so no issue with someone hitting into the lens but I have an 8' ceiling.



Based on this post, the lens can not be installed upside down.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post20043058


----------



## SHIFTTOO

Hello All,


I’m in the middle of planning an update to my theater and I am interested in adding an CIH screen to my setup. I’m still trying to piece together what the pros and cons are to the various CIH methods.


This new HD-6000 lens has me intrigued for the price, however I still do not understand the differences or benefits of this cylindrical based lens versus the prism based lens such as the HD-5000.


As far as I can see on the Prismasonic spec sheet ( prismasonic.com/english/specs ) the difference appears to be a trade-off between Aspect Control (HD-5000) and Focus Correction (HD-6000).


Due to the size of my room my throw ratio will be between 1.4. To 1.5 which I’ve gathered is not optimal. Can someone explain whether Aspect Control or Focus Correction would be of more benefit in a short throw ratio setup?


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *SHIFTTOO* 
Due to the size of my room my throw ratio will be between 1.4. To 1.5 which I've gathered is not optimal. Can someone explain whether Aspect Control or Focus Correction would be of more benefit in a short throw ratio setup?
With a throw that short, a large cylindrical lens is probably going to be your only option anyway.


----------



## SHIFTTOO

Mark, Thanks for the response!

Is there any way you could elaborate on why a cylindrical A-lens would be my only option. Forgive my possible ignorance on the topic. But does a cylindrical lens produce less pincushion or other visual distortion at a low throw ratio? Or is it some other reason.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SHIFTTOO* /forum/post/20221647
> 
> 
> Mark, Thanks for the response!
> 
> Is there any way you could elaborate on why a cylindrical A-lens would be my only option. Forgive my possible ignorance on the topic. But does a cylindrical lens produce less pincushion or other visual distortion at a low throw ratio? Or is it some other reason.



Prism lenses require the prisms to be rotated, so the wider the stretch, the more rotation. This can make the prism lens quite deep.


Short throws mean wider beam angles, so the issue is being able to pass these beams through the lens or adapter and not vignette (clip the beam).











Above is a very simple diagram of both a cylindrical lens and a prism lens. The angle is calculated to represent a TR of 1.3:1. Note that the prism adapter is quite deeper than the cylindrical lens and that the beam clips at the top of the front prism.


I realized after posting that have drawn the cylindrical lens slightly wider than the prism lens, however in a real world example, that won't give it any real advantage as the real advantage comes from the ability to change the air gap (blue arrow) between the optics. Prisms lenses are fixed and you can not change the spacing.


Rule of thumb: The shorter the TR the smaller the air gap and therefore the smaller the distance from front to back of the lens.


Hope that makes sense.


----------



## SHIFTTOO

I really appreciate the explanation, and the diagram really helped. Thanks!!


----------



## rboster

I exchanged some emails with Alan this morning and he wanted me to pass on the latest news about the new lens:


The actual production run will has been pushed back one month (end of April is the target). The good news is Alan should have a pre-production unit in his hands sometime in mid-April. Alan wanted me to pass on that he'll have a review and photos after he's had a chance to try out the new lens. I assume that means we'll have some real world info/results before they hit the market.


That's all I know for right now.


Ron


----------



## 230-SEAN

I guess that is better than nothing! I have been slightly impatient on waiting for this, but I think it is better that they take their time and do it right rather than rush to put it on the market. It would, however, be nice to have a review of the lens prior to purchase. Thanks for the update.


-Sean


----------



## rboster

Sean; I certainly in the camp for sooner than later, but to have a cylindrical lens at this price point...I think it's a game changer than I am more than willing to wait for.


I'm looking forward to hearing Alan's thoughts on the unit. I have found Alan to be straight forward in his assessment of other products. I don't expect it be to a giant killer, but a product that will be beat the other prism based lens in the same price range....if it's better than that, than it will be pure gravy in my book.


If it lives up to my expectations (which I think are realistic), then I package my prism lens, slide and mounting plate as a package...someone will get a great deal on a complete plug and play set up as their first lens.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20243071
> 
> 
> Sean; I certainly in the camp for sooner than later, but to have a cylindrical lens at this price point...I think it's a game changer than I am more than willing to wait for.
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to hearing Alan's thoughts on the unit. I have found Alan to be straight forward in his assessment of other products. I don't expect it be to a giant killer, but a product that will be beat the other prism based lens in the same price range....if it's better than that, than it will be pure gravy in my book.
> 
> 
> If it lives up to my expectations (which I think are realistic), then I package my prism lens, slide and mounting plate as a package...someone will get a great deal on a complete plug and play set up as their first lens.



I hear ya, I'll be replacing my DIY Trophy Prism lens with it. I'm sure I'm going to be blown away by it, but I just hope it will be worth the $3770.00 difference between the two.


-Sean


----------



## davey_fl

I too would like information on mounting this lens with a chief RPA281 with my JVC RS40. I'm sure the prismasonic mount is good, but a little steep in price.


----------



## davey_fl

One more question, please. I'm trying to calculate throw ratio to make sure this lens will work with my setup. My distance from the PJ lens to the screen material is 15'11". The screen itself is an SMX ProCurve 2.37:1 40' Radius AT 140" wide x 59" high, with a 151.93" diagonal. Other calculations I've seen are based on a 16:9 screen so I'm not sure how this applies to my screen. Any help would be appreciated!


Thanks


David


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20257700
> 
> 
> One more question, please. I'm trying to calculate throw ratio to make sure this lens will work with my setup. My distance from the PJ lens to the screen material is 15'11". The screen itself is an SMX ProCurve 2.37:1 40' Radius AT 140" wide x 59" high, with a 151.93" diagonal. Other calculations I've seen are based on a 16:9 screen so I'm not sure how this applies to my screen. Any help would be appreciated!
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> David



Throw ratio is worked off the 16:9 image width. For a scope screen, you can either multiply the width by 0.75 to find the 16:9 portion or (given you gave both width and height) use the height x 1.78. You then divide that into the distance between the projector's lens and the screen to work out the TR.


191 / (59 x 1.78) = 1.82:1 (rounded)

or

191 / (140 x 0.75) = 1.82:1 (rounded)


----------



## davey_fl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20258023
> 
> 
> Throw ratio is worked off the 16:9 image width. For a scope screen, you can either multiply the width by 0.75 to find the 16:9 portion or (given you gave both width and height) use the height x 1.78. You then divide that into the distance between the projector's lens and the screen to work out the TR.
> 
> 
> 191 / (59 x 1.78) = 1.82:1 (rounded)
> 
> or
> 
> 191 / (140 x 0.75) = 1.82:1 (rounded)




Mark thanks for that explanation. Crystal clear now. Looks like the throw falls into the acceptable range.


David


----------



## Alan Gouger

UPS dropped off a heavy package today. To my surprise it contained the new
*Prismasonic HD-6000F*. Nice solid heavy lens. Proof this lens does exist!!

This is a pre production unit without the coatings. More on that later but we will give it a test run regarding focus and chroma aberration etc.

Looking at the side view it looks like a Shark, that's right the 6000 is carnivorous and will devour any other lens in its path

















Here is the ass end...Ooo sexy!









Looking in from the front. This is a good size lens.









Expect some pictures this weekend detailing its performance. Will work on selecting a projector with perfect convergence and little to no CA to couple with this lens.
Stay tuned!


Thank you Anssi.


----------



## 230-SEAN

That looks badass Alan! From the pics I can't tell if you also have the lift or if it is just the lens with basic stand. It appears to just be the lens, is that correct? I am excited to hear and see some results, especially reguarding throw ratio and PJs that have a recessed lens. It looks like you have the motorized focus on the lens, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that as well. You are probably watching a movie through it right now, or that's what I would be doing lol. Can't wait to hear more!


-Sean


----------



## Gotchaa

The mounting of this lens is going to be an issue for many of us. It is unfortunate it can't work with a Chief or other popular mounting systems.


----------



## W00lly

Finally










I can't wait to see your review Alan.


----------



## Moggie

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* 
UPS dropped off a heavy package today.

Very cool! Just how much does it weigh?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/20323902
> 
> 
> The mounting of this lens is going to be an issue for many of us. It is unfortunate it can't work with a Chief or other popular mounting systems.



I assume one can drill the appropriate holes in the stand's plate that would then be attached to the mounting plate (AK5 panamorph plate)? Alan can you comment on that approach?


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gotchaa* /forum/post/20323902
> 
> 
> The mounting of this lens is going to be an issue for many of us. It is unfortunate it can't work with a Chief or other popular mounting systems.



Comparing the 5000 series Prismasonic to the new 6000 Series the new lens is the same size all around but one inch taller. On my scale the new lens is 2.5LBs heavier.

Somewhere around here there is a thread for Primasonic lens. Most people in that thread had no issues mounting the 5000 using a little imagination combined with their Chief mount. There are pictures in that thread as well. There is not enough of a difference in size or weight to keep someone from the doing the same with this lens. You also have the option of other motorized sleds. The Isco 3 is heavier.

Once this ships I am sure we will see all kinds of ingenuity with pictures surfacing from those who preferred DIY mounting.

Some people used a board between their Chief mount and projector which overhung the front of the projector for mounting the lens without any issues and it looks slick!!! No different with this lens.


Ron that is another option as well. This lens is also machines to fit Scotts sled. Plenty of options here.


----------



## 230-SEAN

So Alan, what do you think of the lens? Have you tested different throw ratios by chance?


-Sean


----------



## W00lly

Where is our review Alan


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *W00lly* /forum/post/20355558
> 
> 
> Where is our review Alan



I second that, and I'm wondering if this is still hitting the market at the end of this month?


-Sean


----------



## Mr Met




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20361010
> 
> 
> I second that, and I'm wondering if this is still hitting the market at the end of this month?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Hey Alan, I 3rd that ... even though it looks like a shark and has a sexy ass end.... it does me no good on paper ... I need the actual lens to do 2.35 ..

is the review coming ?? and is this going to be shipped by the end of the month ?? ...I kinda need to know if I need to look at other A- lens .... does the dollar value vs euro have anything to do with the delay ?


----------



## Alan Gouger

Sorry guys I am a bit behind and have not been on the board as much the last few weeks.

I will have some pictures on board over this weekend sorry for the delay.

To hold you over until then I have taken the lens for a test drive next to the Isco 3 and it is razor sharp adding no Chroma Aberration at all. The shape of the lens makes it easier to use as well. I will be pairing it with an RS50 and have plenty of test patterns for the project. I will take pictures with and without the lens in place to compare.

Saturday is my target to get this on line.

Any technical questions in the meantime post away what ever I cannot answer hopefully Anssi will chime in.


Thank you.


Thank you!


----------



## 230-SEAN

Sounds good! Sorry we all have ants in our pants! I am very interested in the usable throw ratio that the 6000 has. I'm looking at the 1.3 to 1.4 TR area using a JVC HD250 (recessed lens), is the 6000 capable of this TR with a recessed lens projector? Thanks!


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20365966
> 
> 
> Sounds good! Sorry we all have ants in our pants! I am very interested in the usable throw ratio that the 6000 has. I'm looking at the 1.3 to 1.4 TR area using a JVC HD250 (recessed lens), is the 6000 capable of this TR with a recessed lens projector? Thanks!
> 
> 
> -Sean



Sean yes it can handle a recessed lens. You will see this with a RS50 which has the same recessed lens.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/20366136
> 
> 
> Sean yes it can handle a recessed lens. You will see this with a RS50 which has the same recessed lens.



Thanks Alan. I just found more info on the Prismasonic website. It states for the 6000 series lens:


PJ with a non-recessed lens: TR needs to be 1.25-1.35 or greater


PJ with a recessed lens: TR needs to be 1.5-1.6 or greater


Its too late to start measuring tonight, but I'm kind of worried as I think I remember my TR going to be around 1.4-1.45 with the new HD250. And I'm wondering if what the website is trying to say is that realistically the TR needs to be 1.6 or greater?


-Sean


Edit: Did the measuring this morning and my TR is 1.5 and I might be able to get it to 1.54. I am wondering if the 6000 will for sure work with this TR or if I'm pushing it too close?


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20367163
> 
> 
> Thanks Alan. I just found more info on the Prismasonic website. It states for the 6000 series lens:
> 
> 
> PJ with a non-recessed lens: TR needs to be 1.25-1.35 or greater
> 
> 
> PJ with a recessed lens: TR needs to be 1.5-1.6 or greater



Is this times 1.78 image width or 2.35 image width?


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20368091
> 
> 
> Is this times 1.78 image width or 2.35 image width?



This is distance from the PJ's lens divided by the Height of your screen, then multiply that by 0.5625.


So, in my case, the HD250 will sit 10' (120 inches) from the screen (I might be able to get 3 more inches there), and my screen height is 45".


(120/45)0.5625=1.5



and if I can get those 3 inches


(123/45)0.5625=1.5375


I hope this helps you.


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

Sean


I you do not have to worry. If the *Prismasonic 6000R* will not work for you ( it will







) then you would not be able to use the Isco 3 as well!

Just took the *6000R* for a test drive side by side with the Isco3.

The *6000R* I have does not have the coatings so I am currently only testing for focus/sharpness, aperture size and Chroma Aberration.

In these regards the *6000R* has the Isco3 beat in every category. I will post more pictures later tonight so they are on line for tomorrow morning for everyone's viewing but regarding your concern and knowing you have a JVC I took a JVC RS50 with the same recessed lens and zoomed the image to its largest zoom for a worse case scenario. The image was then thrown onto a 9 foot wide scope screen.

I was still able to place the *6000* lens 3" from the JVCs protruding gold cosmetic ring on the front of the projector. Enough space to comfortably pass a universal remote between them with room to spare. Picture below.

All testing was done using this distance using the max aperture of lens again for a worse case scenario.

The *6000* focus remained razor sharp right out to corners resolving the Lcos pixel structure and adds no CA at all.

The Isco 3 at this distance runs out of aperture and had to be moved more then 1" closer which still pegged its front aperture. Focus on the Isco3 was a little softer and contributed to a little more CA which you will see in the up coming images.

The reason for this the front exit on the Isco 3 is smaller then the *Prismasonic 6000* exit.

Here is a quick picture of the *6000* in front of the JVC in the same position all pictures and testing was done but with the remote in place for reference.









Here is a quick pic of the Isco3 moved closer in its position as all pictures and testing was done.









Here is a picture of the two lens side by side comparing their exit. The Isco3 looks small in this comparison.









They Isco3 is closer in size at the entrance.








The remote focus on the *Prismasonic 6000R* is a real treat and while most can do without as in most cases this will be a "set once" operation after using it I would have to have it.


More to come tonight for tomorrows viewing.


----------



## 230-SEAN

That sounds good! Thanks for the info! According to the Calculator Pro at PJ Central using a RS50 at my TR would be zoomed in around 1.9x and the available zoom is a 2x, so I'm right at the edge where you were testing. I would move the A-lens closer to the PJ so that would help as well. I'm pretty sure this will work, any word on the lift?


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20379026
> 
> 
> That sounds good! Thanks for the info! According to the Calculator Pro at PJ Central using a RS50 at my TR would be zoomed in around 1.9x and the available zoom is a 2x, so I'm right at the edge where you were testing. I would move the A-lens closer to the PJ so that would help as well. I'm pretty sure this will work, any word on the lift?
> 
> 
> -Sean



It will work 100% no doubt. The Isco 3 would work for you as well but you will lose some aperture.

I zoomed the JVC to its largest image and was able to place the 6000 a full 3" away from the front of the projector. and still achieved a full bright image with no darkening in the corners. Of course you would never want to do in real practice but I did this on purpose for you and to show worse case scenario.

In your case the JVC will be zoomed smaller and the lens moved much closer resulting in better performance.









Here is the Isco3 moved much closer with the JVC zoomed to its largest size and it still runs out of aperture at 1.5" from the JVC. Ideally you would move it closer but this was to prove a point.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20379026
> 
> 
> That sounds good! Thanks for the info! According to the Calculator Pro at PJ Central using a RS50 at my TR would be zoomed in around 1.9x and the available zoom is a 2x, so I'm right at the edge where you were testing. I would move the A-lens closer to the PJ so that would help as well. I'm pretty sure this will work, any word on the lift?
> 
> 
> -Sean



You can rest, it will work 100% no doubt.

We all know the Isco 3 would work for you as well but under tighter restrictions.


I zoomed the JVC to its largest image and was able to place the 6000 a full 3" away from the front of the projector. and still achieved a full bright image with no darkening in the corners. Of course you would never want to do in real practice but I did this on purpose for you and to show worse case scenario.

In your case the JVC will be zoomed smaller and the lens moved much closer resulting in better performance.









Here is the Isco3 moved much closer with the JVC zoomed to its largest size and it still runs out of aperture at 1.5" from the JVC. Ideally you would move it closer but this was to prove a point.


----------



## Alan Gouger

With the lens at this crazy distance both the 6000 and Isco3 still focused and resolved a full image with no corner cut off.

I took a few snaps to compare CA but it was with a hand help camera in a dark room so they are at different distance and some are blurry but that does not take away from comparing CA. I was little closer to the screen for just the JVC and the 6000 and further away for the Isco.

1.JVC with no lens.

2.JVC with Prismasonic 6000R

3.JVC with Isco3


























I took pictures comparing all 3 scenarios in each corner as well if you want me to post them. I have to upload all the images so I would not get to it until later tonight.

Will have more info regarding the mount shortly. More info on delivery as well to follow.


----------



## eyes&ears

Being a newbie to the pj world would someone clear up some questions I have about the allowable throw for these lenses.


In some of the above posts there is reference to both the throw ratio as well as the zoom level. My limited understanding of this is that these are not the same number.


I have been calculating the throw ratio by the formula:


Throw distance (in inches) / screen height (in inches) * 0.5625


This calculation does not give the zoom number seen in the Projector calculato Pro. That is the lens zoom, correct?


Wow, way too much thinking for a weekend!










Thanks!


----------



## satsok

I expect to see the pics for chromatic aberration-like geometry

The distance lens-screen I have is 4.5m and can go up to 5m.

My screen is 2.9m width Flat 235:1

I know I'll have a little problem.


From Europe I can buy prismasonic lens;


Very nice work you make!


----------



## Alan Gouger

eyes&ears


I see you are in central FL. If you would like to see the lens in person and put it through its paces contact me via PM. I am on the coast but Central to you as well.


satsok


I will do that for you later today or tomorrow. I will zoom the image smaller eliminating the screen boarder so we can compare the geometry of both lens together. ﻿﻿


----------



## satsok

Thanks Alan G.


Take your time to have proper and accurate results.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eyes&ears* /forum/post/20379579
> 
> 
> Being a newbie to the pj world would someone clear up some questions I have about the allowable throw for these lenses.
> 
> 
> In some of the above posts there is reference to both the throw ratio as well as the zoom level. My limited understanding of this is that these are not the same number.
> 
> 
> I have been calculating the throw ratio by the formula:
> 
> 
> Throw distance (in inches) / screen height (in inches) * 0.5625
> 
> 
> This calculation does not give the zoom number seen in the Projector calculato Pro. That is the lens zoom, correct?
> 
> 
> Wow, way too much thinking for a weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



You are correct that they are not the same, but they are related to each other in a way. The shorter the throw ratio, the more zoom you'll have to use on the PJ to fill the whole screen from the shorter distance.


The closer to the screen the PJ is, the smaller native (1x) picture will be. Therefor, if you want a bigger picture but the PJ is close to the screen, you have to apply zoom.


Here is where the TR and zoom amount come into play with an anamorphic lens. Shorter TRs and high zoom numbers create a larger light beam coming directly from the PJ's lens, which in turn is an even larger light beam going into the anamorphic lens, and then even a larger light beam coming out of the anamorphic lens. This becomes a problem if the physical size of the anamorphic lens cannot accommodate the size of the PJ's light beam. If this happens, you experience what is known as Vignetting.


Vignetting is when edges of the image get "cropped" off by the walls of the anamorphic lens. This generally only happens on the left and right sides when using a horizontal expansion anamorphic lens, such as the majority of lenses on the market today. Vignetting appears as a perfect image on your screen to the point in which the anamorphic lens gets in the way, and from that point out it looks the same as when someone stands in front of the PJ and blocks the image from meeting the screen. Basically a shadowed edge of your screen with no image.


Now, what Alan did testing the anamorphic lenses with the PJ at full zoom was a simple way to cover the anamorphic lenses point of Vignetting without setting up several different TRs. He basically is saying that using a JVC RS50 at its max zoom (2x) the anamorphic lenses did not display any Vignetting. Now, using that information, you can go to the Calculator Pro, select JVC RS50, put in your Throw Distance (not throw ratio) and adjust the zoom until you get your screen size (screen height, and I always go a couple inches taller just to cover a little over scan onto the screen's border). If you are able to get the JVC RS50 to fill your screen at your throw distance, then in theory you will not experience Vignetting with the anamorphic lens.


I hope that helps!


-Sean


----------



## Alan Gouger

satsok just did some testing and the Prismasonic 6000 and the Isco3 are indistinguishable regarding geometry distortion. Both produce inverted barrel distortion top/bottom which can be altered based on the tilt of the lens. I will take pictures once the room is dark. I will also throw them on a curved screen as well.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/20380408
> 
> 
> satsok just did some testing and the Prismasonic 6000 and the Isco3 are indistinguishable regarding geometry distortion. Both produce inverted barrel distortion top/bottom which can be altered based on the tilt of the lens. I will take pictures once the room is dark. I will also throw them on a curved screen as well.



This is quite impressive - did he do any measurements of how evenly the lens expands the image at the center compared to the edges? I.e., 1.28x in the center and 1.39x on the edges? I know that's one area that some lenses have been able to offer improvements over the ISCO, and it sounds like the 6000 is already showing itself to be a very nice lens.


----------



## davey_fl

Looking forward to some updated info on the mount/sled and delivery. Thx Alan.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Here is a side by side comparing the Prismasonic 6000 series to the Isco3 regarding geometry distortion, we are splitting hairs.

Want to note we are using a curved screen here.

1st image 6000R

2nd image Isco3


----------



## eyes&ears




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20380217
> 
> 
> You are correct that they are not the same, but they are related to each other in a way. The shorter the throw ratio, the more zoom you'll have to use on the PJ to fill the whole screen from the shorter distance.
> 
> 
> The closer to the screen the PJ is, the smaller native (1x) picture will be. Therefor, if you want a bigger picture but the PJ is close to the screen, you have to apply zoom.
> 
> 
> Here is where the TR and zoom amount come into play with an anamorphic lens. Shorter TRs and high zoom numbers create a larger light beam coming directly from the PJ's lens, which in turn is an even larger light beam going into the anamorphic lens, and then even a larger light beam coming out of the anamorphic lens. This becomes a problem if the physical size of the anamorphic lens cannot accommodate the size of the PJ's light beam. If this happens, you experience what is known as Vignetting.
> 
> 
> Vignetting is when edges of the image get "cropped" off by the walls of the anamorphic lens. This generally only happens on the left and right sides when using a horizontal expansion anamorphic lens, such as the majority of lenses on the market today. Vignetting appears as a perfect image on your screen to the point in which the anamorphic lens gets in the way, and from that point out it looks the same as when someone stands in front of the PJ and blocks the image from meeting the screen. Basically a shadowed edge of your screen with no image.
> 
> 
> Now, what Alan did testing the anamorphic lenses with the PJ at full zoom was a simple way to cover the anamorphic lenses point of Vignetting without setting up several different TRs. He basically is saying that using a JVC RS50 at its max zoom (2x) the anamorphic lenses did not display any Vignetting. Now, using that information, you can go to the Calculator Pro, select JVC RS50, put in your Throw Distance (not throw ratio) and adjust the zoom until you get your screen size (screen height, and I always go a couple inches taller just to cover a little over scan onto the screen's border). If you are able to get the JVC RS50 to fill your screen at your throw distance, then in theory you will not experience Vignetting with the anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> I hope that helps!
> 
> 
> -Sean



Thanks Sean, that was extremely helpful! Everything I read always recommended longer throw ratios ( >2) were best to have more lens options and avoid some distortions.


I see that if I follow your instructions on the projector calc. pro for my setup I get a zoom of about 1.5X which I am assuming would be well within a good range?


----------



## eyes&ears




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20380604
> 
> 
> Looking forward to some updated info on the mount/sled and delivery. Thx Alan.



+1


I have my projector suspended approx. 30" from the ceiling (12') with a chief mount. After reading the above posts it seems that possibly my best option would be to use a second ceiling support of some type for the lens/sled. Is there anything currently available to do that, or is it going to be a DIY?


Thanks.


----------



## satsok

Αlan


Although the pictures are not good I see in the center 1.30x and edge 1.38x


Is it true what you see ?


both show very close !


How is the curved screen ?

Center to edge.


----------



## 230-SEAN





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eyes&ears* /forum/post/20380974
> 
> 
> Thanks Sean, that was extremely helpful! Everything I read always recommended longer throw ratios ( >2) were best to have more lens options and avoid some distortions.
> 
> 
> I see that if I follow your instructions on the projector calc. pro for my setup I get a zoom of about 1.5X which I am assuming would be well within a good range?



From what Alan said, you should have no issues with Vignetting, but still there might be a PJ that it won't work with. The RS50 is a good basis to go by since it has a recessed lens, which increases the chance of Vignetting over a non-recessed lens. What kind of PJ do you have? Also, you will still experience some distortions with an anamorphic lens regardless of throw ratio. Pincushion (image is taller on the sides and smaller in the center, looks like a sideways hourglass shape) will be there, it is more severe with shorter throw ratios than it is with longer throw ratios. Curved screens are made with the minimization of Pincushion in mind. Grid Distortion will also be experienced regardless of throw ratio, again a curved screen will minimize this.


The "greater than 2.0 TR" is an ideal situation for anamorphic lens setups, as the longer the TR the less noticable the distortions will be. I, currently, do not have a room capable of a long TR so I built a curved screen to help combat the distortions introduced by an anamorphic lens. My main concern is Vignetting since I have such a short throw ratio.


-Sean


----------



## eyes&ears




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20381363
> 
> 
> From what Alan said, you should have no issues with Vignetting, but still there might be a PJ that it won't work with. The RS50 is a good basis to go by since it has a recessed lens, which increases the chance of Vignetting over a non-recessed lens. What kind of PJ do you have? Also, you will still experience some distortions with an anamorphic lens regardless of throw ratio. Pincushion (image is taller on the sides and smaller in the center, looks like a sideways hourglass shape) will be there, it is more severe with shorter throw ratios than it is with longer throw ratios. Curved screens are made with the minimization of Pincushion in mind. Grid Distortion will also be experienced regardless of throw ratio, again a curved screen will minimize this.
> 
> 
> The "greater than 2.0 TR" is an ideal situation for anamorphic lens setups, as the longer the TR the less noticable the distortions will be. I, currently, do not have a room capable of a long TR so I built a curved screen to help combat the distortions introduced by an anamorphic lens. My main concern is Vignetting since I have such a short throw ratio.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Thanks, Sean,

I understand there will always be some distortions. I know this is a bit OT but how much pincushion would be considered unacceptable? I am trying to decide if I need to move the pj further back or consider a curved screen.


----------



## davey_fl

Any updates on shipping and the sled/mount? As I understood it was targeted for the end of April....


----------



## rmarcoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20389061
> 
> 
> any updates on shipping and the sled/mount? As i understood it was targeted for the end of april....



+1


----------



## mark haflich

A little discussion on throw ratio and zoom ratio. The throw ratio is the number you multiple the screen width to get the throw distance. The screen width in question is the 1.78 width that fits within that higher aspect ratio screen you have or are thinking about. The zoom ratio is simply the throw ratio at the farthest point from that 1.78 screen size you can mount the projector and not overfill the 1.78 screen divided by the throw ratio at the closest point to the 1.78 screen you can go to without underfilling the screen. If you have the throw ratios at closest and farthest throws you can calculate the zoom ratio by dividing the bigger throw ratio number by the smaller. If you are not going to use an anamorphic add on lense and one wants to achieve constasnt height by zooming, one needs a zoom ratio of at least 1.33 (2.35/1.78). If the ratio is larger it gives you flexibility in the starting throe distance. For example, if you have a zoom range of say 2.0 with a lens that say has a closest throw ratio of 1.4, the longest throw ratio would be 2.8. So you uld mount your projector at any point within the range that still gives you 1.3 to go in the needed direction.


It should be noted that a zoom ratio is the result of dividing two numbers. If you know the zoom ratio number one can not solve determining the throw ratio numbers by the zoom ratio its self. You need to know one of the throw ratio numbers at the extreme and zoom ratio to determine what the throw ratio number is at the other extreme.


----------



## mark haflich

Now let's talk about the dreaded pincushioning. Let's suppose you have a plain Jane projector with no add on anamorphic. You project an image and you see what you think is pincushioning, but wait a second its only along one edge. This is called bowing but it looks exactly the same as pincushioning would along that edge. Unlike the pincushioning in an anamorphic set up which is an optical aberration of the two lens combined, the bowing is caused by the screen and not the lenses. The screen is bowed toward the projector where the imasge is curved inward. The fix is too remove the box from the frame. If the frame is bowed toward the projector because the wall is bowed, the fix is to bend the frame out near the corners of the edge so the frame becomes a straight edge once again. This exlains why a curved screen reduces pincushioning caused not by the screen but because of the lenses. In an anamorphic lens stack (primary projector lens and the anamorphioc put in front), the stack can't handle the increased width of the screen. The differences in distances from the center or the horizontal top and bottom edges to the corners is just too great and the lens doesn't not have enough range to keep the edge lines straight. There are several fizres possible. First going to longer throw. Why. Because the farther away you are (the projector lens is), the longer the distances obviously but the less the differences between the center edge and end edges. The less the % difference, the more the range built into the anamorphic and the combined range of the two lenses can deal with it.

Now remember our discussion of bowing caused by the screen. Pincushioning is caused by the lenses and the limited correction range they have as a stavck. One could design an additional lens to stack and optically remove the pincushion. Not very elegant or sexy. But onbe can also curve the screen which brings the extremities closes to the lens stack, as you bring the ends closer, the image gets smaller at those point reducing the amount of pincushioning along that edge. Bend the screen far enough out and all the pincushioning will be eliminated. Screens are normally available with a 40 ft curved radius.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20389061
> 
> 
> any updates on shipping and the sled/mount? As i understood it was targeted for the end of april....



+2


----------



## mark haflich

Recently several customers hasve asked what happens when an anamorphic is moved out of the light path and a 16 x 9 image is projected on a curved screen. Obviously, the primary projector lens is designed for projecting on a flat screen. Using a curved screen will cause a modicum of reverse pincushioning in this situation. The center or the screen edges in this situation will be further away than nthe end points. This will cause an outward bow along the top and bottom edges, It won't be severe and a small amount of zooming the picture larger will get this bow off the viewing surface. Somebody correct me if I have this wrong.


----------



## mark haflich

Prismasonic is now starting to ship the motorized lens elevator and the lens with or without the remote focus. The projector mounts won't start shipping until June. Those on the waiting list should contact an AVS sales team member and firm up (place) your order. When the projector mount becomes available, the additional cost you will need to pay is the delta cost as if you ordered the entire three piece package at one time. We will need your CC info but you will as usual not be charged until we ship to you. Prices are on the store site. Production ramp up will be gradual and initially there will be a wait. The longer you wait to order, the longer you will have to wait. Worldwide demand let alone our preorder listing through the store site has been tremendous. So don't snooze or you will lose to get allocated early in the manufacturing que.


----------



## davey_fl

Thanks Mark. Good talking with you. Ordered.


David


----------



## matthewa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Recently severasl customers hasve asked what happens when an anamorphic is moved out of the light path and a 16 x 9 image is projected on a curved screen. Obviously, the primary projector lens is designed for projecting on a flat screen. Using a curved screen will cause a modicum of reverse pincushioning in this situation. The center or the screen edges in this situation will be further away than nthe end points. This will cause an outward bow along the top and bottom edges, It won't be severe and a small amount of zooming the picture larger will get this bow off the viewing surface. Somebody correct me if I have this wrong.



So could you not zoom the picture larger with the lens in place to remove the pincushion also? Same logic just reversed


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *matthewa* /forum/post/20394442
> 
> 
> So could you not zoom the picture larger with the lens in place to remove the pincushion also? Same logic just reversed



Yes, however with my experience, the barrel distortion on a curved screen is less than the pincushion on a flat screen (both 16:9 images being of equal size).


-Sean


----------



## mark haflich

Using a flat screen, and using the anamorphic, one hides the pincushioning by zooming the picture larker and pushing the pincushion portion off screen, above and below. Even with a curved scren there will be some pincushioning, but much less and you will want to zoom slightly larger.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/20393980
> 
> 
> Prismasonic is now starting to ship the motorized lens elevator and the lens with or without the remote focus. The projector mounts won't start shipping until June. Those on the waiting list should contact an AVS sales team member and firm up (place) your order. When the projector mount becomes available, the additional cost you will need to pay is the delta cost as if you ordered the entire three piece package at one time. We will need your CC info but you will as usual not be charged until we ship to you. Prices are on the store site. Production ramp up will be gradual and initially there will be a wait. The longer you wait to order, the longer you will have to wait. Worldwide demand let alone our preorder listing through the store site has been tremendous. So don't snooze or you will lose to get allocated early in the manufacturing que.



Hi Mark, I hope AVS will honor the queue that was established via 'wait list signup'. I was told that AVS would contact me when units are available to ship. Do I now need to call again?


Thanks.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20394850
> 
> 
> Hi Mark, I hope AVS will honor the queue that was established via 'wait list signup'. I was told that AVS would contact me when units are available to ship. Do I now need to call again?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I suggest you call.


-Sean


----------



## mark haflich

Moggie. I don't know your real name but if I didn't talk to you tonight please give me a call.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Moggie. I don't know your real name but if I didn't talk to you tonight please give me a call.



I'll call in the morning.


----------



## Benito Joaquin

Last i checked there was a pretty big list meaning that Mark might get overworked. If you guys have trouble reaching him, i'm also readily available.


Benito


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benito Joaquin* /forum/post/20398424
> 
> 
> Last i checked there was a pretty big list meaning that Mark might get overworked. If you guys have trouble reaching him, i'm also readily available.
> 
> 
> Benito



Actually I couldn't reach you this morning either







Anyway I had a good conversation with Mark and he implied that the original "pre-order" order would be preserved so long as folks call and commit their credit cards.


----------



## mark haflich

I was at my desk at 7:30 AM but my phone being charged had shut off. No calls came it and it was 10AM and I fiqured I better check the phone. Turned it on and all hell broke loose. One thing about these lens calls and orders, I don't have to look up any prices. Do you want it with the remote focus or not, everyone is also ordereing the vertical motorized lens elevator.


AVS may be responsible for reversing the economic decline of the US economy just by selling these lenses. A classic example of build a better mouse trap and sell it for about half the price of the great mouse trap it bettered, and the world will come banging at your door.


----------



## movieguy2001

This is probably a rookie question, but this will be my first CIH install and there is a lot to take in. Looking at the calculator on the Prismasonic website it looks like the lens takes a 16:9 image and stretches it for a 2.40 screen. My plan was to use a 144" 2.35 screen. Also, I will be using a Mitsubishi HC9000D as my projector and planned to use its anamorphic stretch capabilities with the lens. From reading the manual the projector scales a 16:9 image to a 2:35 image. I am just wondering if this is an issue to be concerned about, or am I missing something.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *movieguy2001* /forum/post/20401429
> 
> 
> This is probably a rookie question, but this will be my first CIH install and there is a lot to take in. Looking at the calculator on the Prismasonic website it looks like the lens takes a 16:9 image and stretches it for a 2.40 screen. My plan was to use a 144" 2.35 screen. Also, I will be using a Mitsubishi HC9000D as my projector and planned to use its anamorphic stretch capabilities with the lens. From reading the manual the projector scales a 16:9 image to a 2:35 image. I am just wondering if this is an issue to be concerned about, or am I missing something.



No, you seem to understand the main concept. You need something to vertically stretch the image (PJ or BD Player or Scaler, etc.) then you need a lens to then horizontally stretch the image back to proper proportions. You do need to take into account your PJ's placement to the screen. How much lens shift is involved, what is the throw ratio, will there be enough lumens to properly light up the screen, etc. You seem to have the concept down, from there its all based on each specific setup.


-Sean


----------



## mark haflich

I will shortly be calling the first 20 or so on the preorder list.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/20402613
> 
> 
> I will shortly be calling the first 20 or so on the preorder list.



Is that even if we have talked to you? Not that I don't want to hear your wonderful voice again, lol, just wanting to know if I should be expecting a call.


-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn

Has anyone seen anything said/written about the ability (or not) of the lens lift to operate from a PJ trigger signal instead of IR? The JVCs and presumably other PJs have the ability to trigger an A-lens sled with their 12V trigger signal. For those with lens sled/lift mount clearance issues the use of a trigger signal instead of IR would be beneficial. The CineSlide will operate from either IR, 12V trigger or RS232. I suppose something could be cobbled together to work but to bodge up a new lens lift mechanism seems a shame.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20408238
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen anything said/written about the ability (or not) of the lens lift to operate from a PJ trigger signal instead of IR? The JVCs and presumably other PJs have the ability to trigger an A-lens sled with their 12V trigger signal. For those with lens sled/lift mount clearance issues the use of a trigger signal instead of IR would be beneficial. The CineSlide will operate from either IR, 12V trigger or RS232. I suppose something could be cobbled together to work but to bodge up a new lens lift mechanism seems a shame.



Yeah, the Prismasonic website only states the IR capability and that the codes are transferable to universal remotes, no mention of the 12v trigger. That's a bummer if there is no 12v trigger input, I just figured that was the norm these days. From the Hi-Res pics on the site I don't see anywhere that the 12v trigger could go on the lift, however, I also don't see anywhere that the power cord plugs in and I know the lift doesn't have organic muscles doing all the work. Maybe it has that option, they just forgot to mention it?


-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20408288
> 
> 
> ... Maybe it has that option, they just forgot to mention it?-Sean



Or that the trigger capability is coming with release 2.0. That would be after The Early Adopters... adopt.










(I did see a pix somewhere earlier where a power cord was plugged into the side of the motor case.)


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/20393677
> 
> 
> Recently several customers hasve asked what happens when an anamorphic is moved out of the light path and a 16 x 9 image is projected on a curved screen. Obviously, the primary projector lens is designed for projecting on a flat screen. Using a curved screen will cause a modicum of reverse pincushioning in this situation. The center or the screen edges in this situation will be further away than nthe end points. This will cause an outward bow along the top and bottom edges, It won't be severe and a small amount of zooming the picture larger will get this bow off the viewing surface. Somebody correct me if I have this wrong.



If the PJ is mounted even with the top of the screen (typical), then there is no barrel distortion at the top, only at the bottom. Barrel distortion with a curved screen can be substantial, and much more than pincushion. You have to know what you are doing when selecting a curved screen. Small changes in several parameters can quickly go from OK to unacceptable.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20394603
> 
> 
> Yes, however with my experience, the barrel distortion on a curved screen is less than the pincushion on a flat screen (both 16:9 images being of equal size).
> 
> 
> -Sean



Not with a good lens.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/20394717
> 
> 
> Using a flat screen, and using the anamorphic, one hides the pincushioning by zooming the picture larker and pushing the pincushion portion off screen, above and below. Even with a curved scren there will be some pincushioning, but much less and you will want to zoom slightly larger.



This is incorrect. How much pincushion depends explicitly on the throw distance, and the screens radius. It can go anywhere from perfect to barreled.


----------



## 230-SEAN

I emailed Prismasonic and Anssi promptly responded. Unfortunately the lift can only be operated by the supplied remote control or a universal remote programed with the proper codes. The explanation makes perfect sense though:


The lift is not programmable (as in you can't save a point as "lens in" and another point as "lens out") it only moves up and down while you push the button on the remote. Since every PJ's lens are not the same height off of the surface they are sitting on, everyone's "lens in" height will be different. The 12v Trigger would only move the lens all the way down or all the way up, either way it won't be putting the lens in the proper position to align with the projector.


My idea to fixing this is to hopefully use a universal remote or my ipad to control the lift. You will have to be able to program the remote to send a signal for the appropriate amount of time (depending on height of PJ lens) so that you can move the lens "in" or "out" with one push of a button. And to go even further, program a button on the remote that performs a series of functions at once such as telling the PJ to vertically stretch the image and telling the lift to ascend or descend for a specific amount of time, therefor you can have a button for "scope" and a button for "widescreen" and minimize your physical actions.


I hope this helps.


-Sean


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20417789
> 
> 
> I emailed Prismasonic and Anssi promptly responded. Unfortunately the lift can only be operated by the supplied remote control or a universal remote programed with the proper codes. The explanation makes perfect sense though:
> 
> 
> The lift is not programmable (as in you can't save a point as "lens in" and another point as "lens out") it only moves up and down while you push the button on the remote. Since every PJ's lens are not the same height off of the surface they are sitting on, everyone's "lens in" height will be different. The 12v Trigger would only move the lens all the way down or all the way up, either way it won't be putting the lens in the proper position to align with the projector.
> 
> 
> My idea to fixing this is to hopefully use a universal remote or my ipad to control the lift. You will have to be able to program the remote to send a signal for the appropriate amount of time (depending on height of PJ lens) so that you can move the lens "in" or "out" with one push of a button. And to go even further, program a button on the remote that performs a series of functions at once such as telling the PJ to vertically stretch the image and telling the lift to ascend or descend for a specific amount of time, therefor you can have a button for "scope" and a button for "widescreen" and minimize your physical actions.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Hi Sean,


Actually I had asked this question back in message #72 but never received an answer. I suspected that this lens used the existing Prismasonic motor drive mechanism and thus a "timed" execution of the IR code. It is unfortunate that there isn't a simple trigger control since that would greatly simplify automation. No doubt a future enhancement but it will not stop me being an early adopter


----------



## SteveHorn

Sean- thanks for investigating with Prismasonic. I understand what their saying. But the same explanation could be applied to any horizontal lens shift "sled". The mechanism (horizontal or vertical) needs to "know" start and stop points, via mag switches, micro-switches, servo motor feedback, whatever. And those limits (i.e. limit switches) would be set based on each projector's setup. (I'm fairly sure, though can't say for certain, that the CineSlide knows its limits.) The Prismasonic's user manual says that the remote's button (up/down - in/out) must be pressed and held until the lens is in the proper desired position. Inexpensive to build and effective. Sadly, not 12V trigger compatible.

So, two things are clear: 1) As you described, a timed command can be used or some other "arrangement" made to cobble together a 12V trigger interface.

2) At some point, a future version of the Prismasonic lens lift will have 12V trigger capability, possibly as an extra cost option.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20414689
> 
> 
> Not with a good lens.



My experience extends only to a DIY trophy lens, so I'd venture to say I've never seen a good lens, lol. Also, my PJ is lined up more or less dead center on the screen both horizontally and vertically (its probably an inch or two closer to the top than bottom, but not much), as I've said before I only can see barrel if I put a grid test pattern up never noticable with a moving image. I don't even notice if I'm watching ESPN or a news channel that has a horizontal bar of info down at the bottom of the screen. Now, before I made my curved screen the DIY lens' pincushion was too much and I couldn't stand it.


When can we expect the shipment of these to begin? I'm dying to get mine and set everything up, I haven't even used my new PJ (I bought it like 3 weeks ago) because I don't want to use it until I have a new lens, lol.


-Sean


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20420481
> 
> 
> When can we expect the shipment of these to begin? I'm dying to get mine and set everything up, I haven't even used my new PJ (I bought it like 3 weeks ago) because I don't want to use it until I have a new lens, lol.
> 
> 
> -Sean



3 Weeks with a new PJ and you haven't fired it up???? I am impressed by your will power....I vote for Sean to get the first one (stat).


----------



## movieguy2001

I am fairly height limited in my room and would prefer to keep everything as tight as possible to the ceiling. Given this, I am considering just getting the lens and then using a cineslide because this will allow for a horizontal shift for lens placement. In reading back through the thread is sounds like it should work as the lens is cineslide compatible.


Alan, now that you have had the lens can you comment on if you see any issues with this arrangement? Thanks.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20420581
> 
> 
> 3 Weeks with a new PJ and you haven't fired it up???? I am impressed by your will power....I vote for Sean to get the first one (stat).



You have no idea how miserable this is, lol. I opened the JVC box just to look at it and say "hello". Not only will I not use the new PJ until I get a new lens, but I am trying my hardest not to watch a lot of movies that I had bought a long time ago (they were bought before the PJ and I told myself I wouldn't watch them until I had a 1080p PJ, now I have to have the lens). PLEASE SHIP THE LENS! lol


-Sean


----------



## davey_fl

I'm in that boat with you Sean, I've only pulled my rs40 out to check convergence and lumens and then reboxed it waiting for the lens. It's unfortunate that the lift is IR triggered only as I was hoping to tie it into my HAI automation. I suppose there will be a work-around but bring able to set stop limits would gave been nice rather than a timed IR (which could be inconsistent). Really hoping I get a shipping notification soon....


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20421049
> 
> 
> I'm in that boat with you Sean, I've only pulled my rs40 out to check convergence and lumens and then reboxed it waiting for the lens. It's unfortunate that the lift is IR triggered only as I was hoping to tie it into my HAI automation. I suppose there will be a work-around but bring able to set stop limits would gave been nice rather than a timed IR (which could be inconsistent). Really hoping I get a shipping notification soon....



Having never dealt with trying to send a timed IR signal, I have no idea how it will work or if it will work at all. As you said it could be inconsistent, but if there was an IR transmitter placed right on the Lift's IR receiver I'd hope to see good consistant results, maybe not?


I guess another option would be to add some sort of device that only allows power to be delivered to the Lift for a specific amount of time, only problem there would be changing directions.


I'm not trying to sound fussy, like I am above holding a button down for a few seconds until the lens moves in or out, but I would really like to try to make my movie viewing as automated as posible. I think automated systems bring something magical to the experience and its something I would like for myself.


-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20421117
> 
> 
> Having never dealt with trying to send a timed IR signal, I have no idea how it will work or if it will work at all. As you said it could be inconsistent, but if there was an IR transmitter placed right on the Lift's IR receiver I'd hope to see good consistant results, maybe not?
> 
> 
> I guess another option would be to add some sort of device that only allows power to be delivered to the Lift for a specific amount of time, only problem there would be changing directions.
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to sound fussy, like I am above holding a button down for a few seconds until the lens moves in or out, but I would really like to try to make my movie viewing as automated as posible. I think automated systems bring something magical to the experience and its something I would like for myself.
> 
> 
> -Sean



I suspect what you'll (we'll) have to do is send the appropriate IR code as a series of single "button presses" separated by a short delay between each "press". That way, by counting and varying the pulses/presses we can get the lens to the right position. That may be more accurate than a single long burst of the IR code. But it all will come down to what type of univ. remote or automation system you're working with and what its capable of.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Any news on the ship date?


-Sean


----------



## davey_fl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20434418
> 
> 
> Any news on the ship date?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Or any idea yet what the delta will be on the pj mount?


Thx


----------



## kabrumbs

Does anyone know the weight of the lens and the lens with the motorized lift?


Thx


----------



## ca1ore

I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who can offer an opinion on the performance of this lens versus the Panamorph 480. Also, whether this new lens can be installed into the existing Panamorph auto sled. thx.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ca1ore* /forum/post/20481700
> 
> 
> I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who can offer an opinion on the performance of this lens versus the Panamorph 480. Also, whether this new lens can be installed into the existing Panamorph auto sled. thx.



I might beable to help out. I am a current Panamorph 480 owner that is waiting for the prismasonic to be shipped-(sorry like all of you I don't have a date)....


Here's the rub, I have my UH480 (with manual sled and attachment plate) for sale in the AVS classifieds. So it maybe a chicken and egg situation... if it doesn't sell before the prismasonic is shipped, I can do a comparison. Though it won't be a good A/B comparison, since my set up wouldn't allow a quick mounting/unmounting between each lens.


If the lens sells before the prismasonic ships (and I expect it too, since it's priced to sell), then I can give you my unscientific average joe take on the two lens based on memory only.


Ron


----------



## davey_fl

It would be nice to have some sort of update......


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20482438
> 
> 
> It would be nice to have some sort of update......



I agree, I got an email asking my interest in the lens, but that was after I already gave them my credit card # so I'm not sure why they needed to know my interest level. I'm very interested, lol, I'm dying to have the lens in front of my PJ! When can this be a reality?


-Sean


----------



## davey_fl

Yup gave CC as soon as Mark posted and received the 0-10 email which I responded to immediately. I've called and left messages a few times now with questions but I've received no response...


----------



## SteveHorn

This is beginning to sound very suspicious.


----------



## rboster

Quote:

Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* 
This is beginning to sound very suspicious.
In what way?


----------



## ca1ore

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rboster* 
I might beable to help out. I am a current Panamorph 480 owner that is waiting for the prismasonic to be shipped-(sorry like all of you I don't have a date)....


Here's the rub, I have my UH480 (with manual sled and attachment plate) for sale in the AVS classifieds. So it maybe a chicken and egg situation... if it doesn't sell before the prismasonic is shipped, I can do a comparison. Though it won't be a good A/B comparison, since my set up wouldn't allow a quick mounting/unmounting between each lens.


If the lens sells before the prismasonic ships (and I expect it too, since it's priced to sell), then I can give you my unscientific average joe take on the two lens based on memory only.


Ron
Any insights you can end up sharing will no doubt be a help. Thanks in advance.


I have generally found the 480 to be a very high performing lens, BUT, I've never had a cylindrical design in my system so have no idea really what (or if) I've been missing.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ca1ore* /forum/post/20484951
> 
> 
> Any insights you can end up sharing will no doubt be a help. Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> I have generally found the 480 to be a very high performing lens, BUT, I've never had a cylindrical design in my system so have no idea really what (or if) I've been missing.



I'm in the same exact situation.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20484495
> 
> 
> In what way?



Because if credit card numbers have already been provided, that obviously indicates (to me anyway) a commitment to purchase. And yet, the buyer to-be is being asked about their level of interest in the product they've already committed (or expressed a strong enough interest to share their CC number) to purchase. Add to that, as reported an apparent inability to get a order status update or a phone message returned.


I have no doubt that AVS is legit and that CC info is not in jeopardy. But when what I'd consider serious money is involved I would expect a more customer friendly experience. That said, my personal experience in ordering the lens was issue-free.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20487265
> 
> 
> Because if credit card numbers have already been provided, that obviously indicates (to me anyway) a commitment to purchase. And yet, the buyer to-be is being asked about their level of interest in the product they've already committed (or expressed a strong enough interest to share their CC number) to purchase. Add to that, as reported an apparent inability to get a order status update or a phone message returned.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that AVS is legit and that CC info is not in jeopardy. But when what I'd consider serious money is involved I would expect a more customer friendly experience. That said, my personal experience in ordering the lens was issue-free.



Have you already paid for yours?


-Sean


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the same exact situation.



I passed on waiting on this lens because of the unknowns and the difficulty mounting it with the RS50. I ended up getting a Panamorph DC-1 which has been great so far and mates so nice with the JVC, simple mounting plate with chief as well. I think the debate regarding cylindrical is religious and I feel both have their pros and cons.


For the price of this lens however, I think it is very appealing and one of the reasons I considered it, in the end, availability, ease of install, and known quality won out for me. Very anxious to hear the first owners of this lens experience, especially current Panamorph owners!


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20487436
> 
> 
> Have you already paid for yours?
> 
> 
> -Sean



No. They have CC info though and I have a rough idea of where I'm on the list. The way this should work is that I get a call from AVS when they're ready to ship to give me a heads up so that my account has enough in it to cover the CC charge.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20488283
> 
> 
> No. They have CC info though and I have a rough idea of where I'm on the list. The way this should work is that I get a call from AVS when they're ready to ship to give me a heads up so that my account has enough in it to cover the CC charge.



That is correct. You will be notified first and you can cancel at that time as well and the lens would then go to the next in line. Thanks Steve


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20488283
> 
> 
> No. They have CC info though and I have a rough idea of where I'm on the list. The way this should work is that I get a call from AVS when they're ready to ship to give me a heads up so that my account has enough in it to cover the CC charge.



Thats what I was told as well, but I still received the email asking me about my interest in the lens. Very odd. I hope they didn't loose my info and bump me off the list.


-Sean


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20489715
> 
> 
> Thats what I was told as well, but I still received the email asking me about my interest in the lens. Very odd. I hope they didn't loose my info and bump me off the list.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Did you read Alan's response to Steve (the post above yours)?


----------



## mark haflich

Hi.


Here is the latest. No further info on the CB-500 Projector Mount. No info on package pricing when the mount is included with lens and elevator type slide. Still expecting some mounts by the end of June. Price $990.


Good news. Our first shipment of lenses and motorized elevator type slides is on the way.


Bad news. Initial shipments are very small in quantity.


Good news. We will get shipments every two weeks.


Bad news. For quite some time out our every two week shipments will be small. This will change as the manufacturer ramps up its production capacity. It is already doing so.

But I can't predict how quickly or what rate the ramp up will occur.


The people at the top of the list will get theirs first. I have called people stopping at about preorders on 1/10 or thereafter. That should cover the first month of our shipments. Everyone on the list has been emailed to request status of their interest. That's it for now.


Post questions and I will try to answer them. You can PM if the questions are private.


Thanks for your patience over the very long wait so far.


----------



## mark haflich

Everybody here is fine. Orders are in the processing secure lens file. Cards will not be charged until shipping time and persons will be called before any charging is done. Just relax and remember initial shipments will be small. Most likely, the first shipment will not go beyond those wait listed in DECEMBER 2010.


----------



## SteveHorn

Mark, thanks for the status update. As y'all at AVS have no doubt surmised, there is a a lot of excitement, anticipation, and even some angst over the new P'sonic cylindrical A-lens.

Questions/Issues still open (that I can recall):

1) Weight of the lens, lens plus lift, etc. (Anssi may be able to post on their site. The LWH dims are there now, but no weight.)

2) A thorough unbiased review by Alan G. or any other A-Lens knowledgeable person would be nice to have. Right now, I'm ordering on faith.









3) I seem to recall a question about compatibility with a Chief mount.


----------



## mark haflich

I don't have answers to those questions. What Chief mount are you referring to?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mark haflich* /forum/post/20493120
> 
> 
> I don't have answers to those questions. What Chief mount are you referring to?



Dunno. I only recall reading an earlier post or 2 about questions regarding Chief mounts. Not an issue here. Maybe the OP will provide more info.


----------



## prismasonic

Hello All!


The specification page has now been updated. There is now also the weight information included.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/specs.shtml 


Please find also the updated user manuals of 6000 series

http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000f_manual_web.pdf 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000fx_manual_web.pdf 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000r_manual_web.pdf 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000rx_manual_web.pdf


----------



## SteveHorn

Anssi, thanks for the update.


For those on this side of the pond, Kg x 2.205 = lbs => The lens alone weighs ~9.5 lbs!


----------



## mark haflich

And its a boy!


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20494526
> 
> 
> Anssi, thanks for the update.
> 
> 
> The lens alone weighs ~9.5 lbs!



You've GOT to be kidding!


----------



## 230-SEAN

Anssi, would you be able to post the IR codes for the lift's remote? I am designing my iRule setup and would like to go ahead and throw the lift control in it. Thanks!


-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20498707
> 
> 
> You've GOT to be kidding!



Just doin' the math: 4.3Kg x 2.205 Kg/lb = 8.48 lbs. The lift adds 2.4 lbs. The remote focus option adds an inconsequential amount.

Apparently its a beefy sucker. Look at the dims: The lens case itself - no mount/base - is a wedge 6.72" (front) x 4.1" (back) x 6.1" (deep) x 5.6" H


----------



## jlanzy

Is anyone else delaying getting this lens or any of the newer A lens with the recent news of new pj with a 21:9 chip?


I have a jvc rs20 with the uh380, and have been planning on upgrading to a new pj and this new cylindrical panamorph but if the new pj has the 21:9 chip the A lens doesn't appear to have any use then.


Also, not clear on how this chip would display 16:9 source material, would we need a lens to do the reverse of an anamorphic lens to display it normally?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Which pj? The ones (21:9) we know of are more expensive than using a decent pj with an A lens, so for many it's not really a viable option. Still more cost affective to buy the lens.


Gary


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlanzy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is anyone else delaying getting this lens or any of the newer A lens with the recent news of new pj with a 21:9 chip?
> 
> 
> I have a jvc rs20 with the uh380, and have been planning on upgrading to a new pj and this new cylindrical panamorph but if the new pj has the 21:9 chip the A lens doesn't appear to have any use then.
> 
> 
> Also, not clear on how this chip would display 16:9 source material, would we need a lens to do the reverse of an anamorphic lens to display it normally?



no it would likely have the same A squeeze function JVC's have today for those that keep the Lens in the light path mode B, probably a good idea to see how it turns out before committing one way or another...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlanzy* /forum/post/20500733
> 
> 
> Is anyone else delaying getting this lens or any of the newer A lens with the recent news of new pj with a 21:9 chip?



At CEDIA last year, that 21:9 projector was about $45K.


> Quote:
> I have a jvc rs20 with the uh380, and have been planning on upgrading to a new pj and this new cylindrical panamorph but if the new pj has the 21:9 chip the A lens doesn't appear to have any use then.



FIY, Panamorph don't make cylindrical anamorphic lenses.



> Quote:
> Also, not clear on how this chip would display 16:9 source material, would we need a lens to do the reverse of an anamorphic lens to display it normally?



A standard HD projector has 1920 x 1080 pixels. These 21:9 displays have 2560 x 1080. For 16:9, they simply use the centre 1920 pixels. The point to note (problem?) with this design is that the remaining pixels project black pillars onto the sides of the image.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20502226
> 
> 
> At CEDIA last year, that 21:9 projector was about $45K.



And pitifully dim.


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20502253
> 
> 
> And pitifully dim.



45K and pitifully dim, what a bargain....I can't wait...the new prismasonic is sounding better and better already even before the reviews roll in!


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20500969
> 
> 
> Which pj? The ones (21:9) we know of are more expensive than using a decent pj with an A lens, so for many it's not really a viable option. Still more cost affective to buy the lens.
> 
> 
> Gary



Mark Haflich seems confident that there will be more 21x9 projectors; specifically identifying Sony as an example (his guess is ~$12K MSRP):

http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthrea...8#post20469998 


I think Mark's got a lot of "street cred," so I think it's more than just wishful thinking.


----------



## samalmoe

reading the prismasonic setup manual makes it seem like there is no auto stops on the up and down motorized sled. seems like you must just stop it in the right place.. it even says do not let it go to the end of its travel. if true it seems a little crude. anyone know different?


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20499359
> 
> 
> Anssi, would you be able to post the IR codes for the lift's remote? I am designing my iRule setup and would like to go ahead and throw the lift control in it. Thanks!
> 
> 
> -Sean




Here are the IR codes in a common format - GlobalCache IR format:


IN:

GC-IRL,37000,27,286,27,189BBAABBBAB,27,735


OUT:

GC-IRL,37000,27,283,27,188BBAABBBAA,27,731


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20503337
> 
> 
> Mark Halfich seems confident that there will be more 21x9 projectors; specifically identifying Sony as an example (his guess is ~$12K MSRP):
> 
> http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthrea...8#post20469998
> 
> 
> I think Mark's got a lot of "street cred," so I think it's more than just wishful thinking.



Like CAVX, I was basing my comments on the $45k alternative, but I agree with you regarding Marks comments. I think many of us here would like a native 21:9 pj in the not too distant future at affordable pricing, but until that happens, an A lens is the best alternative for many of us.


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20503825
> 
> 
> Like CAVX, I was basing my comments on the $45k alternative



I love the way the word "affordable" gets thrown around with discussions about products like this. There are probably many people right now that think $45K is affordable, they just don't like dim, single chip DLPs


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20503865
> 
> 
> I love the way the word "affordable" gets thrown around with discussions about products like this. There are probably many people right now that think $45K is affordable, they just don't like dim, single chip DLPs



That's so true










Gary


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20503366
> 
> 
> reading the prismasonic setup manual makes it seem like there is no auto stops on the up and down motorized sled. seems like you must just stop it in the right place.. it even says do not let it go to the end of its travel. if true it seems a little crude. anyone know different?



Even if there is no auto stops, it is very easy to stop the lens top the right place. This is because the optics is that tall so that in stead of one spot, there is a reasonable long travel for the lens when it is 'IN'. And for 'OUT' position it is all good when the lens is aside from the beam. Also the travel speed of lens has been optimized to support the easy use. By watching the screen you can easily stop the lens to both positions ..


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there is no auto stops, it is very easy to stop the lens top the right place. This is because the optics is that tall so that in stead of one spot, there is a reasonable long travel for the lens when it is 'IN'. And for 'OUT' position it is all good when the lens is aside from the beam. Also the travel speed of lens has been optimized to support the easy use. By watching the screen you can easily stop the lens to both positions ..



Thanks for the clarification, but how would you automate a system like this? I presume a timed 'up' an 'down' signal would work, but may get out of sync over time. Can you comment what happens when the lift hits it's stops -- does it just stall the motor drive?


Thanks.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20504531
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, but how would you automate a system like this? I presume a timed 'up' an 'down' signal would work, but may get out of sync over time. Can you comment what happens when the lift hits it's stops -- does it just stall the motor drive?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



You are correct about timed 'up' and 'down'. I would suppose it stays pretty well in sync, and if it is calibrated to the vertical center of the optics, it can also move a bit from this..and it is very easy to re-calibrate with the Prismasonic remote if needed every now and then.


at 'up' position the power feed for motors is stopped, and at 'down' position the motors are running but lens is not moving. in both cases the lens tilt adjustment is resetting, so this is why it cannot be used. Also it is not good for motors to drive the lens to the terminals continually.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20504531
> 
> 
> ... I presume a timed 'up' an 'down' signal would work...



... Or use a series of steps (i.e. IR pulses). You should be able to determine how many UPs or DOWNs to send to move the lens in or out of position. Then (depending upon your "remote's" capabilities) use a loop (or similar method) to send that many IR commands. I do something similar to move my JVC in and out of ZOOM mode: The "remaote" sends a bunch (50 or so) ZOOM commands, then follows that with a series of SHIFTs to recenter the image.

This method, instead of a "hold down the button" (timed) method may be more accurate in that you can add or remove "steps" to fine tune the positioning.

FWIW,

Steve


----------



## davey_fl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20507459
> 
> 
> ... Or use a series of steps (i.e. IR pulses). You should be able to determine how many UPs or DOWNs to send to move the lens in or out of position. Then (depending upon your "remote's" capabilities) use a loop (or similar method) to send that many IR commands. I do something similar to move my JVC in and out of ZOOM mode: The "remaote" sends a bunch (50 or so) ZOOM commands, then follows that with a series of SHIFTs to recenter the image.
> 
> This method, instead of a "hold down the button" (timed) method may be more accurate in that you can add or remove "steps" to fine tune the positioning.
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> Steve



On that note, why doesn't JVC have a lens memory setting to make it easier to move from 16:9 to 2.35:1!


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davey_fl* /forum/post/20507501
> 
> 
> On that note, why doesn't JVC have a lens memory setting to make it easier to move from 16:9 to 2.35:1!



Excellent Question! I figured they would have added that to the latest PJ lineup - mine's a HD950. But there is, I think, a fair amount of "technology" involved in doing so. They'd have to change from using motors to either servos or steppers - something with a way to keep track of the position. Then the software would need to updated. I suspect that the big hurdle ($) was the hardware side and a redesign of the lens mechanics. Too bad...


----------



## samalmoe

anssi..thanks for the info.. question- so if you inadvertently bottom out the lens you must then reset the tilt adjustment again?


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20509331
> 
> 
> anssi..thanks for the info.. question- so if you inadvertently bottom out the lens you must then reset the tilt adjustment again?



Not necessarily.


The tilt adjustment is based on the friction, and it can be tightened. However, lens motors have so much force that driving the lens in contact with lift motor box at 'up' position it will certainly change the tilt adjustment. When driving the lens in contact with the stand plate in bottom do not necessarily change the tilting.


The lens can be adjusted so that there is enough room both in 'in' and 'out' positions, so that one does not inadvertently hit the terminals. Also because the tilt adjustment is based on friction it will be very easy to re adjust if such happens.


----------



## mark haflich

Just a heads up about the CB500 mount. ANSSI tells out the instructions for the coming But the mount will not start shipping for about another month. mount will be posted shortly. The instructions and drawings will answer a lot of our and your questions about it. The mount will be dropped shipped directly from ANSSI to the end user after customization as to the drop amount needed. Of course until the drawings are ready We and you can't guestimate the drop each user will require. Also whether some manner might exist for changing or adjusting the drop after customization at the factory. We will all have to wait a bit more to find out.


----------



## Moggie

Just got email:


"UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: Prismasonic HD6000R Lens"











I was getting tired of watching of 70% of my screen!


----------



## 230-SEAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Moggie* 
Just got email:


"UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: Prismasonic HD6000R Lens"











I was getting tired of watching of 70% of my screen!
I guess that means they already called you and charged your card? You're lucky, I'm still sitting around waiting, I'm starting to understand what all the people in the JVC Pre-order were feeling.


-Sean


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20548762
> 
> 
> I guess that means they already called you and charged your card? You're lucky, I'm still sitting around waiting, I'm starting to understand what all the people in the JVC Pre-order were feeling.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Yeah I hear you. I ordered my RS-50 in Nov last year and at the same time talked to AVS about getting this lens. I'm finally at the end of the journey with just about all my theater built except for the hush box which I wanted to size to include the lens.


If it's not too painful I'll post some pics and first impressions when it arrives.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20549564
> 
> 
> Yeah I hear you. I ordered my RS-50 in Nov last year and at the same time talked to AVS about getting this lens. I'm finally at the end of the journey with just about all my theater built except for the hush box which I wanted to size to include the lens.
> 
> 
> If it's not too painful I'll post some pics and first impressions when it arrives.



Please do!


-Sean


----------



## Moggie

Mine is suppose to arrive Monday but I may not be able to get it set up and take some pics until next weekend.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20557668
> 
> 
> Mine is suppose to arrive Monday but I may not be able to get it set up and take some pics until next weekend.



It appears that you are the only one getting one. I guess when Mark said they would be coming in limited quantities he really meant one at a time










-Sean


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20557853
> 
> 
> It appears that you are the only one getting one. I guess when Mark said they would be coming in limited quantities he really meant one at a time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Sean



Yes! Hand built, one at a time!


----------



## rboster

Mine will arrive next week. I would also imagine there are a number of folks that order products, but don't participate in the forum. If the original schedule is accurate, another batch will come this week or early the next week. We need to keep in mind they are coming from outside the US....imports etc take longer to process in today's day and age. I would imagine Mark would be happy to update anyone who would ask.


----------



## Moggie

Well, good news and bad news.


The good is that lens arrive this afternoon. I was so excited to see it that I decided I would attempt to get it mounted tonight.


The bad news: the lift mechanism is DOA. I'm pretty sure it's in the electronics -- I can see the IR transmitter working when looking through the lens of my camera and the control board LED briefly lights when the power is applied, but then nothing, no movement, nada. Sigh.


Here is a photo during assembly (the plastic lens protector is still applied) that better shows the lift mechanism. It only just occurred to me that it looks like it will only mount with the IR sensor on top because it relies on gravity to lower the lens. The two motors only pull up via a flat metal tape (like a tape measure).


















The actual lens looks to be first class construction and is quite solid and heavy! There looks to be a couple of minor teething design issues with the lift mechanism: you can't see in the photos, but the reels containing the flat wire lift don't appear to be mounted quite high enough. It appears as though there is a nylon washer used as a kind of pad to keep the edge of the spool from rubbing against the metal case... or else a way to prevent undue stress on the motor bearing. Obviously I've no idea how when it performs.



















I guess I'll have to call AVS in the morning to see what they want to do.


----------



## rboster

moggie:


Sorry to hear about the issues with the lift. Hopefully it's an easy fix. Can you tell me the distance between the two mounting holes on the stand?


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20565393
> 
> 
> Can you tell me the distance between the two mounting holes on the stand?



Mounting holes? There is only a single hole on the stand, roughly in the center. Are you referring to the distance between the supports? If so, they measure 7 1/8" on center.


----------



## SteveHorn

Moggie, Thanks for the pix. Good luck with resolution of the problem.

That lift mechanism is interesting. I would not have guessed on that method. But what do I know...

It will be interesting to see what the issue turns out to be. Interestingly, when I talked with Mark, he said that most lens orders included the lift, as opposed to lens only. I wonder if your problem will impact other shipments.


----------



## prismasonic

Hello Moggie,


I'm sorry to hear this. Most probable the remote controller is somehow working in wrong channel?? It can be reset by pressing and holding both buttons of remote at the same time until the led of remote flickers. Please try this. All lenses have been tested before the shipping, but not with the remote controller which is included.


If the fix is not working, please send me a pm, and I'll give you more instructions.


----------



## Moggie

Thanks for the response Anssi. Unfortunately resetting the controller didn't work. I'll send you a PM...


Cheers.


----------



## 230-SEAN

That's a bummer about the lift. Moggie do you think that the one mounting hole is enough or would you suggest drilling two more (one at the front of each side)?


-Sean


----------



## rboster

s


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20568443
> 
> 
> That's a bummer about the lift. Moggie do you think that the one mounting hole is enough or would you suggest drilling two more (one at the front of each side)?
> 
> 
> -Sean



That's an excellent question. *Anssi what would you suggest?*


I received my lens and stand today. I'm more inclined to drill two holes into the attachment plate that sits between the projector and chief mount to allign with the two holes that sit on each side of the center hole on the stand. On the stand there are two holes that are about 2.68 inches apart and would provide additional stabilization vs just using the stand's center hole....but that's just a novice guess on my part.


Unfortunately, the two hole option does not line up with the already drilled holes in my attachment plate....therefore I'd either have to drill two holes into the stand or the plate. Since the plate has less resale value..it makes the most sense to drill into the plate. But, I'd have to take down the projector and plate...which remounting is a pain in the butt....but do it once and I'm done for a long while.


Moggie: I hope everything gets rectifyed quickly for you.


Ron


----------



## 230-SEAN

Another idea I have is to buy longer screws/bolts (not sure what is used on the lens) for the "legs" of the stand, that way the mounting is 100% hidden and would look alot more clean. I'm not sure if this is doable since I don't have a lens yet, ahem ahem, but it might be an option. Ron does your lift work? If so, what are your thoughts on it?


-Sean


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20569229
> 
> 
> Moggie: I hope everything gets rectifyed quickly for you.
> 
> 
> Ron



Ron, thanks. Yes, *Anssi is absolutely taking care of me*. Replacement parts have already left Finland, arrived and departed Sweden and are on there way for Thursday delivery!! I'll save the full story for later this week but thus far I'd have to say this is the best service I've ever encountered.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20569532
> 
> 
> Another idea I have is to buy longer screws/bolts (not sure what is used on the lens) for the "legs" of the stand, that way the mounting is 100% hidden and would look alot more clean. I'm not sure if this is doable since I don't have a lens yet, ahem ahem, but it might be an option. Ron does your lift work? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
> 
> 
> -Sean



I would suggest that the single mounting hole would be fine if attached to a flat plate and well tightened. You could also fashion something to clamp onto the non linear motion (15mm) support. In my case I'm going to create an elongated 'U' mount that attaches directly to the ceiling and mount the lift inside. This way I can keep the weight off the projector mount.


----------



## rboster

Sean:


I have the manual stand, so no moving parts. I had to take down the projector and attachment plate (AK-5 from panamorph), which attaches to the chief mount. I lined up the lens to the projector and then did an outline of the stand top with tape on the attachment plate. Then I cut the stand top out of paper with the corresponding two slots/holes on the stand top. I then placed that "paper version of the stand top" within the tape outline on the attachment plate and marked the two slots/holes on the attachment plate (for the metal shop to drill the slots/holes). A pair of bolts, nuts and washers and I can attach the stand to the attachment plate.


I would recommend using the two slots/holes for attaching the stand to ______________ in your set up. I like the fact that the slots allow for some give and take when maneuvering and attaching the stand ...a hole requires exactness. And the other reason being stability.


Ron


----------



## prismasonic

The 6000R series lenses cannot be mounted upside down, and if the CB-500 mount with grips to the stand rails is not used, perhaps the only way to ceiling mount the lens is to use the two mounting holes with 6mm screw threads (red circles) on a motor plate, and some kind of U brackets to the ceiling. I suppose Moggie is planning to do something like this.


One idea is to have only one u-bracket, which attaches both screw threads and goes up from sides of motor box (from between the stand rails). This may be the cleaner, since the brackets don't go in front of the IR windows.











The 6000F series with fixed stand can be mounted upside down. The following drawing shows the hole positions.

http://www.prismasonic.com/images/drawings/HD-6000F.pdf


----------



## SteveHorn

... Or make or purchase (sold separately by Prismasonic







) grips that the owner can affix to their existing PJ mount, similar to how they work for the CB-500 mount, or on the bottom of their mount. Admittedly not a perfect option since it throws of the the balance of the mount/PJ combo. But may be preferable where a separate ceiling mounted lens lift is not feasible.


----------



## rboster

The slot holes on the attachment worked perfectly with the prismasonic stand. I was able to use two screws, nuts and two washers per screw to attach the stand to the plate. I've adjusted the geom. and took a stab at sharpness (but I'm not satisfied there). I popped in a couple of blu rays, but could only spend about 20 mins, so certainly not enough time to get an impression of the lens.


What I did notice was an increase in detail. We watched "Get Low" over the weekend. Watching scenes last night, the fibers on the jackets stood out and the stripes in Murray's dark suite were noticable. I also noticed an increase in sharpness on the edges of the image. Another positive was the ease of setting up the geom. with this lens.


Two other observations:


1) Autofocus would be great feature to have vs my manual. Turning the wrench and stepping up to the screen each time to verify the results is a pain. But, once it's set, it's set.


2) Keep in mind, I have 2000 hours on my lamp...but I noticed that I had to go from econ to standard on the lamp to get the associated pop that I felt was missing vs my prev. lens. Again, it's not fair to say that it could be my eyes playing tricks on me, but image did seem a tad dim. A simple excercise would be to take the lens out of the path by loosening it and sliding it up....but I just got it into place and the last thing I wanted to do was that exercise.


Again, those are my initial observations with only 20 mins of playtime and still some tweaking to do. I know everyone is interested in some real world usage, so I wanted to get at least some thoughts on AVS for those interested.


Ron


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20569714
> 
> 
> Ron, thanks. Yes, *Anssi is absolutely taking care of me*. Replacement parts have already left Finland, arrived and departed Sweden and are on there way for Thursday delivery!! I'll save the full story for later this week but thus far I'd have to say this is the best service I've ever encountered.



Update: So replacement parts arrived today exactly when they were scheduled and the lift is now working perfectly. It turned out that my original remote wasn't working -- strange because feedback LED and IR LEDs are transmitting something.


Anssi, thanks for your help!


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20576513
> 
> 
> 2) Keep in mind, I have 2000 hours on my lamp...but I noticed that I had to go from econ to standard on the lamp to get the associated pop that I felt was missing vs my prev. lens. Again, it's not fair to say that it could be my eyes playing tricks on me, but image did seem a tad dim. A simple excercise would be to take the lens out of the path by loosening it and sliding it up....but I just got it into place and the last thing I wanted to do was that exercise.



It is very hard to estimate the brightness differences otherwise than with the light meter. I have found that even by doing the A-B test by switching the lens, your brains can have any opinion due to the lack of reference, especially if the difference is marginal.


According to our brightness comparison measurement between the ISCOIII and HD-6000, the ISCO III had around 1% better absolute value (lux) in brightness. However, taking into account that HD-6000 expands the picture 1.35 x (versus 1.33x expand of isco), the lumen (lux * m^2) value is close to exactly even.


----------



## bigjas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> However, taking into account that HD-6000 expands the picture 1.35 x (versus 1.33x expand of isco)



I've built my screen to be 2.37:1- so how will the 1.35 expansion compare with a 1.33 expansion ( which I thought this new lens was also)?


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20580643
> 
> 
> I've built my screen to be 2.37:1- so how will the 1.35 expansion compare with a 1.33 expansion ( which I thought this new lens was also)?



1.35 expansion converts 1.78:1 to 2.40:1. Compared to 2.37:1 the difference is only 1.3 % (few centimeters in 3 meter wide picture) , and can well be masked away from sides.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20580655
> 
> 
> 1.35 expansion converts 1.78:1 to 2.40:1. Compared to 2.37:1 the difference is only 1.3 % (few centimeters in 3 meter wide picture) , and can well be masked away from sides.



Ditto. I've done the math for my 115" wide scope screen and the difference between my 2.35 AR and a higher AR is easily lost in the side mask/frame, esp. since you're splitting that difference by absorbing the overshoot on both sides. For 2.40 that's 1.22" spill on each side.


----------



## 230-SEAN

What is the vertical stretch produced by our electronics (be it a scaler, projector, blu-ray player, etc.)? I was under the impression it was a vertical stretch of 1.33x, will this not produce improper geometry if the vertical stretch doesn't equal the horizontal? Or would it be so marginal that you wouldn't notice?


-Sean


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *230-sean*
what is the vertical stretch produced by our electronics (be it a scaler, projector, blu-ray player, etc.)? I was under the impression it was a vertical stretch of 1.33x, will this not produce improper geometry if the vertical stretch doesn't equal the horizontal? Or would it be so marginal that you wouldn't notice?


-sean
1.33,


----------



## bigjas

Quote:

Originally Posted by *230-SEAN*
What is the vertical stretch produced by our electronics (be it a scaler, projector, blu-ray player, etc.)? I was under the impression it was a vertical stretch of 1.33x, will this not produce improper geometry if the vertical stretch doesn't equal the horizontal? Or would it be so marginal that you wouldn't notice?


-Sean
That's what I was getting at really but got mixed up with aspect ratio (thanks for the reassurance though).

What about the geometry issues?


----------



## rboster

I watched a 1.85:1 BR last night with the lens in place...perfect geometry...no curvature on either side of the image. I have not watched a film with a 1.33 aspect ratio, but will pop one in this weekend to see that image with the lens.


The more I use the lens, the more I become enamoured with it's performance. Again, the advantages of the cylandrical lens vs a prism lens are shining through for me. Hats off to Prismasonic for breaking the price point on a cylandrical lens.


Ron


----------



## bigjas

Thanks Ron. The BR you mention-you're talking about a lack of pincushion right? The geometry issues ( if any ) will be where the 1.33 vertical stretch employed by the PJ is not quite compensated for with the different ( 1.35 horizontal stretch) employed by the lens? Right? I don't know if my dangerously limited knowledge has a grasp of this and whether the image will be slightly too tall or too wide - and more importantly, if it's noticeable or not.


----------



## rboster

Yes, pincushion is correct. Just to clarify for everyone my set up. I'm using an SMX curved 2.35:1 screen, planar DLP 8150 projector and my previous lens was a prism (panamoroh UH 480-terrific prism lens).


In my previous configuration, I would have noticeable pincushion on 1.85:1 material. Less so on scope material (because one could mask the difference with the frames light absorption).


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I watched a 1.85:1 BR last night with the lens in place...perfect geometry...no curvature on either side of the image. I have not watched a film with a 1.33 aspect ratio, but will pop one in this weekend to see that image with the lens.
> 
> 
> The more I use the lens, the more I become enamoured with it's performance. Again, the advantages of the cylandrical lens vs a prism lens are shining through for me. Hats off to Prismasonic for breaking the price point on a cylandrical lens.
> 
> 
> Ron



Pincushion is on top and bottom not sides. No cylindrical lens should cause any substantial curvature on sides.


----------



## quack724

Can anyone please comment on the geometry question asked by bigjas and 230-SEAN?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20583528
> 
> 
> Pincushion is on top and bottom not sides. No lens should cause curvature on sides.



My bad-stand corrected on the proper terms.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20583528
> 
> 
> Pincushion is on top and bottom not sides. No lens should cause curvature on sides.



No? My ISCOII does. It's more notable at the top and bottom since they're longer but there's definitely a curvature on the sides as well.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> No? My ISCOII does. It's more notable at the top and bottom since they're longer but there's definitely a curvature on the sides as well.



Thats because the old isco 2 had spherical elements New ones are all cylindrical Don't see it on mine (3L). Insubstantial if there. Figured Ron meant top and bottom.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I can't say that I ever saw any side curvature on my ISCO II, though perhaps that was because it of the masking.


Gary


----------



## bigjas

Moving away from the pincushion discussion again for a minute...

I can't think why anyone would build a lens with a 1.35 widening ability when most if not all PJ's, scalers etc employ a 1.33 vertical stretch.

A full screen image would appear to thus be wider / fatter by a couple of inches across a 115" wide screen(trying to now employ some logical thought) using this new lens thus the geometry is "out". Whether this is noticeable or not is the real question as this fattening occurs across the whole screen and cannot be hidden by cropping or borders etc

Anyone who actually has the lens care to comment? I can't see it being a huge problem for me but for others who look for these things-it could be.


----------



## rmarcoot

Designing for a 1.35 stretch is somewhat of a head-scratcher. I too assumed this lens, as I think all others do, would use a 1.33 stretch and therefore ordered a 2.37:1 screen to get the right fit when using the lens without using any zoom. My screen is 54.85" x 130". If my calculations are correct, the difference in stretch between 1.33 and 1.35 on this screen will be 1.95" or 1.5% of the screen width. It would seem that indicates a 1.5% distortion in the picture. The question remains how noticeable will this distortion be in that size picture.


In addition, it now appears that zooming will probably be required when switching aspect ratios and using/not using the lens. This will not be a deal killer for me, but is an inconvenience I wasn't planning on.



I certainly don't know enough to know if there are some physical limitations in the design of this lens that required a 1.35 stretch but it would seem that these problems could have easily been avoided when the lens was designed.


Hopefully Anssi can chime in when he has some time.


Let me also mention that I had a problem with my lens from shipping damage. Anssi and AVS have been fantastic in dealing with the problem and my lens should be back to me on Tuesday. Tremendous customer service. I am anxious to give it a try and do a subjective evaluation of the stretch issue.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Is it possible that a 1.35x lens was cheaper to manufacture (the glass), allowing cost to be lowered, which in turn allowed the lens to be sold at a lower price point? Just a thought.


-Sean


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20586226
> 
> 
> Is it possible that a 1.35x lens was cheaper to manufacture (the glass), allowing cost to be lowered, which in turn allowed the lens to be sold at a lower price point? Just a thought.
> 
> 
> -Sean




It is not the price issue.


1.35 * expand has been designed due to very rational reason. Every anamorphic lens has a non - linear expand from center to sides. This linearity is dependent on the throw ratio. Lets take throw ratio of around 2 as an example which may be a pretty common value at HTs. With a 1.33 x lens around 50% of the area at the horizontal center of picture has not 1.33x expand but rather average 1.31x. With 1.35x lens this center area is very close to 1.33x (average). So this is a matter of taste wheter you want center of the picture having a correct expand or the sides. We preferred center in our design.


Other reason is that this 1.35x supports our 2.4:1 screens.


..and those who are worrying about seeing 1.5% distortion; no-one can see this in blind tests.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20586322
> 
> 
> Every anamorphic lens has a non - linear expand from center to sides.



Some worse than others. Some almost none.


----------



## bigjas

Thanks for the clarification. I wish I'd known this before I'd made my screen to be 2.37:1... Doh...

I don't mind a touch of zoom here and there presuming I'll still get constant image height and won't have to also adjust the lens shift?


----------



## rmarcoot

Thanks for the explanation Anssi. It sure makes sense to have the proportions more correct in the center of the screen.


----------



## rmarcoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20586463
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I wish I'd known this before I'd made my screen to be 2.37:1... Doh...
> 
> I don't mind a touch of zoom here and there presuming I'll still get constant image height and won't have to also adjust the lens shift?



I also might have ordered a different screen ratio but agree that some minor zooming won't be much of an issue as long as we don't have to shift.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20586322
> 
> 
> It is not the price issue.
> 
> 
> The the reason for the 1.35 * expand has been designed due to very rational reason. Every anamorphic lens has a non - linear expand from center to sides. This linearity is dependent on the throw ratio. Lets take a throw ratio of around 2 as an example which may be a pretty common value at HTs. With a 1.33 x lens around 50% of the area at the horizontal center of picture has not 1.33x expand but rather average 1.31x. With 1.35x lens this center area is very close to 1.33x (average). So this is a matter of taste wheter you want center of the picture having a correct expand or the sides. We preferred center in our design.
> 
> 
> Other reason is that this 1.35x supports our 2.4:1 screens.
> 
> 
> ..and those who are worrying about seeing 1.5% distortion; no-one can see this in blind tests.



That thought never crossed my mind, that's a pretty good idea!


-Sean


----------



## quack724

Can someone please validate my understanding..


Background: I plan to go CIH for my next set up. Projector not chosen yet.

I am tentatively thinking of Seymour AT 2.37 fixed frame, Carada CIH masking, Prismasonic 6000RX. I mostly watch more relatively modern films (late 70s & onward) and few classics.


I've read other 2.35 vs 2.37 vs 2.40 threads and what I took away (within the context of 1.33x HE A-lens),


1) Fitting (overscanning) a 2.35 movie on a 2.40 screen means you would be cutting off the top and bottom

2) fitting a 2.40 movie to fit 2.35 screen means cutting off the sides.


Question #1) Does that mean a 2.37 screen would be the "middle ground" where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a *2.40* movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?


Question #2) Per Anssi's response, 1.35x should be a non issue with 2.37?


Question #3) If the answer to question #1 is "yes," I think I would be OK with that. Would my tentative proposed configuration as I described above require me to fumble with zooming every time I watch a 2.3x AR film? If yes, is there a cost effective solution where I can just pop in a 2.3x film and not have to fumble with zooming?


Thanks in advance..


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724* /forum/post/20587496
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Question #1) Does that mean a 2.37 screen would be the "middle ground" where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a 2.35 movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?



If you mean "...where a 2.35 movie would cut a small amount off the top and bottom and a *2.40* movie would cut off a smaller amount on the sides?"


Assuming CIH, then yes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724* /forum/post/20587496
> 
> 
> Question #2) Per Anssi's response, 1.35x should be a non issue with 2.37?



A non-issue. But that's JMHO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quack724* /forum/post/20587496
> 
> 
> Question #3) If the answer to question #1 is "yes," I think I would be OK with that. Would my tentative proposed configuration as I described above require me to fumble with zooming every time I watch a 2.3x AR film? If yes, is there a cost effective solution where I can just pop in a 2.3x film and not have to fumble with zooming?



Seems like you could adjust your zoom (and shift) one time to the best fit for your mix of ARs - 1.78->2.40 - and be done with it. If your screen frame has good light absorption, it should absorb any spill. I think that you'd want to avoid any bars or pillars with whatever AR you're watching.


----------



## quack724

Thanks SteveHorn. I corrected my typo.


Yes, my ultimate goal is to avoid any bars or pillars with whatever AR. I won't have quad masking so i think i'd be out of luck for a film like Ben Hur but I can live with the exceptions. Hopefully I can adjust the zoom and shift one time like you said and be done.


----------



## SteveHorn

From what I've read, Ben Hur (2.76:1!) is certainly the exception. How The West Was Won on BD was another. Based on what I've seen and rented via Netflix, 2.35:1 is far and away the most common AR for 'scope films. (There must be a way to look at imdb or wherever and sort by AR but I don't know what it is. It'd be a good exercise in gee-whiz to see how ARs are distributed. There are probably even those stats here on AVS somewhere, under a post called "Insanely Wide Films".







)


----------



## swim4519

Hey guys. So these last couple of pages have been interesting on the aspect ratio discussion with the 1.33 vs 1.35. The question I have now is, I was about to place an order for a 130" diag 2.35:1 Stewart screen, and I am concerned that since they tested with 2.40 screens in mind, that the distortion on a 2.35:1 will be worse!?!?


Thoughts?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swim4519* /forum/post/20590994
> 
> 
> Hey guys. So these last couple of pages have been interesting on the aspect ratio discussion with the 1.33 vs 1.35. The question I have now is, I was about to place an order for a 130" diag 2.35:1 Stewart screen, and I am concerned that since they tested with 2.40 screens in mind, that the distortion on a 2.35:1 will be worse!?!?
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



That is not the case for me with this lens and a 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## GetGray

The "distortion" produced by this lens will be the same regadless of the screen size. The screen will have nothing to do with the distortion. It's a receptor. I can't say I agree with their choice to make the horizontal expansion 1.4+ when the vertical produced by every commercial scaler is 1.33 .


----------



## bigjas

It also appeared very odd to me but " non linear " expansion appears to be one of the reasons (covered in a level of technical detail that is well beyond my level of knowledge).

I would be interested to hear balanced opinions of the manufacturers of other 1.33 lenses eg Isco on the non linear issue but that's unlikely to be happening here. I'm still unsure whether this is a deal breaker for me given my TR is about 1.9 I think.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 1.35 * expand has been designed due to very rational reason. Every anamorphic lens has a non - linear expand from center to sides. This linearity is dependent on the throw ratio. Lets take throw ratio of around 2 as an example which may be a pretty common value at HTs. With a 1.33 x lens around 50% of the area at the horizontal center of picture has not 1.33x expand but rather average 1.31x. With 1.35x lens this center area is very close to 1.33x (average). So this is a matter of taste wheter you want center of the picture having a correct expand or the sides. We preferred center in our design.


----------



## Suza

@bigjas

Some information regarding expansion copied from a review comparing the CrystalMorphic 5E1 and the ISCO IIIL at a TR of 1.65. Would have been interesting seeing results with a longer TR as well for more balanced results.


--------------------------------------


"The target expansion for the lens is 1.33, here's how the measurements came out:


SCREEN POSITION 5E1 ISCO

Center expansion: (1.30x) (1.27x)

Midpoint expansion: (1.32x) (1.27x)

Side expansion: (1.36x) (1.42x)"


Here is the link to the review:

http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/reviews.html


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> "The target expansion for the lens is 1.33, here's how the measurements came out:
> 
> 
> SCREEN POSITION 5E1 ISCO
> 
> Center expansion: (1.30x) (1.27x)
> 
> Midpoint expansion: (1.32x) (1.27x)
> 
> Side expansion: (1.36x) (1.42x)"
> 
> 
> Here is the link to the review:
> 
> http://www.anamorphiclens.com.au/reviews.html



It would be very interesting to see similar figures for the prismasonic across the entire screen width. That said, I would have thought that a far more important consideration would be to have minimal differences in expansion across the screen rather than a paper spec number of 1.33x. In that respect it looks like the 5E1 is better than the ISCO.


Personally the Prismasonic 1.35x expansion doesn't bother me in the slightest but then I built a native 2.40:1 screen ratio


----------



## Fredrik Rasmussen

Ok, so with an 8 feet wide 2.35:1 screen and this lens, how much would I loose on each side when having 2.40:1 material zoomed with no grey bars?


Sorry if being thick headed..


Edit:

PJ: Sim2 HT380 with T2 lens (2.0-3.0 Long throw optics), not as recessed as the T1 standard shortthrow optics.

Proposed Screen: Stewart Cinecurve 2.35 (106.25" w, 45.25" h), CC116SST13G3WX

Proposed A-lens: Prismasonic 6000 1.35x

TR: ~2

 

SNDQ119SST13WezX.pdf 27.6318359375k . file


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Fredrik Rasmussen* 
Ok, so with an 8 feet wide 2.35:1 screen and this lens, how much would I loose on each side when having 2.40:1 material zoomed with no grey bars?


Sorry if being thick headed..
Note that an 8' (96") wide 2.35 is 40.85" tall. The native 16:9 perfect fit image would be 40.85" x 72.62".


The scaler will employ a 1.33 vertical stretch which will make the image fill the projectors panel height. You will have the PJ zoomed to overscan a little to compensate for pincushion which is a bowing in of the top and bottom. How much pincushion depends on your TR. Next the lens is moved into place which optically stretches left-right. You have overscanned a little (made the image larger) by say 0.5 inches top and bottom, 1" total. So now your original image is 1.78" wider than the 16:9 size of 72.62, making it 74.4. With Prisimasonics non standard stretch ratio of 1.35, the resulting stretched image would be 100.44". Subtract your screen size of 96 and you end up with 4.44" wider than your screen. Or 2.22" of lost material on each side.


Check my numbers as I was hurrying, but I believe I have it right..


----------



## prismasonic

It is not that easy to calculate the picture dimensions. The anamorphic expand ratio is also dependent on the throw distance and the throw ratio. The expand ratio increases as throw distance increases and the throw ratio decreases. If you monitor the anamorphic lens exit the expand ratio is not much above the 1x. At some throw distance, again depending on the throw ratio the expand ratio saturates close to nominal value of the lens. Curved screen again decreases the expand ratio around 1% depending on the curvature, throw ratio and throw distance, while it also neutralizes the non-linear expand.


So in Fredrik's case since he has a pretty small picture, and probable also pretty small throw distance the nominal 1.35x lens may match his 2.35:1 screen pretty well.


As a conclusion the absolutely perfect match with the screen is more or less tossing a coin, and IMO it is NOT the thing to worry about too much. The screen has black borders for allowing the over scan to the picture. You may have noticed at movie theaters the picture being over scanned to the velvet borders by tens of inches.


----------



## Fredrik Rasmussen

Thanks Anssi and Scott, I put the actual proposed configration in my post above as we are getting into specifics.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fredrik Rasmussen* /forum/post/20596492
> 
> 
> Thanks Anssi and Scott, I put the actual proposed configration in my post above as we are getting into specifics.



I quickly simulated that the expand ratio for you setup will be 1.335 x with our lens.


(According to your specs, your throw distance is around 4.1 meters, and since I don't know the curvature radius of your screen I used 13 meters for that)


----------



## Fredrik Rasmussen

Thanks,

would this also mean that I won't have to refocus the PJ if moving the A-lens out of the beam for 16:9 native material viewing? Apart from a small loss of top/bottom image?


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fredrik Rasmussen* /forum/post/20596563
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> would this also mean that I won't have to refocus the PJ if moving the A-lens out of the beam for 16:9 native material viewing? Apart from a small loss of top/bottom image?



No you won't have to refocus or re-zoom. Just adjust the picture when setting up so that it is slightly atop of both horizontal and vertical velvet frames.


----------



## samalmoe

so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20626228
> 
> 
> so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?



previous page has comments from users


----------



## RedTopDown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20626228
> 
> 
> so..anyone have anything to say about their new prismasonic?



I wish I was able to discuss its performance, but alas, I'm just getting back to working on my HT. I got on the waiting list in the early stages anticipating I'd be done by now. But a broken foot halted my progress for months.


I ordered and received the HD-6000RX with the motorized lift and focus. Mine will be mounted up in a hush box, so I went ahead and splurged for the motorized focus.


What I can tell you is this:


1) AVS was excellent in informing me of the shipment and didn't charge me until it was going out the door.


2) The unit was very well packed.


3) Assembly is pretty straightforward. You do need to take off the bottom of the lens unit (four screws on bottom and two on front) in order to peel off the protective plastic applied on all sides of the lenses. Assembly of the lift mechanism is quick and parts included allow you to vary the height of travel depending on your projector and/or mount.


4) The remote and power supply operate both the lift and the motorized focus. That being said, you only have it plugged in to one at a time. So you only have the power to the motorized focus during setup. The remote then controls the focus with the lift disabled, but in the light path. Once you get the focus right, you then switch the power to the lift. The remote then controls the lift.


5) Everything on mine was working as expected.


6) With no projector or screen, my testing was completed. Back in the box it went to be utilized in the near future (hopefully!).


I’m on the list for the upcoming CB-500 mount. I guess I have time to wait for it.


Sorry I couldn’t be of any help with the performance of the lens itself! Interested to hear about that too!


----------



## samalmoe

I was more interested in hearing about performance...sharpness, light loss etc..anyone?


----------



## Moggie

My installation is slow because I'm building a hush box and mount at the same time. The fact that the HD6000 is not readily ceiling mountable has meant that I needed to create a custom mount. I will be able to get everything fitted and fired up this (long) weekend. I'll post about my install and my performance findings after that.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20629017
> 
> 
> I was more interested in hearing about performance...sharpness, light loss etc..anyone?



I made some initial comments on performance on the previous page.


----------



## bigjas

For what it's worth- here are my thoughts as my lens arrived today!

I should say my jvc 350 is my first pj. I have 55 hours on it, haven't calibrated it, have no equipment to measure anything other than by "eye". If you've stopped reading at this point I totally understand lol.

Well packaged as has been said ( I just went for the manual focus, no lift option). The instructions regarding removing the bottom panel seemed complex at first but turned out to be a breeze.

There is a tilt function I wasn't expecting. I had no idea this would actually alter (bend) the horizontal grid lines as I was expecting it to perform like a lens shift function ( I did say this was my first pj). Anyway I tilted it by hand so that the main lines in the middle of the screen were level ( having first adjusted the height of the mount so that the image was coming out of the middle of the large lens. And that was that!

I was surprised by the amount of pincushioning that appears to be present (when looking at the grid only as it's simply not noticeable when watching content).

The manual focus was a little tricky as I couldn't decide what area of the screen to concentrate on as my jvc has a menu area in the centre when adjusting. I'll probably continue to play with this a little. The whole 2.40:1 compared with 2.35:1 doesn't appear to be any issue. I'll set it for 2.37:1 and tweak the zoom if necessary.

Overall this is so much easier with CIH now achieved and the image is noticeably brighter now that I'm not projecting the black bars within the picture.

Overall I'm a very happy bunny and prismasonic have been a pleasure to deal with ( I went direct to them as I live in the UK and shipping to me from Finland via the USA seemed daft). The lens looks great in the flesh too which is a bonus. All I need to do now is find a sled ( I've shelf mounted). Any suggestions?


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20633263
> 
> 
> All I need to do now is find a sled ( I've shelf mounted). Any suggestions?



A CineSlide would work nicely as this lens was also designed to be used on one.


-Sean


----------



## sarkleshark

Is the cineslide under a grand?


----------



## GetGray

No, but you can get a discount through AVS. PM me for details.


----------



## RedTopDown

Any update on the ETA of the CB-500 mount?


----------



## bigjas

There's no way I'm paying anything like a grand. Since I was going to manually slide and all I really wanted was a buffer which sorts out the back and side stop points, I have made my own with a strip of PVC I found lying around the house. Took me 20 mins and works a treat. Anyone else finding that there is no real sweet spot to nail the focussing?


----------



## GetGray

There should be clear point of focus.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20636595
> 
> 
> Anyone else finding that there is no real sweet spot to nail the focussing?



That doesn't sound good. Is it too much one way and when you move it back the other it puts it too far as well? Try just barely moving the allen wrench (I think that's what is used to adjust focus on this lens) as you might just be over-turning it. I am curious to hear if anyone else is having this issue though.


-Sean


----------



## bigjas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound good. Is it too much one way and when you move it back the other it puts it too far as well? Try just barely moving the allen wrench (I think that's what is used to adjust focus on this lens) as you might just be over-turning it. I am curious to hear if anyone else is having this issue though.
> 
> 
> -Sean



If anything I seem to need to turn the allen key a full 360 degrees to register any difference which isn't a problem at all. What I'm finding though is that was is in focus in the middle area of the screen leaves the outer extremities not as crisp. Is this normal? It's really only noticeable when I'm checking the grid lines from 6 inches but still curious.

I'm not sure screenshots will assist anyone having read some of the older threads and arguments that they seem to generate-and I'm no photographer but I could try.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20638727
> 
> 
> If anything I seem to need to turn the allen key a full 360 degrees to register any difference which isn't a problem at all. What I'm finding though is that was is in focus in the middle area of the screen leaves the outer extremities not as crisp. Is this normal? It's really only noticeable when I'm checking the grid lines from 6 inches but still curious.
> 
> I'm not sure screenshots will assist anyone having read some of the older threads and arguments that they seem to generate-and I'm no photographer but I could try.



Hmmm, that is interesting. I wonder if that has anything to do with the 1.35x stretch that the lens produces? Anssi said that it would allow the center to be closer to 1.33x but maybe that is at the cost of over-stretching the sides and somehow causing improper focus? I would like to hear if anyone else is having the same results or if maybe there is just something going on with yours that they can fix?


-Sean


----------



## prismasonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by *bigjas* 
If anything I seem to need to turn the allen key a full 360 degrees to register any difference which isn't a problem at all. What I'm finding though is that was is in focus in the middle area of the screen leaves the outer extremities not as crisp. Is this normal?
As the throw ratio get's smaller there exist more non-idealities in the picture.

The geometrical- and grid distortion increases. Such happens also to focus non-uniformity.


Having said that, this is naturally depending on the lens design how well the focus uniformity in handled. Since the HD-6000 series has been designed to fit the beams for throw ratios down to 1.3, I guarantee that all effort in design has been put to find the best possible focus performance. According to the simulations and experiments, with 6000 lens the focus uniformity is more than ten times better than with the CORRECTED prism designs. (IMO the corrected prism design has already a very acceptable focus performance.) Also with a very thorough comparison experiments with the ISCO3, even if I'm biased to judge, I frankly have to say that HD-6000 handles better the side-to-side uniformity. I remember that Alan got a similar result as well..


I suppose bigjas has a pretty short throw setup, since he was surprised of pincushion distortion. If you can move further back with the projector in a room, and use less zoom, the performance will improve in all aspects. However, if you have to go to 6 inches from screen to see the focus imperfection in grid lines, it has to be close to perfect already.

*EDIT:* I forgot to mention that most projectors in themselves have already more or less non-uniform focus, especially LCD's which can be very fussy on the edges. It is also good to take this into consideration when testing the system, because lens attachment cannot correct the problem caused by the projector.


----------



## prismasonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by *RedTopDown* 
Any update on the ETA of the CB-500 mount?
We have guaranteed to receive the aluminum parts for 100 pcs of mounts on around 15th of this month. Then the parts will be surface treated. It takes 1-2 weeks. So I would estimate that the mounts will ship in the first or second week in August.


The mounts will be shipped to customer directly from us. We will need to know the drop from ceiling to the projector's bottom, because the pipe length of mount will be customized according to customer's wish. We can also give a support in discussing which is the minimum recommendable drop with 'lift' lens models (HD-6000R and HD-6000RX).


The user manual is not finished yet, but we try to get the manual available as soon as possible. Some information can be found here.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_cb500.shtml 


Those who are worried about the compatibility issue with a projector; please rest assured. By utilizing the cad drawings of tens of latest HT projectors, we have not found a single which was not compatible with the mount, including the projectors with non-flat bottom or asymmetric optics position.


----------



## bigjas

My throw ratio is 1.9 which while not brilliant is well within the acceptable range for this lens. My screen is not curved however so maybe that's a part of it too.


----------



## CAVX

You'll also need to make sure the light path passes horizontally centered through the optics. Being off by even 1mm can be the difference between having pixel level clarity and not.


----------



## bigjas

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX*
You'll also need to make sure the light path passes horizontally centered through the optics. Being off by even 1mm can be the difference between having pixel level clarity and not.
Does this mean that non expert user installs are unlikely to ever achieve the best results. 1mm is pretty daunting as I'm only doing this by eye. Any tips or tools that may assist? It looks like the light is passing through the middle of the exit lens but I'm by no means certain


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *bigjas* 
Does this mean that non expert user installs are unlikely to ever achieve the best results. 1mm is pretty daunting as I'm only doing this by eye. Any tips or tools that may assist? It looks like the light is passing through the middle of the exit lens but I'm by no means certain








I got my first cylindrical lens in 2009 and I'll admit, it was not until some time in 2010 I actually worked out how to get the best out of it. So no I don't expect anyone here to have it sorted right away.


For a time my lens was mounted to a manual slide and the difference between where the slide touches the rubber stops and locks was the difference between perfect focus and not quite there.


The interesting thing is, there are probably next to no movies that actually have much detail to the level of single pixel lines, so even when you don't have 100% alignment, the image will still look good.


As Asnsi said, the projector's lens itself may prevent you from obtaining corner to corner focus simply because of its own design faults or limitations, so don't lose sleep over it. I would suggest removing the anamorphic lens from the light path and focusing the image as best you can first, then add the A-Lens and do the astigmatism adjustment.


One of the best tips for checking alignment was originally posted by Aussie Bob which involves sliding a piece of paper between the Projector's lens and the anamorphic adapter. This way you can see the rectangle of light and its position on the glass with out blinding yourself by having to look into the raw light beam.


Of course, you can also see the effect this has when looking at the screen and being able to slide the lens left or right whilst projecting a test pattern of similar high detailed image.


----------



## bigjas

That's very interesting. Thank you. The paper tip sounds good as I had been sliding it left and right as you also suggested.

The image does indeed look good when actually watching film content so to put anyone else's mind at rest, we are talking very close scrutiny of grid lines only. I didn't know that about the whole single pixel thing.

When you say remove the lens and achieve PJ focus first and then place lens to adjust for astigmatism- do you mean the focus or the tilt adjustment?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20644627
> 
> 
> That's very interesting. Thank you. The paper tip sounds good as I had been sliding it left and right as you also suggested.
> 
> The image does indeed look good when actually watching film content so to put anyone else's mind at rest, we are talking very close scrutiny of grid lines only. I didn't know that about the whole single pixel thing.



I re-aligned mine tonight before watching a film. I am currently typing this whilst using my projector as the monitor. When the anamorphic lens is set up right, you will be able to see pixel structure on text. If not, don't discount the projector and keep playing with the adjustments on your lens so you get an understanding to what it is doing.



> Quote:
> When you say remove the lens and achieve PJ focus first and then place lens to adjust for astigmatism- do you mean the focus or the tilt adjustment?



This is from my Blog for my lens, but works for all Anamorphic Lenses.

Start with the Anamorphic Lens out of the light path and project an image that has single display pixel lines running in both horizontal and vertical directions.
Focus the projector to be as sharp as possible with the lens out of the light path.
Add the Anamorphic Lens ensuring that it is centered in the light path.
Adjust the Astigmatism Correction [by turning the cap screw with the Allen key provided]. DO NOT rock the projector's focus at any time during this adjustment.

Once you have completed these four steps, you can adjust tilt to even up the pincushion top/bottom.


----------



## bigjas

1,2 and 3 all done.

Sorry for being a bit dense but

4. Astigmatism Correction - does this mean the lens focus?

If so this could be where I went wrong as I adjusted the tilt before the lens focus and you seem to be saying focus the lens first (after 1-3 above) and then adjust the tilt after. Thanks again


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigjas* /forum/post/20645433
> 
> 
> 1,2 and 3 all done.
> 
> Sorry for being a bit dense but
> 
> 4. Astigmatism Correction - does this mean the lens focus?
> 
> If so this could be where I went wrong as I adjusted the tilt before the lens focus and you seem to be saying focus the lens first (after 1-3 above) and then adjust the tilt after. Thanks again



Your can make this after the tilt if you like. Astigmatism correction on your lens is made with the hex head socket bolt. This is focus of the lens and because the thread is small, you may find even partial turns can be the difference between being 100% in focus and not.


What are you using for a text pattern?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20646962
> 
> 
> Your can make this after the tilt if you like. Astigmatism correction on your lens is made with the hex head socket bolt. This is focus of the lens and because the thread is small, you may find even partial turns can be the difference between being 100% in focus and not.
> 
> 
> What are you using for a text pattern?



You've seen or are knowledgable of Annsi's astigmatism thread pitch? Just curious, you seem very familiar with it. Are you making them for Prismasonic?


FWIW, the Isco's are very insensitive to any lateral offest. Certaintly not to any 1mm level. Perhaps it's the plano (flat) glass surfaces that the Isco's don't have internally that fix that anomaly. My personal lens wil focus perfectly regardless of horizontal offset from center.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20646986
> 
> 
> You've seen or are knowledgable of Annsi's astigmatism thread pitch? Just curious, you seem very familiar with it. Are you making them for Prismasonic?



No, not at all. I used M6 bolts for this exact purpose on my own Mk4 from 2009.



> Quote:
> FWIW, the Isco's are very insensitive to any lateral offest. Certaintly not to any 1mm level. Perhaps it's the plano (flat) glass surfaces that the Isco's don't have internally that fix that anomaly. My personal lens wil focus perfectly regardless of horizontal offset from center.



PLANO on the ISCO III? The last ISCO IIIL I saw had curved front and rear glass on the outside as well as the inside. I know some of the older ISCO 2x lenses from real cinemas had PLANO (flat surfaces) on the out side as do mine.


What is the size of the rear lens on an ISCO IIIL?


AB made a post about it some time ago and I played with my own lens and confirmed what he said. I discovered that I could get 100% corner to corner by simply sliding the lens to the left or right by such a small distance. I am simply passing on what my own experiences in a hope that these guys will find joy from these new lenses and not write them off as a bad experience because they couldn't get the image as good as others claim it can be.


----------



## GetGray

10-4. But I think you misunderstood the comment "the [plano surfaces that] Isco's *don't* have internally".


So nevermind, just sounded like you had some interesting inside info.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20647406
> 
> 
> 10-4. But I think you misunderstood the comment "the [plano surfaces that] Isco's *don't* have internally".



Yeah sorry I misunderstood that. They should have 4 curved surfaces - two external and two internal.



> Quote:
> So nevermind, just sounded like you had some interesting inside info.



Nothing I haven't found here.


----------



## Moggie

Well I pretty much got my hush box built this weekend (with nice extension for the Prismasonic lens):


































Those of you looking closely at the pics will see that there is no a-lens in place! The Primsmasonic lens looks really nice, but I am having my fair share of problems. First it was a dead remote control, now after mounting and running the lens up and down a couple of times, one of the drive motors looks like it stripped a thread.










I had made a mount that would allowed the lens to be suspended directly from my ceiling (roof of hush box) -- the HD-6000R is designed to be mounted on a shelf or with custom attachment to the projector mount. It seems to me that it would be a good idea if Prismasonic supplied mounts similar to mine with the base unit -- they would be extremely cheap to produce.











Anyway, after a couple of lifts up and down I was about to set up the focus when I heard a crunch and the lens froze. Back and forth movement would not free it so having just mounted everything I tore it all down and dismantled the lens. You can see the one side where the motor no longer can hold the weight of the lens.











I've pinged Anssi at Prismasonic to see how he wants to handle this, but I'm really bummed right now since I'm back to 16:9 and cannot zoom anymore since the hush box porthole is not big enough. I'll review the lens and mount just as soon as I can, but at this point I would say that the lens looks solid but I'm not so sure about the lift...


There is more information about my hush box in my build thread (see sig).


Cheers.


----------



## JDLIVE

Nice. Your hush box looks nicer than my entire theater.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDLIVE* /forum/post/20655202
> 
> 
> Nice. Your hush box looks nicer than my entire theater.



Thanks very much, it's been a LONG two year journey!


Update on my lens: Anssi asked that I ship it back for repair. He promised a fast turn around and I'm hopeful that I'll be enjoying 2.4:1 movies very soon...


----------



## SteveHorn

Fascinating build! I need to spend more time looking at the thread of your entire journey. But +1 on what I've seen so far.

I think Anssi should have direct shipped a replacement lift along with an RMA for the defective one. But what do *I* know? And I'm doing my own sled for the lens and God Only Knows how that will turn out.


----------



## Moggie

Hi Steve,


I'm not bothered with the repair vs. replacement. It's not like these units are being cranked off the factory floor. Anssi is going to simply replace the motor drive. The only pain is that the motor is "not end user replaceable" and thus requires the whole lens module to be returned. The motor consists of a coiled spring that would uncoil if detached so I understand the need to return. Anssi at Prismasonic has been very responsive and easy to work with.


I did give a lot of thought to building my own sled. However, given that I've built every other aspect of my HT including curved screen and automated masking system I was reaching the point of exhaustion. I liked the vertical travel and price of the Prismasonic lift so I hit the EASY button.







At least I thought I had.


Looks like I will have the lens back in my hands next week...


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20663700
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> 
> I'm not bothered with the repair vs. replacement. It's not like these units are being cranked off the factory floor. Anssi is going to simply replace the motor drive. The only pain is that the motor is "not end user replaceable" and thus requires the whole lens module to be returned. The motor consists of a coiled spring that would uncoil if detached so I understand the need to return. Anssi at Prismasonic has been very responsive and easy to work with.
> 
> 
> I did give a lot of thought to building my own sled. However, given that I've built every other aspect of my HT including curved screen and automated masking system I was reaching the point of exhaustion. I liked the vertical travel and price of the Prismasonic lift so I hit the EASY button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I thought I had.
> 
> 
> Looks like I will have the lens back in my hands next week...



I hear ya! And my sled? I may have wished I'd gone to the EASY button too. But my vertical travel is limited; It would have meant the lens being lifted into the ceiling. And I had originally planned that. But somewhere along the line I thought "I can build one!". Yeah, we'll just see about that. Lens is supposed to be here today. Sled is still nowhere near done. Still working on soft and firmware.

Addition: My lens arrived today. It is no wonder your lift got a hernia; this lens is BEEFY!


----------



## samalmoe

installed the prismasonic and the one thing i can say right away is it's sharper than the panamorph 480 i had. pixel lines are much clearer.. don't like the motorsled..no auto stops..you have to pay attention to where you want it to end up.. pincusion is vg also..the motorized focus would have been nice also


----------



## RedTopDown

Anssi/Others,


Any reason why hard stops couldn't be secured to the two shafts of the lift to set the IN position so you wouldn't have to guess at the stopping point in the light beam's path? Seems like it would work to me and allow one to have an exact stopping point. You'd still want to stop the motors when it got there, but it would at least provide precision to the lift.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedTopDown* /forum/post/20680738
> 
> 
> Anssi/Others,
> 
> 
> Any reason why hard stops couldn't be secured to the two shafts of the lift to set the IN position so you wouldn't have to guess at the stopping point in the light beam's path? Seems like it would work to me and allow one to have an exact stopping point. You'd still want to stop the motors when it got there, but it would at least provide precision to the lift.



yes this will work. As for balance reason both poles should have the stop at the same level.. And those really have to be stops not breaks. We are working on this issue as well.


Without the stops, IMO, it is still pretty easy to stop the lens just watching the screen. >1.5 throw ratios there is much margin in optics height so that there is an area instead of precise spot in where the lens fits the beam, thus allowing a small time period to stop the lens.


----------



## RedTopDown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> yes this will work. As for balance reason both poles should have the stop at the same level.. And those really have to be stops not breaks. We are working on this issue as well.



Sorry. I meant to add in their that I would have one each shaft. I was thinking that if you included two rings to the right diameter with set screws it would be great. Then again a perfect set up for most here I would think would be to also have a set in and out position that required just a single remote button press. Short of that, adding stops will be a big help.


Thanks for the quick reply.


----------



## Moggie

Stops in the IN position would be safe given that the motors do not stall in this position. Given my issue with one of my motors I would not do this in the OUT position. Instead, since the motors look like simple DC geared motors you could add a couple of, normally closed, limit switches. Add a reverse power diode in parallel to still allow motor reversal and thus exit off the limits...


----------



## samalmoe

so adding physical stops to the down ..in.. position wont hurt anything?


----------



## SteveHorn

While we're redesigning the lift... I had a minor issue with the lens that's worth passing along. The shipping bar/plate that is affixed to the bottom of the large (outer) lens, and that the shipping screw is attached to, fell off the lens last night. No harm was done to the lens. After discussing with Anssi I'm passing along the following: 1) the plate can come off if the shipping screw is tightened instead of loosened during unpacking/setup, 2) the plate is there for cosmetic reasons only after it performs its shipping function (to stabilize the lens), 3) it can be reattached with glue (or left off). If glue is used, use a flexible glue rather than a super glue. I went with a silicone sealant - basically a caulk used for aquariums - that stays pliable after it clots. Anssi said that they are looking at an alternative shipping arrangement to avoid this. He also said, after I expressed some concern, that the adhesive used for the upper lens attach point (focus adjust) is much stronger (i.e. the lens itself shouldn't fall out.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/20681619
> 
> 
> so adding physical stops to the down ..in.. position wont hurt anything?



When driving the lens up (OUT POSITION) towards the physical stop, the electronics of receiver board shuts down the drive current of motor, but as always there is a slight time delay. That is why it is not recommended constantly drive up towards the stop.


Driving the lens down (IN POSITION) towards to physical stop should be pretty safe, because the spring coils loosen and the motors keep running. However I cannot recommend it because our stress tests for the lift has not yet covered this kind of operation.


At some point, we'll design a new receiver board as an update, which has a user defined travel to the lift.



> Quote:
> Anssi said that they are looking at an alternative shipping arrangement to avoid this. He also said, after I expressed some concern, that the adhesive used for the upper lens attach point (focus adjust) is much stronger (i.e. the lens itself shouldn't fall out.



The pulling adhesive is the same for both upper and lower bars (equals around 50 kg direct pulling weight). However, the torqued force of screw threads combined with the torqued force of L-wrench generates easily that large pulling force, which no set glue cannot resist if the lock screw is tightened against the bottom plate, and the threads are on the lens holder bar. To avoid this accident the threads should be on a bottom plate hole not on a lens holder bar, and this small change has already been made to next batch of lenses. I still point out that NO HARM is happening if the delivery lock screw is just opened and removed from the bottom.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20683921
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> The pulling adhesive is the same for both upper and lower bars (equals around 50 kg direct pulling weight). However, the torqued force of screw threads combined with the torqued force of L-wrench generates easily that large pulling force, which no set glue cannot resist if the lock screw is tightened against the bottom plate, and the threads are on the lens holder bar. To avoid this accident the threads should be on a bottom plate hole not on a lens holder bar, and this small change has already been made to next batch of lenses. I still point out that NO HARM is happening if the delivery lock screw is just opened and removed from the bottom.



Thanks for the correction regarding glue strength; my misunderstanding. (However, in my defense, I did not tighten instead of loosen; over tightening must have occurred during assembly.)

My concern in mentioning all this was that a loose lens holder bar might damage the front lens, as mine might have done, if the installer was mounting the lens to a lift, sled or pj mount. Mine dropped out of the lens case and almost hit me on the head.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20684315
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction regarding glue strength; my misunderstanding. (However, in my defense, I did not tighten instead of loosen; over tightening must have occurred during assembly.)
> 
> My concern in mentioning all this was that a loose lens holder bar might damage the front lens, as mine might have done, if the installer was mounting the lens to a lift, sled or pj mount. Mine dropped out of the lens case and almost hit me on the head.



My apologies, I did not mean to blame you for the accident. In all cases we are responsible for this. I just tried to warn that it is easy to loose the holder bar by accident due to design of locking screw mechanism. The lens may have got a hit during the delivery as well.?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/20684648
> 
> 
> My apologies, I did not mean to blame you for the accident. In all cases we are responsible for this. I just tried to warn that it is easy to loose the holder bar by accident due to design of locking screw mechanism. The lens may have got a hit during the delivery as well.?



No worries! The shipping bar was apparently loose from but not off the lens before I removed the screw. Only later, when I was holding the lens in front of the pj, did it come off completely. It was like the adhesive lost its stick. Anyway, no harm to the lens.

I was thinking that a better way to ship the lens would be to fill the case cavity with a preformed foam pad that cradles the lens(es). Then it could be removed by removing the lower cover. Not sure if that is cheaper or more effective than the shipping bar/plate and associated screw (and cap) though.


----------



## mdrew

I am currently using a 1400 with the HE front lens upgrade and a RS20 projector. I use a Radiance XS for scaling. I will most likely upgrade the projector eventually, but just having seen anything offered yet to make me want to move from the RS20.


I am considering buying one of these lenses hoping for a substantial improvement in picture quality and overall improved focus (current focus method is a compromise from center of screen to sides of screen). I hate spending money on these "upgrades" to only be disappointed.


Can anyone tell me if this proposed "upgrade" will yield substantial improvements? What would the improvements be?


I'm also a bit confused on the mounting options for the manual version. Can this be mounted with the lens hanging from a ceiling mount? Some of the comments indicate otherwise.


----------



## Moggie

Well, I finally got my, now fully working, lens hung tonight and spent some time dialing it in. After careful set up I must say that it offers a stunning picture... I'm a really happy camper.


I'm by no means an expert but here is my story.

*My setup:*

Screen: 54" CIH DIY curved screen (to a 41' radius) with Seymour AV Center Stage XD fabric.
Screen build thread 

Projector: JVC RS-40

Throw: 18' (Throw Ratio = 2.25)

*Setting up the projector and lens*

1. The first step was to ensure the projector was mounted completely level front to back and level relative to the screen right to left (which is also level btw







).

2. Next I zoomed and offset the 16:9 image to over scan slightly the height of the screen. You can see in the pics below that the geometry distortion I was seeing was limited to barreling on the bottom edge. The top edge was flat and the side were very slightly trapezoid (wider at the bottom). I put this down to the offset optics of the JVS lens itself.

3. I made sure that the image was exactly centered on my screen.

4. After carefully setting the projector focus I brought the HD-6000 lens into the path and noticed that the now stretched image was projecting slightly to one side. I tweaked my lens ceiling mounting so that the lens was square to the projector lens -- if off even slightly, one side of the expanded image would be closer to the edge of the screen than the other side which results in subsequent distortion. Note that my custom ceiling mount was not connected to the projector mount so it is possible to be out of alignment hence the need for this step.

5. After the lens mount was square I tilted the actual a-lens on its pivot to ensure I had even distortion along the top and bottom edges of the image. In my case (and I guess I did something right calculating screen radius) because I was able to end up with an image with zero (honestly less that 1/8") distortion -- no barrel, no pincushion at all! The only distortion was was present was an emphasized trapezoid distortion on the sides particularly in the lower corner. I presume that the a-lens is amplifying the projector lens error(?) Maybe it is introducing so additional distortion but frankly this is the easiest type of distortion to mask off.

6. I went back to step 1 and did everything again with very minor tweaks.

*Focus:*

There have been reports that the focus of the HD-6000 differs from the center to the edges. With my curved screen I could not detect this at all. I've tried to provide some photos but its hard with my pocket digital camera. I did find the focus adjustment on the HD-6000 is on a very fine thread. It takes a turn or two to see any notable effect and there seems quite a range over which it is hard to discern any difference. The strategy I used was to get my wife to turn the focus so it was clearly degrading the image, then turn about 8 turns the other way until again it was clearly degrading. Then winding back to roughly the center between these points. This seemed to work fine, but honestly I could have turned the focus an entire turn in either direction without any noticeable change.


After this procedure I must say that I was very impressed. Some screen shots follow but I was hard pressed to see much of a difference in any part of the image. There was a small, but noticeable softening of the image (which I imagine would be a positive for a DLP projector). I took screen shots at the left/center edge and true center so you can judge for yourselves. Again, note that my camera quality is not the best.

*Vignette*

There is absolutely no trace of any vignette effects. My lux measurements between the center and corners of the screen proved that there was no measurable additive effect of the lens. I presume this is because the lens is quite a bit larger than needed at my TR.

*Geometric Distortion*

My curved screen was designed to eliminate distortion at a throw distance of 18'. Clearly this has worked out perfectly to compensate for the pincushion on the upper and lower edges. The only distortion I can see is the exaggerated trapezoid in the lower section of the sides.

*Brightness*

I need to check my results again because I was rushed, but I only measured a 1% reduction in brightness caused by the lens. The image is noticeably brighter that when I was zooming.. Given the less than marketed brightness of the JVC projectors this is great news. I am still able to get a bright enough image without resorting to high-lamp (although the iris is max open).

*CA*

I would say that it is almost unseen to the eye if it exists at all. I don't know how to properly test this and separate the effect from the slight convergence error in the projector...

*Overall*

Fantastic. Whether through my care in setup or just a great lens I know my widescreen image in my humble little theater is substantially better than what I've viewed in demo rooms at my local so called "high-end" AV stores.


Is the initial discounted prices still available? If so, my recommendation is to jump on this lens!

*I'll have an update on my lift automation solution soon.*


The pics:


Barrel distortion on lower edge with 16:9 and no anamorphic lens (as a result of my curved screen):










The same barrel distortion can be seen here:










With a-lens, the distortion has gone, but the trapezoid distortion is more apparent in the lower corners:










Focus, first without the a-lens, then with (darker because I reduced the exposure):

















Center of screen, first without the a-lens, then with (camera location moved slightly):

















Without lens, then with (far left of screen):

















Geometry tests:


















CA:










Eye Candy (without, then with lens):

































Final note. The HD-6000 does indeed scale by x1.35, however my screen is built as a native 2.4:1 (with adjustable masking) so it worked out perfectly.


----------



## Moggie

Those of you following this forum will know I was one of the first (if not the first) to receive a lens. Unfortunately I did wrestle with some problems. First the remote was broken, second, after a couple of lifts one of the motors stripped a thread. I needed to send the lens back to Anssi in Finland to fix. I will say that he is extremely attentive and promised (and delivered) on a very fast turn around time.


Everything is working now, but I'm the kind of "get it right then forget about it kind of guy" so I spent a little time crafting a solution to the in/out stop problem (which is particularly problematic when trying to automate) to hopefully ensure that I won't have future problems with the lift motors. In doing so I can also avoid the problem of the lens bottoming out and altering the critical tilt position.


Here are the additions I've made:

*1. Ceiling mount*

One problem with this lift is that it does not have an option to attach to the ceiling. The optional projector mount attachment is not ready yet and in any case I really wanted to put the weight on the lens on the ceiling and not the projector mount.


To solve this (and I posted this before), I folded some aluminum plate into a 'Z' shape and mounted it under the top of the round columns. In an OCD moment I decided to sand blast the mounts to match the texture of the lens, but then couldn't be bothered to paint

























*2. IN stops*

Whilst it would be easy to stop the lens in the right stop when moving it manually (there really is a large window for the IN position) I wanted to automate the lift and needed to ensure that the lens would never accidentally bottom out. Doing so runs the risk of bumping the lens tilt adjustment. Since my lens is buried in my hush box I didn't want to risk this.

I'm fortunate to have a small lathe/mill and so fabricated these stops out of Delrin. I don't see a reason why these couldn't be made in a vise with just a drill. One thing to be careful of is to fix these so they are exactly aligned in height: if the lens rests on them it needs to be picked up evenly on both sides and this will only happen if the stops are level. Note that the drive mechanism on the lift uses a spooled metal strip similar to a tape measure so if the motor continues to rotate at the bottom of travel it won't damage the mechanism. BTW when I automated this (timed travel) I actually avoid hitting these stops -- I added them as a precaution, in case I accidentally sent the "IN' control more than once.










*3. OUT stops*

Similar to the IN stops I machined up some rings for the top of travel. However, given my past experience I wasn't prepared to rely on the motor overload circuit to stop the travel (it is suppose to stop power to the motors if the mechanism stalls). The extra step I took was to replicate a mechanism I originally built for my home mill. Specifically I mounted a couple of micro switches to the stops (made a flat mounting section) and wired the normally closed switches in line with the motor circuit. It is also necessary to flatten the other side of the stop so that it doesn't interfere with the "tape" lift mechanism.


When the lift hits the switches the motors will turn off. So far so good. Now the problem is that you still have to allow for the motors to run in the reverse direction. This can be achieved by inserting a rectifier diode in parallel which the switch so current can still flow to allow for down travel. In not going to explain this any further for fear of creating support work for Prismasonic -- but if you understand the approach I'm sure you can figure out which direction to orient the diode









BTW there are two convenient holes in the metal plate housing the control electronics through which to run the switch wires.

























*4. Automation*

I use iRule on the iPad for automation. To achieve a single button IN / OUT movement I simply programmed a repeat on the IR code learned from the original remote. I slowly increased the number of repeats until the IN button would bring the lens into position without hitting the lower stops. The OUT button was similar although the speed of upward movement is slower than down, so some additional repeats are necessary. Once I had this number I added a couple for good measure so that the lift always hits my OUT stops. This is a nice and safe way to reset the position for the next IN movement.

*Summary*

In Summary I think Prismasonic have created an awesome lens. However, I don't think the lift is up to the same quality. I certainly like the vertical movement (which avoids getting in front of most projector fans) but I feel as though there might be some reliability issues with the mechanism as it stands. My modifications were to hopefully avoid future issues. With these modifications I'm now also delighted with my lens lift and automation. I hope Anssi takes these suggestions as positive. I have no desire to see folks mess with their lifts without the confidence to do it right but conversely I think these fixes are necessary.


And there she is happy in her new home:










And now I'm going to enjoy a BIG screen movie


----------



## SteveHorn

Moggie, great write-ups! And I love the work you've done with the lift. (I'm going in a different direction, literally. Working on a sled (horizontal) for a HD-6000F, as I have little or no head room for the lift style.) Anyway, I love the setup description and pix; they'll be helpful to future lens purchasers I'm sure. (Suggest you edit your write-up to include your TR (I calc at 2.25?), since there has been several comments regarding optimum TRs for this lens.)


----------



## ceenhad

We recently received an HD6000F lens from Anssi for use at the UK CEDIA show. Whilst we were all exceptionally pleased with the build quality of the unit, we were limited to the briefest possible testing at the show where we ended up using the "electronic zoom method" in our demos.


My company is the residential distributor for Digital Projection right across the UK and Europe and so last week one of my colleagues took the chance to visit the factory in Manchester to perform some side by side testingof the HD6000F and the ISCO III.


The guys were able to spend quite a number of hours testing this lens on the full range of models from DP, from single chip DLP to the highest of high end 3chip DLP projectors. They found that in almost all categories it was impossible to differentiate the performance of the 6000 from the ISCO. The only area where they felt that a small advantage lay with the ISCO was in sharpness in the extreme corners but given the relative price difference in products this is a more than acceptable compromise.


There is no doubt that you can see the cost of the engineering in the ISCO product but for a one time setup item like an anamorphic lens we were more than happy with the Prismasonic setup.


We are excited about the opportunities this lens finally offers for constant height setup and in Europe in particular it makes a very compelling purchase when priced against any competing products.


Neil


----------



## LeeG23

Any updates on this lens? Any more reviews?


I'm particularly interested in any info on the mount and when it might be available.


Thanks.


----------



## doublewing11

Can the Cineslide be adapted to use this lens?


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LeeG23* /forum/post/20767344
> 
> 
> Any updates on this lens? Any more reviews?
> 
> 
> I'm particularly interested in any info on the mount and when it might be available.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



CB-500 mount parts are now in the surface treatment process, and should be back latest in 1.5 weeks. The user manual for the mount is ready some day in in next week. I'll inform the link for that here then.


Deliveries will start in about 2 weeks from now.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *doublewing11* /forum/post/20777498
> 
> 
> Can the Cineslide be adapted to use this lens?



Yes, the stand for this lens is Cineslide friendly.


-Sean


----------



## doublewing11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20780171
> 
> 
> Yes, the stand for this lens is Cineslide friendly.
> 
> 
> -Sean



Thanks for the response...........


Now to determine if the Isco III or IV is worth the added cost.......


----------



## GetGray

Guys: Although I understand the lens has been made with CineSlide-compatible mounting holes, the manufacturer has not had the opportunity to evaluate it for compatibility. When the CineSlide was designed, it was done so with the large Isco lenses in mind, the heaviest availabl eat that time. Both Prismasonic's lens as well as others are apparently now considerably heavier than the Isco IIIL. Becasue of that, I'll have to evaluate any such lens before it is approved for use. In a ceiling mount orientation, in particular, one must not overload a consumer CineSlide. We do make an industrialized version of the CineSlide that is used with Isco DLP Cinema lenses and can make one of those on a one-off basis as requested. However they are substantially more expensive, eating away at the savings that may have drove you to get a particular lens in the first place.


Anyway, in summary, the Prisimasonic lens has not been evaluated and approved for use on a CineSlide at this time. Happy to evaluate if someone wants to send it.


----------



## NJ Jackals




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20818739
> 
> 
> Guys: Although I understand the lens has been made with CineSlide-compatible mounting holes, the manufacturer has not had the opportunity to evaluate it for compatibility. When the CineSlide was designed, it was done so with the large Isco lenses in mind, the heaviest availabl eat that time. Both Prismasonic's lens as well as others are apparently now considerably heavier than the Isco IIIL. Becasue of that, I'll have to evaluate any such lens before it is approved for use. In a ceiling mount orientation, in particular, one must not overload a consumer CineSlide. We do make an industrialized version of the CineSlide that is used with Isco DLP Cinema lenses and can make one of those on a one-off basis as requested. However they are substantially more expensive, eating away at the savings that may have drove you to get a particular lens in the first place.
> 
> 
> Anyway, in summary, the Prisimasonic lens has not been evaluated and approved for use on a CineSlide at this time. Happy to evaluate if someone wants to send it.



What is the maximum weight allowed per specs? I searched on your site and read the manual but all I could find was 200lb pull out strength for the cineslide unit itself. No spec for lens weight. Certainly a published weight is more practical than certifying any and every lens individually.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NJ Jackals* /forum/post/20819273
> 
> 
> What is the maximum weight allowed per specs? I searched on your site and read the manual but all I could find was 200lb pull out strength for the cineslide unit itself. No spec for lens weight. Certainly a published weight is more practical than certifying any and every lens individually.



Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. When a lens is moved it is accellerated. Acceleration casues force. In this case, a rotational moment perpindicular to the travel. Depending on how far the lens can be adjusted in height/altitude, the amount of that particular rotational torque changes. That torque is affected by the lens mass and (very important) the len's center of gravity, and the distance from the bearing where it can be adjusted in a worst case situation. I've found end users to be quite creative in acheiving worst case installations







.


Next, whether or not the lens is balanced about the axis of travel is critical. Precision linear bearings like the one in the CineSlide are not designed to take a lot of torque in this direction. A properly balanced lens casues zero torque in that direction. A lens that is either off balance to start with, or can be adjusted off balance (e.g. via integral lens element movements) can be the equivilant of a little pry bar pulling to derail the bearing full time.


Next is the simple case you mention, the static load pulling (or pushing in the case of an upright lens situation) on the bearing when at rest.


And, while not usually a problem due to symetric designs, the lens has to be balanced on the bearing in the axis of travel, otherwise the torque induced at move time is different in one direction than the other.


These, along with some other variables have to be run through some complex bearing life and load limit calculations to ensure the operation is within a proper operational envelope with some safety factor.


So, it's just not as simple as checking weight when you are dealing with a precision, optimized and properly engineered design. I used to say it could do any lens within a certain weight limit. But that was before people started making their own mounts. With others making the mounts we have no way to know how the mount is designed, what forces can be generated, and whether or not the limits can be exceeded. We have no way to measure or test a len's CG without having one. And frankly the work and time to certify one isn't trivial so sales potential becomes a factor. And finally we do not vet anything just becasue it will sell one. We would like our unit to remain paired with units that have a high degree of quality engneering and construction, from my perspective. I'd like it to be compatible with everything for obvious reasons. But that does not mean that it is.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## LeeG23

Thanks Scott. While the engineering is occasionally over my head, it shows the time you have put into your product.


I am hoping you get a sample of this new lens to test so there are even more options to use with the cineslide, and even more options for mounting this new lens.


L


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20818739
> 
> 
> Both Prismasonic's lens as well as others are apparently now considerably heavier than the Isco IIIL.



This is not correct. I just weighed the Isco IIIL/Schneider XL lens I own, and it was as much as 6.4 kg. The weight of HD-6000F is 4.3 kg, which is around 30% less than that.


----------



## GetGray

FWIW, the Isco IIIL and Schneiderder XL are considerably different in weight. Yours is apparently the heavy cased version of the Schneider XL, not the Isco IIIL. Unless you have an early model with the really big case, it sounds like a heavy measurment to me. I don't have a Schneider case sitting around but I do have a Cinema DLP 1.25x which is a very heavy lens, it is right at 18lbs. The Isco 4XL is about 10 lbs (4.5kg), the Isco IIIL was about 8 lbs (3.6kg). Your 4.3kg =~ 9.5lbs.


Anyway, re your weight, good to know, but as I said, it's not just about weight (mass). In this case, it's more complicated than that, unfortunately.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/20703082
> 
> 
> Those of you following this forum will know I was one of the first (if not the first) to receive a lens. Unfortunately I did wrestle with some problems. First the remote was broken, second, after a couple of lifts one of the motors stripped a thread. I needed to send the lens back to Anssi in Finland to fix. I will say that he is extremely attentive and promised (and delivered) on a very fast turn around time.
> 
> 
> Everything is working now, but I'm the kind of "get it right then forget about it kind of guy" so I spent a little time crafting a solution to the in/out stop problem (which is particularly problematic when trying to automate) to hopefully ensure that I won't have future problems with the lift motors. In doing so I can also avoid the problem of the lens bottoming out and altering the critical tilt position.
> 
> 
> Here are the additions I've made:
> 
> *1. Ceiling mount*
> 
> One problem with this lift is that it does not have an option to attach to the ceiling. The optional projector mount attachment is not ready yet and in any case I really wanted to put the weight on the lens on the ceiling and not the projector mount.
> 
> 
> To solve this (and I posted this before), I folded some aluminum plate into a 'Z' shape and mounted it under the top of the round columns. In an OCD moment I decided to sand blast the mounts to match the texture of the lens, but then couldn't be bothered to paint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. IN stops*
> 
> Whilst it would be easy to stop the lens in the right stop when moving it manually (there really is a large window for the IN position) I wanted to automate the lift and needed to ensure that the lens would never accidentally bottom out. Doing so runs the risk of bumping the lens tilt adjustment. Since my lens is buried in my hush box I didn't want to risk this.
> 
> I'm fortunate to have a small lathe/mill and so fabricated these stops out of Delrin. I don't see a reason why these couldn't be made in a vise with just a drill. One thing to be careful of is to fix these so they are exactly aligned in height: if the lens rests on them it needs to be picked up evenly on both sides and this will only happen if the stops are level. Note that the drive mechanism on the lift uses a spooled metal strip similar to a tape measure so if the motor continues to rotate at the bottom of travel it won't damage the mechanism. BTW when I automated this (timed travel) I actually avoid hitting these stops -- I added them as a precaution, in case I accidentally sent the "IN' control more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3. OUT stops*
> 
> Similar to the IN stops I machined up some rings for the top of travel. However, given my past experience I wasn't prepared to rely on the motor overload circuit to stop the travel (it is suppose to stop power to the motors if the mechanism stalls). The extra step I took was to replicate a mechanism I originally built for my home mill. Specifically I mounted a couple of micro switches to the stops (made a flat mounting section) and wired the normally closed switches in line with the motor circuit. It is also necessary to flatten the other side of the stop so that it doesn't interfere with the "tape" lift mechanism.
> 
> 
> When the lift hits the switches the motors will turn off. So far so good. Now the problem is that you still have to allow for the motors to run in the reverse direction. This can be achieved by inserting a rectifier diode in parallel which the switch so current can still flow to allow for down travel. In not going to explain this any further for fear of creating support work for Prismasonic -- but if you understand the approach I'm sure you can figure out which direction to orient the diode
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW there are two convenient holes in the metal plate housing the control electronics through which to run the switch wires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Automation*
> 
> I use iRule on the iPad for automation. To achieve a single button IN / OUT movement I simply programmed a repeat on the IR code learned from the original remote. I slowly increased the number of repeats until the IN button would bring the lens into position without hitting the lower stops. The OUT button was similar although the speed of upward movement is slower than down, so some additional repeats are necessary. Once I had this number I added a couple for good measure so that the lift always hits my OUT stops. This is a nice and safe way to reset the position for the next IN movement.
> 
> *Summary*
> 
> In Summary I think Prismasonic have created an awesome lens. However, I don't think the lift is up to the same quality. I certainly like the vertical movement (which avoids getting in front of most projector fans) but I feel as though there might be some reliability issues with the mechanism as it stands. My modifications were to hopefully avoid future issues. With these modifications I'm now also delighted with my lens lift and automation. I hope Anssi takes these suggestions as positive. I have no desire to see folks mess with their lifts without the confidence to do it right but conversely I think these fixes are necessary.
> 
> 
> And there she is happy in her new home:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now I'm going to enjoy a BIG screen movie



I believe Prismasonic owes you some marketing revenue after that photo spread.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20827272
> 
> 
> I believe Prismasonic owes you some marketing revenue after that photo spread.



Just expressing an opinion







I will say again that Anssi (Prismasonic) was very responsive in helping me get a working setup. A setup that I'm now enjoying several times a week...


----------



## coolrda

Is this adaptable for use with a Isco 3L? In my case a CineSlide won't work as I would have to move the projector out. A vertical slide may work though.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20835480
> 
> 
> Is this adaptable for use with a Isco 3L? In my case a CineSlide won't work as I would have to move the projector out. A vertical slide may work though.



Judging by the images, I'd say an ISCO III L is too large.


----------



## lesliew

A long shot I know but can anyone tell me whether 7" clearance between the ceiling and the top of the projector is enough to mount the Motorized Lift for the HD-6000 Anamorphic Lens. I measure 9.5" from the ceiling to the center of the projectors lens.


I have the HD-6000R on order but would like to know if I need to fit an extension to drop the ceiling mount down a few inches before the lift and lens arrive.


Epson 8700UB, 120", 2.40:1 screen


Thanks


----------



## SteveHorn

Check THIS for dimensions. (You can see this by clicking on the image of the lens/lift on the lens specs page.) Looks like from top of lift to bottom of lens mount "shelf" is 337.5 mm or ~13-1/4". You may have to do a side view drawing of the pj and the lens/lift to determine if it will fit.


----------



## SteveHorn

Question for Anssi or any of the cyl lens wizards, And this may only apply to the non-"purely cylindricals" (i.e. not totally round) like the Prismasonic. How significant is the horizontal proj lens to A-lens center alignment? I'm using a custom built (i.e. DIY) sled instead of the lift, due to ceiling clearance among other things. The A-lens does not quite sit center to the proj lens. I had no problem with alignment, focus, etc. and no apparent pincushion or other distortion. This is a big mouth lens - plenty of a-lens real estate to shoot light through. But I wonder if this horizontally off-center position introduces any non-linearity. I have not seen any but have not measured from vert line to line on a test pattern.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20850431
> 
> 
> How significant is the horizontal proj lens to A-lens center alignment?



If you want true corner to corner, centering of the beam is of the utmost importance. I've done this using a DIY slide, and it quite easy.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20850676
> 
> 
> If you want true corner to corner, centering of the beam is of the utmost importance. I've done this using a DIY slide, and it quite easy.



That's whats weird. The a-lens image appears to have no issues. There is a bit of "overscan" onto the screen frame But I expected that due to the lens being 2.40 and the screen being 2.35. Maybe that is masking pincushion or barrel distortion.

The slide has just barely enough travel to get the lens out of the light path. This is due to the mechanical limits of the sled-stepper/linear actuator. (This is a beefy lens; it needs to travel about 5" laterally to clear the light path.) It started out as prototype until the a-lens beckoned and I couldn't resist installing it. Maybe version 2.0 can improve the travel.


----------



## prismasonic

Hello all,


Please find the user manual of CB-500 here. The deliveries will start in this week.

http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/cb500_manual_web.pdf


----------



## lesliew




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20850376
> 
> 
> Check THIS for dimensions. (You can see this by clicking on the image of the lens/lift on the lens specs page.) Looks like from top of lift to bottom of lens mount "shelf" is 337.5 mm or ~13-1/4". You may have to do a side view drawing of the pj and the lens/lift to determine if it will fit.



Thanks


It looks very close, think I will probably go ahead and install a 4-6" extension to be on the safe side.


----------



## jkscherk

This thread has gotten strangely quiet. Aren't any of these in use yet? Has production/supply hit a glitch. For all of the pre-intro excitement, I can't understand the 'quiet period' we've seen!


----------



## rboster

A number of ppl have received theirs and commented on the previous pages.


----------



## Glenn Baumann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/20937969
> 
> 
> This thread has gotten strangely quiet. Aren't any of these in use yet? Has production/supply hit a glitch. For all of the pre-intro excitement, I can't understand the 'quiet period' we've seen!



Maybe everyone is just too busy enjoying their new lens!










Or, maybe the lens is not completely meeting everyon's initial high expectations resulting in quasi-buyers remorse







... Nah doubt it, probably the former!


I myself would like to hear some more detailed reviews/critique/feedback on this lens!











...Glenn


----------



## jkscherk

so far...I've only seen comments from 'bigjas' and 'rboster'. Even at that, those haven't been very extensive. Guess I was hoping for more extensive results, comparison, evaluation, etc.


I was ready to take the plunge on this with my JVC HD350 but now I'm thinking about replaceing it with a Sony 95 and no lens.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/20938876
> 
> 
> so far...I've only seen comments from 'bigjas' and 'rboster'. Even at that, those haven't been very extensive. Guess I was hoping for more extensive results, comparison, evaluation, etc.
> 
> 
> I was ready to take the plunge on this with my JVC HD350 but now I'm thinking about replaceing it with a Sony 95 and no lens.



You missed the very best review on the previous page from Moggie:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post20702905


----------



## jkscherk

I do recall seeing that one now that I've re-read it. Thanks for pointing it out again.


----------



## willscam




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/20937969
> 
> 
> This thread has gotten strangely quiet. Aren't any of these in use yet? Has production/supply hit a glitch. For all of the pre-intro excitement, I can't understand the 'quiet period' we've seen!



On an open forum like this, quiet is often a very positive sign.


----------



## SteveHorn

I've got one - been in place a few weeks now. No complaints - I love it. I haven't commented here since I don't feel qualified to review it in the detail a potential purchaser would want/need. But the install/alignment went without hitch. No perceived pincushion, barrel distortion, or CA. It does exactly as I expected.


----------



## quack724

Hi, did anyone besides Moggie get the lens with the lift? Any experiences that can be shared?


I am interested in the RX but concerned about Moggie's comments regarding the long term reliability of the lift. Am I being overly paranoid?


----------



## willscam

Any idea if one of these lenses will be able to resolve 4K projection? I plan on getting a lens for my theater b/c I'm going to be purchasing a moderately large AT screen (130" - 140" wide) and will need the extra brightness and smaller pixel size that an anamorphic lens will get me over zooming using a 1080p projector (thinking JVC RS45 or Mits 7800). I like to sit close to increase immersion. I'm concerned that I'll upgrade to a 4K projector in a few years and this lens won't be "transparent", i.e. I won't get the full sharpness, detail that a 4K projector should be able to provide. Thoughts?


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *willscam* 
I like to sit close to increase immersion. I'm concerned that I'll upgrade to a 4K projector in a few years and this lens won't be "transparent", i.e. I won't get the full sharpness, detail that a 4K projector should be able to provide. Thoughts?
4K as in one of the new JVCs? The lens won't be issue, but the size of the holes in the AT fabric might. What fabric are planing on using?


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *willscam* 
Any idea if one of these lenses will be able to resolve 4K projection? I plan on getting a lens for my theater b/c I'm going to be purchasing a moderately large AT screen (130" - 140" wide) and will need the extra brightness and smaller pixel size that an anamorphic lens will get me over zooming using a 1080p projector (thinking JVC RS45 or Mits 7800). I like to sit close to increase immersion. I'm concerned that I'll upgrade to a 4K projector in a few years and this lens won't be "transparent", i.e. I won't get the full sharpness, detail that a 4K projector should be able to provide. Thoughts?
It will depend on the MTF of the lens. The higher quality of the grind and polish, the higher the MTF. MTF in simple terms is a lens' ability to not degrade pixel-to-pixel (single line pairs) contrast ratios. The better the MTF spec, the more expensive the glass and lens is to make. As no one publishes these numbers really, all you can do is take pricing and extrapolate. Combine with other data inputs to make your own call.


----------



## willscam

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
4K as in one of the new JVCs? The lens won't be issue, but the size of the holes in the AT fabric might. What fabric are planing on using?
No, I'm talking about true 4K. Not until prices drop sub $10K, though.

I am looking at CenterStageXD or possibly SMX cineweaveHD. I don't mind spending more on a good AT screen, if necessary. I consider the screen to be a long term purchase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GetGray* 
It will depend on the MTF of the lens. The higher quality of the grind and polish, the higher the MTF. MTF in simple terms is a lens' ability to not degrade pixel-to-pixel (single line pairs) contrast ratios. The better the MTF spec, the more expensive the glass and lens is to make. As no one publishes these numbers really, all you can do is take pricing and extrapolate. Combine with other data inputs to make your own call.
In other words, you get what you pay for.







I think I would be willing to purchase an Isco III, if I could locate one. The price on the prismasonic is tempting though....


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *willscam* /forum/post/20955868
> 
> 
> No, I'm talking about true 4K. Not until prices drop sub $10K, though.



Will be a while. Long while I'd say. Thing is, in order to get any advantage from 4k, you'll need a bigger screen, unless you only have one seat and want to sit inches away. Now 4k AND enough light to light a big screen will be a while I'd expect.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *willscam* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In other words, you get what you pay for.



I didn't say that







. But my life experience tends to make me lean that way. That said, some things cost more than they should. And vice-versa.


----------



## mjg100




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/20850376
> 
> 
> Check THIS for dimensions. (You can see this by clicking on the image of the lens/lift on the lens specs page.) Looks like from top of lift to bottom of lens mount "shelf" is 337.5 mm or ~13-1/4". You may have to do a side view drawing of the pj and the lens/lift to determine if it will fit.



Yep. earlier in the thread Annsi gave a measurement of 34 cm or 13-3/8".


----------



## misterkit

How long before the sale prices are over?


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *misterkit* /forum/post/20989198
> 
> 
> How long before the sale prices are over?



That's an AV Science retail question. Here's their contact information to send an email or call. They may or may not see your post since the Retail is not directly part of the forum....though many of their sales reps spend time on AVS Forum

https://shop.avscience.com/crm.asp?action=contactus


----------



## obts000

Got mine yesterday and installed it today. It is my first lens, so I have nothing to compare to, but I'm very happy so far. I was going to build an automated sled for it, but I am just going to leave it in all the time. I set up buttons for 1.85 and 2.35 on iRule that change the PJ to Stretch and 16/9 or No Stretch and 4/3. It works perfectly and changes in about a second. I have an RS-20 and a 132" wide Seymour XD screen. I was unhappy with brightness when zoomed unless I ran the PJ in high mode. Now I am in normal with the apeture at about half and it looks great.


It took about 5 minutes to get the position of the projector and lens to an acceptable point. I'm sure I can get it better if I spend a little time on it, but it's probably good enough now.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obts000* /forum/post/21013190
> 
> 
> Got mine yesterday and installed it today. It is my first lens, so I have nothing to compare to, but I'm very happy so far. I was going to build an automated sled for it, but I am just going to leave it in all the time. I set up buttons for 1.85 and 2.35 on iRule that change the PJ to Stretch and 16/9 or No Stretch and 4/3. It works perfectly and changes in about a second. I have an RS-20 and a 132" wide Seymour XD screen. I was unhappy with brightness when zoomed unless I ran the PJ in high mode. Now I am in normal with the apeture at about half and it looks great.
> 
> 
> It took about 5 minutes to get the position of the projector and lens to an acceptable point. I'm sure I can get it better if I spend a little time on it, but it's probably good enough now.



Cool. Welcome to the club. Either there aren't many users or they are a quiet bunch!


I have a motorized sled but I actually find myself leaving the lens in place quite a bit. To be honest I can only tell the lens is in place on static menu screens...


----------



## Gotchaa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Welcome to the club. Either there aren't many users or they are a quiet bunch!
> 
> 
> I have a motorized sled but I actually find myself leaving the lens in place quite a bit. To be honest I can only tell the lens is in place on static menu screens...



You know I was in the preorder but as time went on and the usual delays set in, I decided to sit this out and wait for user reviews, unfortunately it was quiet so I decided to just go with a DC-1 and simple chief mounting plate, no complicated installs for the lift or anything to get it to work with the JVC projector....I am quite happy, but I will say this lens and lift look so cool, I just could not mount it in a way that would make this work in my setup. Would love to see more pictures from owners here.


----------



## SteveHorn

I was planning to wait until the final version of the sled was complete before posting. But here are a few shots of the plywood (!) prototype taken a few months ago. The P'sonic hangs bat-like in front of a JVC HD950. The sled is propelled by a stepper-driven linear gear.


Lens in:










Lens Out:










I had planned on using the P'Sonic Lens lift but it would not fit in my ceiling.


Once the plate aluminum version of the sled is complete, I'll post more in the CIH DIY section.


----------



## jkscherk

For the guys using the JVCs, what throw ratio do you have and do you have any geometry issues? I'm still contemplating this with my HD350. My ratio would be 1.8 or 1.9 and I'm worried that might be too low.


Also...is the lens in stock now? I was on the pre-order list...got an email months ago to confirm interest and haven't heard from them since then.


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/21015770
> 
> 
> For the guys using the JVCs, what throw ratio do you have and do you have any geometry issues? I'm still contemplating this with my HD350. My ratio would be 1.8 or 1.9 and I'm worried that might be too low.



~2.0 and no issues.


----------



## Lamprey

I see in the marketing material that they list the removal of the top and bottom cover for cleaning the inside of the lenes. Since prismasonics "features" are so.. shall we say interesting, can anyone confirm that this lens is not a sealed lens? I saw some speculation near the begining of the thread, so I hope I didn't miss a confoirmation or rebuttle how sealed it actualy is.


Cheers!


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lamprey* /forum/post/21017812
> 
> 
> I see in the marketing material that they list the removal of the top and bottom cover for cleaning the inside of the lenes. Since prismasonics "features" are so.. shall we say interesting, can anyone confirm that this lens is not a sealed lens? I saw some speculation near the begining of the thread, so I hope I didn't miss a confoirmation or rebuttle how sealed it actualy is.
> 
> 
> Cheers!



Not sealed. As stated, the covers can be removed.


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveHorn* /forum/post/21014445
> 
> 
> I was planning to wait until the final version of the sled was complete before posting. But here are a few shots of the plywood (!) prototype taken a few months ago. The P'sonic hangs bat-like in front of a JVC HD950. The sled is propelled by a stepper-driven linear gear.



Steve, the final production version is going to be sweet. Looking forward to it.


Do you even find yourself leaving the lens in place?


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/21015770
> 
> 
> Also...is the lens in stock now? I was on the pre-order list...got an email months ago to confirm interest and haven't heard from them since then.



Really? Maybe production is still very slow?


----------



## SteveHorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie* /forum/post/21019342
> 
> 
> Do you even find yourself leaving the lens in place?



No, it comes and goes.


----------



## misterkit

Any other reviews for the motorized mount? I'm a little concerned about the need for modifications to get it 'right'. Any chance these changes might be incorporated into version 2?


----------



## jkscherk

What is the optimum throw ratio for this lens? I have quite a bit of flexibility and could go as high as 2.6 or as low as 1.8


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkscherk* /forum/post/21066527
> 
> 
> What is the optimum throw ratio for this lens? I have quite a bit of flexibility and could go as high as 2.6 or as low as 1.8



Did you try the calculator found here ?


----------



## clausdk

Pretty tempted to get this lens.


Anyone using it with an infocus sp8602?


As I understand it I calculate throw ratio from the 16:9 width. Distance from the projector lens to the screen is 16 feet. I was planning on a 9 foot screen 21:9, so it will be around 6.85 feet 16:9. That gives me a ratio of around 2.3 or so.


I will have to zoom all the way in on the infocus sp8602 to get a 6.85 feet wide 16:9 screen from 16 feet throw distance. Will a benefit from this in regards to focus on the edges and the other geometric disadvantages from using an A-lens?


I'm considering the lens without a lift and leaving it in place all the time. Advice? I can accept the pixel loss from 16:9 content.


Should I get the lens with the electric focus feature?


My setup will then be a 117" 21:9 screen with a seating distance at around 3.5x screen height.


----------



## samalmoe

i have the new prismasonic with motorized lift and find i usually leave it in place out of laziness..its a great lens but i will be selling it since i have a sony 1000 on order and won't need the extra light and pixels. it does make quite a difference with my jvc though,


----------



## Cam Man

I wouldn't exactly say that there is rush to buy this lens. This sounded promising, but interest seems that it has kind of faded away. What has happened? Has the zoom method put the brake on A-lenses?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/21706891
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say that there is rush to buy this lens. This sounded promising, but interest seems to have kind of faded away. What has happened? Has the zoom method put the brake on A-lenses?



Projector prices have fallen considerably but the prices of these lenses has not and allot of that is simply because of small volume turn over Vs projectors which sell in their thousands to every A-lens.


I use a BenQ projector and the way this company has been able to reduce the price of their product is to strip away features.


If you compare the W1000 to the W5000, the lenses (*the expensive part* was changed out for a much cheaper version and hence all the varying stories you hear about them) are not the same and all the electrics (zoom and focus) is now manual.


People are struggling with the idea of spending as much if not more on an accessory than the actual projector they'll use this accessory with.


----------



## Cam Man

Mark, all that makes sense. I just kind of hate to see CIH suffer a slow death or become more a niche market than it is...if that is what is in store.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/21706885
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say that there is rush to buy this lens. This sounded promising, but interest seems that it has kind of faded away. What has happened? Has the zoom method put the brake on A-lenses?



For us it seems that the zoom method has not put the brake on A-lenses, but rather it has brought more publicity to the whole cinema scope concept. The activity in internet forums may confuse, but it is good to remember that this is a pretty small community after all.. and most of those visitors at forums are 'quiet' readers.


From us there are some new lens models and mount available, as well as the updated features in older models.


Briefly:

---------

HD-6000R/RX (with motorized lift) has now adjustable stops for both 'in' and 'out' positions.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000r.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000r_manual_web.pdf 

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000rx.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000rx_manual_web.pdf 


As new models there are HD-6000M/MX. They are like HD-6000R/RX, but instead of the motorized system, the lift is now manually controlled. The lens is very light and easy to lift aside by hand since the lift system uses the same constant force spring system for neutralizing the gravity force as HD-6000R/RX.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000m.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000m_manual_web.pdf 

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000mx.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000mx_manual_web.pdf 


The new mount, CB-300 is a bit hybrid of CB-200 and CB-500. It uses the same mechanism to attach the projector body as CB-500, which is more developed and easier to setup compared to the discontinued CB-200 mount.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_cb300.shtml 
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/cb300_manual_web.pdf 


These will be available at AVS store. Please contact AVS guys for pricing.

I can answer to technical questions here.


Thank you,


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cam Man* /forum/post/21707389
> 
> 
> Mark, all that makes sense. I just kind of hate to see CIH suffer a slow death or become more a niche market than it is...if that is what is in store.



It is simply because how people look at the A-Lens. It is an 'add on' instead of looking at the whole package as CIH solution.


----------



## mdrew




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdrew* /forum/post/20702544
> 
> 
> I am currently using a 1400 with the HE front lens upgrade and a RS20 projector. I use a Radiance XS for scaling. I will most likely upgrade the projector eventually, but just having seen anything offered yet to make me want to move from the RS20.
> 
> 
> I am considering buying one of these lenses hoping for a substantial improvement in picture quality and overall improved focus (current focus method is a compromise from center of screen to sides of screen). I hate spending money on these "upgrades" to only be disappointed.
> 
> 
> Can anyone tell me if this proposed "upgrade" will yield substantial improvements? What would the improvements be?
> 
> 
> I'm also a bit confused on the mounting options for the manual version. Can this be mounted with the lens hanging from a ceiling mount? Some of the comments indicate otherwise.



I have moved to a Sony VPL 95es. The lens is more recessed than the RS20 and my 1400/FE is right at the ragged edge of being too small. (2.1 throw ratio). There is very little room for error when positioning the lens to the projector, tilt, etc.


But - I really do not want to invest in the new lens if I do not see a marked improvement. Can anyone comment who has compared these two? (HD 6000 and 1400/FE)


----------



## Cam Man

I haven't yet got my hands on an HD6000, but I have a gut feeling from what I read that it is probably a very good lens. If nothing else, I wanted to bump the thread back to life.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21707237
> 
> 
> People are struggling with the idea of spending as much if not more on an accessory than the actual projector they'll use this accessory with.



I don't think that's much different than it ever was. But in any case our sales of Isco lenses is up substantially for 1st quarter. Can't explain it as I really expected to take a hit from the auto-zoom. I think Annsi may be right that the technology gives some more visibility. And then those who can afford it upgrade to a lens solution.


I have a Benq W6000 sitting right here beside me now that we had to make a mount kit for with a lens and transport that was substantially more expensive than the PJ, and an Epson on the way for the same activity. Stupid BenQ manual's dimensions for the ceiling mount wasn't even in the ballpark. Had 2 drawings with conflicting dimensions, both wrong! But I digress







.....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdrew* /forum/post/21708677
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment who has compared these two? (HD 6000 and 1400/FE)



I can't comment on the two lenses you have mentioned, but I can give a generalization about the technology - prisms + corrector Vs cylindrical where the prisms + corrector have no focus adjustments and the cylindrical lens does. That is why the cylindrical lenses have traditionally always been more expensive. They feature complex mechanics to move one of the lenses in or out allowing true corner to corner focus.


----------



## samalmoe

I can tell you that my hd6000r, which i have for sale due to purchase of sony 1000 was noticeably sharper than my panamorph 480 which is a pretty good prism lens..


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/21711880
> 
> 
> I can tell you that my hd6000r, which i have for sale due to purchase of sony 1000 was noticeably sharper than my panamorph 480 which is a pretty good prism lens..



Congrats on the Sony. Was it a close call on abandoning the HD6000 with the Sony, or did the Sony just slam dunk it out of the equation?


----------



## mdrew




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21710886
> 
> 
> I can't comment on the two lenses you have mentioned, but I can give a generalization about the technology - prisms + corrector Vs cylindrical where the prisms + corrector have no focus adjustments and the cylindrical lens does. That is why the cylindrical lenses have traditionally always been more expensive. They feature complex mechanics to move one of the lenses in or out allowing true corner to corner focus.



Thanks Mark. No one seams to know.... Annsi didn't even respond to an email request I sent him. I think I'll put the 3 grand somewhere else.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdrew* /forum/post/21718666
> 
> 
> Thanks Mark. No one seams to know.... Annsi didn't even respond to an email request I sent him. I think I'll put the 3 grand somewhere else.



I have not received an email from you. I reply to all emails I receive, usually within the same day +- time difference.


About the difference of corrected prism lens and cylindrical lens. As I have earlier posted in this thread; according to simulations the difference in corner to corner shrapness is around 1 to 10. Also my experiments agree this. Also the CA performance is much better compared to your fe1400.


----------



## samalmoe

cam man..still have the prismasonic and haven't even tried it with the sony yet but the sony is so good i figured i'd save myself the trouble of all that pesky button pressing..


----------



## CAVX

Then humor us (the forum) and give it a go. You might be surprised yourself.


----------



## mdrew




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/21718802
> 
> 
> I have not received an email from you. I reply to all emails I receive, usually within the same day +- time difference.
> 
> 
> About the difference of corrected prism lens and cylindrical lens. As I have earlier posted in this thread; according to simulations the difference in corner to corner shrapness is around 1 to 10. Also my experiments agree this. Also the CA performance is much better compared to your fe1400.



I'll send it again. What do mean by "1 to 10"? Ten times better"

?


----------



## Cam Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/21726111
> 
> 
> Then humor us (the forum) and give it a go. You might be surprised yourself.



I agree. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't coddle those button-pressing pinkies!







Inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mdrew* /forum/post/21726210
> 
> 
> I'll send it again. What do mean by "1 to 10"? Ten times better"
> 
> ?



Yes


----------



## samalmoe

Sorry boys..lens is gone and didnt get a chance to try it


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/21738217
> 
> 
> Sorry boys..lens is gone and didnt get a chance to try it



Do I understand you correctly that the zoom method with the 1000 expands the image to scope better than an A lens with vertical stretch?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlanzy* /forum/post/22004468
> 
> 
> Do I understand you correctly that the zoom method with the 1000 expands the image to scope better than an A lens with vertical stretch?



It sounds like he didn't use the lens so couldn't do the comparison to come to that conclusion.


There is a guy with a 4K Sony on another thread that does use a lens with it though because he feels it gives a better picture.


Gary


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/22005053
> 
> 
> It sounds like he didn't use the lens so couldn't do the comparison to come to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> There is a guy with a 4K Sony on another thread that does use a lens with it though because he feels it gives a better picture.
> 
> 
> Gary



So using vertical stretch and A lens, you use all the pixels of the pj. If you zoom , you are only using a portion of the pixels for scope aspect, right? It seems counterproductive to spend the extra $ on 4K, then throw out the extra pixels that you bought 4K for. I guess you still will have more pixels without the stretch/ A lens and zooming than a 2K, but still.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlanzy* /forum/post/22006586
> 
> 
> So using vertical stretch and A lens, you use all the pixels of the pj. If you zoom , you are only using a portion of the pixels for scope aspect, right?



Yes that's right.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jlanzy* /forum/post/22006586
> 
> 
> It seems counterproductive to spend the extra $ on 4K, then throw out the extra pixels that you bought 4K for. I guess you still will have more pixels without the stretch/ A lens and zooming than a 2K, but still.



There are different ways to look at it, but if you have the pixels there are advantages to using all of them, but as you say, with 4K, no matter what you do, you're still using more pixels than the source and if the scaling is good, you have a few more options on how you do things.


Gary


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/22014259
> 
> 
> Yes that's right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are different ways to look at it, but if you have the pixels there are advantages to using all of them, but as you say, with 4K, no matter what you do, you're still using more pixels than the source and if the scaling is good, you have a few more options on how you do things.
> 
> 
> Gary



So then it would be even more so when 4K source material is used to best view the benefits of 4K is to use stretch/A lens. I'm guessing the use of an additional lens can introduce its own issues, but it would seem if using one of the better lens that those issues would be overridden by the benefits of true 4K viewing? Obviously without Bluray 4K movies yet, that answer would only be conjecture at this point. But I won't be selling my A lens until I try it with my 4K laser pj, whenever that happens.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I'd keep the lens so you can try it out when the time comes, then you can make a comparison and decide what you want to do. I still have my ISCO for the same reasons.


Gary


----------



## jlanzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samalmoe* /forum/post/21725453
> 
> 
> cam man..still have the prismasonic and haven't even tried it with the sony yet but the sony is so good i figured i'd save myself the trouble of all that pesky button pressing..




I'm assuming this refers to the need on the Prismasonic's vert sled to hit the in or out button and then hit the stop button when in the desired end position?


----------



## colleycol

I have a HD6000m and cb-500 on the way for install on a RS45.


Anybody know who I could call to set it up (mount to ceiling and align) for me the FIRST time right?


Would an ISF camp out here in Seattle be able to do that or a custom installer?


Thanks


----------



## rs691919

Trying to learn codes for the Prismasonic lens and running into a roadblock. I have a GC-IRE connected to my GC-100. I am able to capture codes for my Prismasonic Anamorphic lens remote, but the codes do not seem to work. I have tried capturing Hex, Global Cache, and GC compressed codes. No matter how I save the data, the code does not work. When I copy the code into iTest, I get the error code "unknown command 14" (command not supported by GC-100). I'm at a loss how to capture these codes otherwise. I had previously recieved the same Prismasonic unit that had a defective lens and had to send it back for this new unit. I was able to capture the codes on the old unit and they worked perfectly. Any thoughts?


----------



## prismasonic



Hello,


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rs691919*  /t/1280592/tease-new-prismasonic-cylindrical-lens-and-remote-motorized-sled/600#post_22649209
> 
> 
> Trying to learn codes for the Prismasonic lens and running into a roadblock. I have a GC-IRE connected to my GC-100. I am able to capture codes for my Prismasonic Anamorphic lens remote, but the codes do not seem to work. I have tried capturing Hex, Global Cache, and GC compressed codes. No matter how I save the data, the code does not work. When I copy the code into iTest, I get the error code "unknown command 14" (command not supported by GC-100). I'm at a loss how to capture these codes otherwise. I had previously recieved the same Prismasonic unit that had a defective lens and had to send it back for this new unit. I was able to capture the codes on the old unit and they worked perfectly. Any thoughts?



Here are the IR codes in a common format - GlobalCache IR format:


PASS / IN:

GC-IRL,37000,27,286,27,189BBAABBBAB,27,735


WIDE / OUT:

GC-IRL,37000,27,283,27,188BBAABBBAA,27,731


----------



## Moggie

Looks like Anssi has posted the official codes, but I managed to create hex codes by learning the Prismasonic remote on an old Phillips Pronto remote, then transfering to iRule. Just in case you still have problems I've shared my codes on iRule builder as "Prismasonic HD6000R"


Note you may need to fiddle with the repeat count to obtain single button in/pass movement.


Cheers.



--- EDIT ---


Here are the hex codes for reference:


IN:

0000 0071 0000 000C 001B 011D 001B 00BE 001B 00BE 001B 00BE 001B 011D 001B 011E 001B 00BF 001B 00BF 001B 00BF 001B 011E 001B 00BE 001B 0E3C

repetition: 32


OUT:

0000 0071 0000 000C 001B 011D 001B 00BE 001B 00BE 001B 00BE 001B 011D 001B 011E 001B 00BF 001B 00BF 001B 00BF 001B 011E 001B 011D 001B 0E3C

repetition: 32


----------



## rs691919

Thanks Paul and Anssi! Funnily enough, after trying it about a million times, the hex codes which I created finally worked. God knows what I did differently. By the way, Anssi, the replacement lens which you sent arrived on Friday as promised and works flawlessly. I think you really deserve commendation for fantastic customer service. Thanks again!


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rs691919*  /t/1280592/tease-new-prismasonic-cylindrical-lens-and-remote-motorized-sled/600#post_22656187
> 
> 
> Thanks Paul and Anssi! Funnily enough, after trying it about a million times, the hex codes which I created finally worked. God knows what I did differently. By the way, Anssi, the replacement lens which you sent arrived on Friday as promised and works flawlessly. I think you really deserve commendation for fantastic customer service. Thanks again!



I'm very glad to hear this.


Thank you!


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rs691919*  /t/1280592/tease-new-prismasonic-cylindrical-lens-and-remote-motorized-sled/600#post_22656187
> 
> 
> I think you really deserve commendation for fantastic customer service. Thanks again!



I'd have to second this. I received the same level of support with my lens issue.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Moggie*  /t/1280592/tease-new-prismasonic-cylindrical-lens-and-remote-motorized-sled/600#post_22658808
> 
> 
> I'd have to second this. I received the same level of support with my lens issue.



Thank you Moggie .. also for sharing the hex codes


----------

