# Given ISCO III and sled



## Art Sonneborn

If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?


Art


----------



## HogPilot

If you're offering yours up for that purpose, I claim first spot in line. Send me your lens and slide and I promise I will _never_ zoom again


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17330644
> 
> 
> If you're offering yours up for that purpose, I claim first spot in line. Send me your lens and slide and I promise I will _never_ zoom again




Well if zooming is really better ,I might as well.


Art


----------



## Kelvin1965S

No I wouldn't bother.....it would stick out from my shelf and get walked into (it's about head height), I'd probably get sued and even the resale of this free package wouldn't pay the damages.


----------



## RevelMN

That is the best lens you can buy. You would be nuts to turn this down. Check yourself into the mental ward nuts.


That said if you don't want it I'll take it.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I figured he probably isn't _really_ going to give such a good lens away, so I tried the reverse psycology on him.










Me....nuts. Well maybe you have a point seeing the amount fo cash I've thrown away on projector upgrades.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17330514
> 
> 
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?
> 
> 
> Art



If my HD350 had memory zoom and I could automate it, then no, I would not take the ISCO package.







In my setup, I cannot make out any pixel structure with zooming and brightness/contrast is fine. Why would I want to muck it up with some very very slight pincushion distortion?


But since the HD350 doesn't have memory zoom, I'd take the ISCO setup in a heart beat because of the CONVENIENCE. The added convenience is a huge benefit and worth trading off for the slight pincushion in my mind. But in reality, that convenience isn't worth $$$ so that is why I zoom.


Basically I'm saying that the only reason I'd pick an A-lens setup is for convenience and if I ever needed it, additional pixel density.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17331444
> 
> 
> Well if zooming is really better ,I might as well.
> 
> 
> Art



I doubt zooming will be better for large screens until we get 4K consumer units with great CR and high light output. Until then, I still see lens setups as having far too many advantages over zooming.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17331844
> 
> 
> I doubt zooming will be better for large screens until we get 4K consumer units with great CR and high light output. Until then, I still see lens setups as having far too many advantages over zooming.



Well ,me too.










Art


----------



## thebland

I think it is a cost issue... pure and simple.


The ISCO/Cineslide combo you refer to is about $10K. For many here, that is more than their projector costs or, at a minimum, too costly for such a luxury feature in one's theater. So, of course zooming is better for those folks!!!










But seriously, there is no better way to watch scope Blu Ray today. The ISCO III and Scott's Cineslide is today's state of the art.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17331444
> 
> 
> Well if zooming is really better ,I might as well.
> 
> 
> Art



If it were, you would give away an ISCO III Lens, a CineSlide *and 25% of your vertical pixels.*


A lens in CIH is really the cream on the cake, and when it comes to cake, I want mine and be able to eat it too


----------



## scottyb

hey thebland,


Nice Avatar!! Did you hear that Buckwheat became a Muslim?


He changed his name to "Kareem of Wheat"


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17330514
> 
> 
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?
> 
> 
> Art



I would absolutely take it with no hesitation.


Counter question: If the above package cost $200,000 (4 x $50,000), would you still get it, or zoom*?










* or shrink, if projector doesn't have necessary zoom range.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17333356
> 
> 
> I would absolutely take it with no hesitation.
> 
> 
> Counter question: If the above package cost $200,000 (4 x $50,000), would you still get it, or zoom*?



Now if Art was to invest that kind of money into a true 2K or even a 4K machine, he'd have to get rid of the ISCO III and get a new Lens that is 1.25x.


1.33x lenses like ISCO III work with projectors that are 1920 x 1080 pixels, where true 2K machines have 2048 x 1080 pixels and require 1.25x lenses. The same would apply for a 4K machine as they are 4096 pixels wide.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17332476
> 
> 
> I think it is a cost issue... pure and simple.
> 
> 
> The ISCO/Cineslide combo you refer to is about $10K. For many here, that is more than their projector costs or, at a minimum, too costly for such a luxury feature in one's theater. So, of course zooming is better for those folks!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But seriously, there is no better way to watch scope Blu Ray today. The ISCO III and Scott's Cineslide is today's state of the art.



I think the Schneider and the Kino Linear Sled is no slouch either







I agree with thebland the issue for many is cost. Giving anyone a free a ISCO III and CineSlide, no one will pass that up, but then again...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17334156
> 
> 
> no one will pass that up, but then again...



Well you know what they say about horses and water.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17334424
> 
> 
> Well you know what they say about horses and water.



exactly!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've seen the advantage of a lens over zooming so I'd snap it up.










(I already have an ISCO II waiting for a new pj, but I wouldn't say no to a III).


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17334540
> 
> 
> I've seen the advantage of a lens over zooming so I'd snap it up.



Awesome!!!


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17330514
> 
> 
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?
> 
> 
> Art



I would definately accept such an offer, and I would put the A-lens set up to rigorous test in my home theater. I would only continue to use the A-lens however if it offered a noticeable improvement in PQ, since with zooming I have no issue with pixel visibility, no issue with manual zooming (a 5 second operation in my case) and no issue with picture sharpness (my picture is as sharp as a tack). So I would expect to see a very noticeable improvement with the A-lens, and if it was not apparent to me or my family, I would give it back to Art with a "Thanks but no thanks".


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Almost 400 looks on this thread , I bet we are deserving of at least a few more coments .


Art


----------



## GetGray

I haven't seen many new folks around here in a while. I think the people who did post had answers almost equally predictable to what you would expect me to say, based on their stong opinions in the past. I wouuldn't expect them to publically change horses for a theoretical free ride. You?


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17337622
> 
> 
> Almost 400 looks on this thread , I bet we are deserving of at least a few more coments .
> 
> 
> Art



I'd be happy to accept your gracious offer of the ISCO III lens, Cineslide motorized sled, installation and integration if for no other reason than being able to tell Mark that I'm using all my pixels. Oh and could you perhaps include that lovely screen of yours as well in the deal.


----------



## CAVX

Not to spoil Art's fun. Just where exactly does he state that he is actually going to give his lens away?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17334113
> 
> 
> Now if Art was to invest that kind of money into a true 2K or even a 4K machine, he'd have to get rid of the ISCO III and get a new Lens that is 1.25x.
> 
> 
> 1.33x lenses like ISCO III work with projectors that are 1920 x 1080 pixels, where true 2K machines have 2048 x 1080 pixels and require 1.25x lenses. The same would apply for a 4K machine as they are 4096 pixels wide.



All true points, but also moot. Art's 1920x1080 machine (Sim2 5000) is ~$50K (MSRP).


I think the point Art is trying to make is that zoomers (at least the honest ones







) know deep down that cost and not degradation of image quality is preventing them from being ISCO users.


But can we consider the converse - is there a price point beyond which the image quality gains are no longer worth the price? For the zoomers (since we're a bunch of cheap bastards







) the threshold is relatively low. For videophiles, how much is too much? Someone put the ISCO/Cineslide combo at ~$10k USD; would they pay $100k to use those extra 500,000 pixels? How about $200k? Maybe the idea of zooming is so abhorent that if lenses were out of their budget, would they give up CIH entirely rather than zoom?


How much is too much for those 500,000 extra pixels? I've already named my price in another thread: $500 for reasonably sharp and CA-free pixels. I wouldn't pay 4x the cost of my projector for perfect pixels, would you?


----------



## LilGator

Art, would you take your proposed lens setup in conjunction with an LCD projector over your current Sim2 using the zoom method?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17337986
> 
> 
> I wouldn't pay 4x the cost of my projector for perfect pixels, would you?



Hmmm, 4x the cost of my projector? I think I have well and truely exceeded that in R&D for my lastest anamorphic lens


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17338024
> 
> 
> Art, would you take your proposed lens setup in conjunction with an LCD projector over your current Sim2 using the zoom method?



Only if it's a used Panasonic AE700.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17338146
> 
> 
> Hmmm, 4x the cost of my projector? I think I have well and truely exceeded that in R&D for my lastest anamorphoic lens



So you don't expect to recoup R&D costs through product sales? Interesting business model


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hogpilot* /forum/post/17338159
> 
> 
> only if it's a used panasonic ae700.


----------



## LilGator

I think for most anyone purchasing projectors in the sub-$10K ballpark, spending more money on projector is going to result in better picture quality than adding a lens.


A Panny AE-3000U user with an extra $5K to spend is much better off selling what he has and purchasing an RS25 then keeping the Panny and adding a quality lens setup.


This is an easy way you can correlate $$ and performance gains.


This is far more relevant than wondering whether a lens improves PQ over zooming. It would have to improve the PQ more than the equivalent money could be spent upgrading the PJ itself.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17338176
> 
> 
> So you don't expect to recoup R&D costs through product sales? Interesting business model



What do you think?


----------



## video_bit_bucket

Well if you gave it to me I would take it and upgrade my existing lens which I would give to someone else. So in that way you would have the satisfaction of making the experience better for two enthusiast not just one. I would ensure that the person who got my lens was appreciative of the experience it provides.


Is this like an essay competition for best class grade? Am in the running?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *video_bit_bucket* /forum/post/17338270
> 
> 
> 
> Is this like an essay competition for best class grade? Am in the running?



You have my vote


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17338229
> 
> 
> What do you think?



I think your answer in post #27, while humorous, didn't seriously address the question. I responded with the same level of seriousness.


Allow me be more explicit - the question was about personal use, not business expenses. The question wasn't asking ISCO/Schneider how much they spend in pursuit of scope nirvana, and I'm guessing their R&D expenses perhaps exceeds even your own.


----------



## DaveUpton

As was stated earlier - until a high light output 4k is readily available to do the zoom method - the ISCO is still the best option in my opinion.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Everyone knows the question. Some are discussing subjects that ,although interesting ,aren't germane. If you had the devices in hand and integrated ,would you choose zooming over the mentioned equipment ?


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17338532
> 
> 
> Everyone knows the question. Some are discussing subjects that ,although interesting ,aren't germane. If you had the devices in hand and integrated ,would you choose zooming over the mentioned equipment ?
> 
> 
> Art



Your question is just as useless to reality as mine. You know anyone would gladly take $10K of goodies for free.


You also know you would rather zoom your Sim2 over applying an ISCO III and sled to an LCD projector.


What have we accomplished with these exercises?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17338564
> 
> 
> Your question is just as useless to reality as mine. You know anyone would gladly take $10K of goodies for free.
> 
> 
> You also know you would rather zoom your Sim2 over applying an ISCO III and sled to an LCD projector.
> 
> 
> What have we accomplished with these exercises?



As the original question states:


> Quote:
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, Cineslide motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?



I guess its more directed to people who say zooming is just as good as having an A-lens. Giving the opportunity if zooming is that good will you reject a free ISCO III lens, Cineslide motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote. Dont look at its value look at it as a choice wether you prefer to zoom or stickthe ISCO III lens in front of it if your given one for free. And if you still choose zooming, why?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17338356
> 
> 
> I think your answer in post #27, while humorous, didn't seriously address the question. I responded with the same level of seriousness.
> 
> 
> Allow me be more explicit - the question was about personal use, not business expenses. The question wasn't asking ISCO/Schneider how much they spend in pursuit of scope nirvana, and I'm guessing their R&D expenses perhaps exceeds even your own.



So maybe you should ask them then.


I do use my lens for personal use and I have improved the design over the years "in pursuit of scope nirvana"


----------



## tbase1

There's nothing about zooming that impress me....When I setup my projectors I always zoom in and setup the throw based on distance to screen. If I need to use zoom it's only for fine tuning the throw.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17338564
> 
> 
> Your question is just as useless to reality as mine. You know anyone would gladly take $10K of goodies for free.
> 
> 
> You also know you would rather zoom your Sim2 over applying an ISCO III and sled to an LCD projector.
> 
> 
> What have we accomplished with these exercises?



To cut through the BS.


Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17338693
> 
> 
> As the original question states:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess its more directed to people who say zooming is just as good as having an A-lens. Giving the opportunity if zooming is that good will you reject a free ISCO III lens, Cineslide motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote. Dont look at its value look at it as a choice wether you prefer to zoom or stickthe ISCO III lens in front of it if your given one for free. And if you still choose zooming, why?



Exactly !


Art


----------



## taffman

To reiterate: If the Isco 3 produced a noticeably better PQ in my particular HT set up, then I would use it. If it did not, then it would be an obtrusive and useless piece of equipment for me, and I would return it to Art with thanks for his help. The convenience factor is a non-issue as far as I am concerned - it all comes down to which gives the best PQ.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17338216
> 
> 
> I think for most anyone purchasing projectors in the sub-$10K ballpark, spending more money on projector is going to result in better picture quality than adding a lens.
> 
> 
> A Panny AE-3000U user with an extra $5K to spend is much better off selling what he has and purchasing an RS25 then keeping the Panny and adding a quality lens setup.
> 
> 
> This is an easy way you can correlate $$ and performance gains.
> 
> 
> This is far more relevant than wondering whether a lens improves PQ over zooming. It would have to improve the PQ more than the equivalent money could be spent upgrading the PJ itself.



I generally agree except your statement only applies to the sub-$5K ballpark. Fork $10K one could get an RS35 and a Panamorph UH480, which could produce a picture that couldn't be topped with just a projector for under $10K. Keep in mind, for those with close seating distances like Art or me (in my old setup), the elimination of visible pixel structure from using a lens makes a massive difference in PQ. Not to mention a Panny would never fill Art's screen with near enough light.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17338564
> 
> 
> Your question is just as useless to reality as mine. You know anyone would gladly take $10K of goodies for free.
> 
> 
> You also know you would rather zoom your Sim2 over applying an ISCO III and sled to an LCD projector.
> 
> 
> What have we accomplished with these exercises?



IMHO, I think it becomes evident that we have some zooming folks that no matter what hardware is used (or given to them) they still (want) to believe zooming is the best alternative. That would be my guess as to why the question was posed....interesting question and responses. Some protest too much (even when not questioned).


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17338797
> 
> 
> So maybe you should ask them then.
> 
> 
> I do use my lens for personal use and I have improved the design over the years "in pursuit of scope nirvana"



I guess I could ask them, but why? That was never of interest to me.


I will concede that they (and you) are willing to spend a lot to develop lenses, which in your case you personally use. But that's only because they expect to recoup those expenses (and even turn a profit) by selling lenses.


But how much would someone be willing to spend if all they got back in return was the full utilization of 1920x1080 pixels (along with extremely convenient aspect ratio changes)?


Given your documented history in DIY lenses, I'll certainly agree that your time and effort add up to more than 4x the cost of your projector. Your limit is probably higher than most.


----------



## taffman

I think the main reason we keep going around on this subject is that none of the A-lens group can quantify how much of an improvement they are claiming the A-lens is over simple zooming. Its like they are all saying "go out and spend $4000- $7,000 on an A-lens and , by the way, another $3000.00 on a sled and, trust me, you will see a better picture"! But the question is HOW MUCH better? Based on pixel count alone, the MOST that an A-lens can improve the PQ is 25%. Thats assuming that vertical stretching does in fact improve resolution by 25% - a big question mark in itself. Then you have to subtract the negative effects of the A-lens insertion into the optical path - and please don't tell me that ther are'nt any. So we are talking what - 20% or less PQ improvement at best? You tell me. Thats the problem - nobody can.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17339609
> 
> 
> To reiterate: If the Isco 3 produced a noticeably better PQ in my particular HT set up, then I would use it. If it did not, then it would be an obtrusive and useless piece of equipment for me, and I would return it to Art with thanks for his help. The convenience factor is a non-issue as far as I am concerned - it all comes down to which gives the best PQ.



Well duh... If zooming provided the best PQ, then nobody would want a free lens and automated slide, so you can reinterate all you want, the fact of the matter is that people with the experience (yes the key word here is "experience") are choosing the lens. All you are providing is theoreticals, and more if's and buts. Moving along...


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17339849
> 
> 
> I think the main reason we keep going around on this subject is that none of the A-lens group can quantify how much of an improvement they are claiming the A-lens is over simple zooming. Its like they are all saying "go out and spend $4000- $7,000 on an A-lens and , by the way, another $3000.00 on a sled and, trust me, you will see a better picture"! But the question is HOW MUCH better? Based on pixel count alone, the MOST that an A-lens can improve the PQ is 25%. Thats assuming that vertical stretching does in fact improve resolution by 25% - a big question mark in itself. Then you have to subtract the negative effects of the A-lens insertion into the optical path - and please don't tell me that ther are'nt any. So we are talking what - 20% or less PQ improvement at best? You tell me. Thats the problem - nobody can.



You might actually have to - gasp - see for yourself, with your own eyes. There are plenty of visual qualities to a picture that can't be quantified, but that are readily apparent to an observer especially in a side-by-side comparison. How would you assign a percent to seeing pixel structure while zooming vs not with a lens? HT is not and has never been solely about comparing specs and numbers in a vacuum without taking actual visual comparisons into account.


----------



## Dennis Erskine




> Quote:
> negative effects of the A-lens insertion into the optical path



Oh me. Oh my. Those nasty A-lenses. The damage. Horrible. I guess the cinematographers filming the movies should correct their ways.


> Quote:
> Thats the problem - nobody can.



I believe the fact of the matter is nobody wants to. It's been posted here before and is available in various other literature (including SMPTE). The only one that can convince you in this case is you. No point in belaboring the point further.


If zooming doesn't provide a visible degradation of the picture, then go for it. If scaling + lens provides a visible improvement in your particular circumstances, well, there you have it.


Now, back on topic. Thank you Art. I'll happily take the assembly (you know I don't zoom







). I paid for all of those pixels to produce movies and I fully intend to use all of those pixels and with a wonderful scaler, I'll have a wonderful picture.


----------



## taffman




Dennis Erskine said:


> Oh me. Oh my. Those nasty A-lenses. The damage. Horrible. I guess the cinematographers filming the movies should correct their ways.
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I think any cinematographer will tell you that the best lens is no lens, or put better, the less glass the better. It is well known for example that zoom lenses are a real compromise compared with using fixed focal length prime lenses. You have many more glass surfaces in a zoom lens which scatter light and lower contrast. Possibly one of the reasons that films made 50 years ago often have a contrast and sharpness that looks superior to stuff shot today. An anamorphic lens is a particularly difficult lens to design and manufacture because you cannot do spherical grinding and polishing of the lens surfaces, so it is even more of a compromise than say a zoom lens. So it is cavalier to dismiss its possible negative effects on image quality.


----------



## Dennis Erskine

Well, don't watch movies or TV. The next argument is movies don't come close to real life. Since pointing out flaws is easy, how about a real challenge. Propose and develop a marketable solution. Let us know when you have it. Cheers.


----------



## ICBM99

For me its about the expense. I haven't built my dedicated room yet, but plan on getting the Panny AE4000 and zooming. If I was given a ISCO III lens and sled, before hand I would look for a projector to use with it in the $2K-$3K range.


Or if given the lens after I had the AE4000, would definitely try it out and see which way I liked better. It should be what looks better to me, and not based on A-lens or zooming snobbery.


----------



## CJO




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17330514
> 
> 
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?
> 
> 
> Art



Could we borrow the lense and see which we like better?


CJ


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17339979
> 
> 
> You might actually have to - gasp - see for yourself, with your own eyes. There are plenty of visual qualities to a picture that can't be quantified, but that are readily apparent to an observer especially in a side-by-side comparison. How would you assign a percent to seeing pixel structure while zooming vs not with a lens? HT is not and has never been solely about comparing specs and numbers in a vacuum without taking actual visual comparisons into account.



This is kind of what I'm getting at in the thread I started regarding throw ratio. A side by side zoom vs lens demo with both projectors at the same throw distance would result in a larger TR for the lens setup. Based on the results I'm seeing from moving to a longer throw, I'm theorizing that the larger throw ratio with it's improved contrast and optics is a big factor in why people prefer lens setups. In some cases, maybe even a more important factor than the higher pixel density. I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts/opinions.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1186612


----------



## drewski11

i'd give it a go!


----------



## Suntan

I wasn't going to post a response because, quite frankly, I see this as yet another case of someone going out of their way to make an argument where one didn't exist to begin with (either that or a case where an individual just wanted to point out how the haves have things that the have-nots want)


In any case, I thought about it intently for all of 2 minutes while walking down the hall to the vending machine and quite honestly, I'd still zoom.


That is, I'd humbly thank whoever gave them to me and then sell the lens and sled on the used market. Probably use the money to buy a lens that would be more valued by me:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._S_ED_IF.html# 


Point is, some of us have too many hobbies, or too few dollars, to spend so much of it for such diminishing returns.


I don't know why so many people keep seeing comments to the effect of not worth the money and then keep miss-interpreting them to think that the person meant one is better than the other.


-Suntan


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> I think any cinematographer will tell you that the best lens is no lens, or put better, the less glass the better.



I guess thats where the good optics like the ISCO and the Schneiders come into play. They certainly make it feel like your not using a lens when watching 2:35:1/2:40:1. I guess hence the pricing. You pay for what you get!!


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17341342
> 
> 
> I see this as yet another case of someone going out of their way to make an argument where one didn't exist to begin with (either that or a case where an individual just wanted to point out how the haves have things that the have-nots want)



You are seriously maligning one of the best, and most respected, posters on this forum.I know Art well enough to know that you are colossally wrong on both points.


Its not for me to speak for Art, but you are way out of line here. The nature of your post actually says more about you than it does about anyone else.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17341342
> 
> 
> (either that or a case where an individual just wanted to point out how the haves have things that the have-nots want…)
> 
> -Suntan



I don't think it's the case of the "haves" crowing (that's my perception from knowing the OP), but "some" in the zooming community constantly challenging of the "a-lens" owners in each and every turn (post). Buy one or don't buy one...demo one or don't demo one....with the "see no lens, speak no lens, hear no lens benefits" provokes threads like this. In the end, whatever means one acheives in getting a scope image should be what's important. No need to bombard many threads with the constant dogma. If it works for you, so be it...


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17341821
> 
> 
> You are seriously maligning one of the best, and most respected, posters on this forum.I know Art well enough to know that you are colossally wrong on both points.
> 
> 
> Its not for me to speak for Art, but you are way out of line here. The nature of your post actually says more about you than it does about anyone else.



Agreed 100%. I don't think Art is trying to stir things up exactly. I think he is so happy with his lens setup that he wants others to improve their setups as well. However whenever Art discusses the zoom vs lens issue, he usually approaches it from the perspective of his high-end, ultra sharp projectord which is a no-brainer to use a lens on. He many not have seen a lot of modest zoom setups with say a Panny or JVC projector and how filmlike they are from a close viewing distance. That might give him a different perspective on which setups will benefit greatly from a lens.


----------



## SOWK

Art... Have you tried with zoom only?


If so... what image quality benefits are you seeing with lens then without?


Or is it just convenience for you?


Also do you have a test disk that has a Below Black to sightly above black Ramp?


Like the AVS Test Disk with 0 - 25 flashing bars.


If so, can you tell me if you can see video level 17 flashing and if not what is the first flashing bar you can see?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/17341958
> 
> 
> Art... Have you tried with zoom only?
> 
> 
> If so... what image quality benefits are you seeing with lens then without?
> 
> 
> Or is it just convenience for you?
> 
> 
> Also do you have a test disk that has a Below Black to sightly above black Ramp?
> 
> 
> Like the AVS Test Disk with 0 - 25 flashing bars.
> 
> 
> If so, can you tell me if you can see video level 17 flashing and if not what is the first flashing bar you can see?



I don't have that disc sorry. I looked at zooming with my projector during one of the set ups we did. I found zooming on the same screen with the same software to be coarse looking relative to the use of the A lens. Convenience is a factor no doubt since it is less than three seconds from one AR to another.


My reason for this thread is to take cost out of the equation and see if it mattered to the zoomers. Perhaps we should say AVS had a contest with the equipment as the prize.


As far as the comment regarding the haves I simply want to determine if a portion of the position that A lenses aren't worth it since they add nothing appreciable as many zoomers contend is simply that it is not a financially workable thing therefore it doesn't matter.


Art


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17337622
> 
> 
> Almost 400 looks on this thread , I bet we are deserving of at least a few more coments .
> 
> 
> Art



I think most people haven't seen an isco III, myself included.


I would take it and test to see which is better. If it introduced geometric distortion, then you may need to throw in your $35,000 CineCurve to correct it.


In the end I think it would make very little difference on my average sized screen and I would keep it simply for convenience.


----------



## SOWK

The ISCOIII is a great lens, no added CA, sharpness that makes it transparent to the display and screen. I was very very impressed. But still need to do a test between zoomed vs A lens.


----------



## SOWK

Art. I truly think it is mostly cost, but I also see the point of the zoomers.


I also think not many have had the ability to do a zoom vs A Lens comparison.

Me included... And I know 2 people that have the ISCOIIIL.


I will ask to do this eventually with one of them, if they are up to it. If it offers a better picture, then that’s all that matters.

If it is the same or worse, it is not worth the money to me and alot of people.



My biggest concerns are 30% loss of ansi contrast, and corner distortions.


Buying a curved screen now, then in 2-3 years have a company release a 2.40:1 panel projector and have to mod or get a new screen that is flat.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17342115
> 
> 
> My reason for this thread is to take cost out of the equation and see if it mattered to the zoomers.



Obviously cost matters or 90%+ of this sub-forum wouldn't have sub-$10K (and most sub-$5K) projectors.


Now, even a few thousand dollars is much better spent upgrading the projector rather than buying a lens and sled- and a few thousand dollars only gets you the sled in this case.










It's pretty ridiculous to even think about putting a $10K lens and sled on a sub-$5K projector.


Even an RS25 zoomed would have many advantages over it's little brother, the RS15 with a $2K A-lens to make both setups equal in cost.


The only way you can take cost out of the equation is taking this discussion to the $20K+ forum and finding anyone that prefers to zoom there.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17342293
> 
> 
> Obviously cost matters or 90%+ of this sub-forum wouldn't have sub-$10K (and most sub-$5K) projectors.
> 
> 
> Now, even a few thousand dollars is much better spent upgrading the projector rather than buying a lens and sled- and a few thousand dollars only gets you the sled in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous to even think about putting a $10K lens and sled on a sub-$5K projector.
> 
> 
> Even an RS25 zoomed would have many advantages over it's little brother, the RS15 with a $2K A-lens to make both setups equal in cost.
> 
> 
> The only way you can take cost out of the equation is taking this discussion to the $20K+ forum and finding anyone that prefers to zoom there.



Look, this is a question specifically to consider what one might do if cost were not a factor. Is there a reason why you keep trying to take that back out of this most simple thread question ?


I think there could be a reason to spend so much for a lens even in the face of projectors costing less and that is the longevity of the lens. There have been three generational improvements in projectors that could warrant swapping them out since I've owned my ISCO III.... just a thought.


Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/17342239
> 
> 
> My biggest concerns are 30% loss of ansi contrast, and corner distortions.
> 
> 
> Buying a curved screen now, then in 2-3 years have a company release a 2.40:1 panel projector and have to mod or get a new screen that is flat.



I believe if you look at the data CM post some time back you will see that the ANSI contrast was not degraded significanly. The pincushion in my set up is less than 3/8th of an inch over 14'.


Art


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/17342239
> 
> 
> My biggest concerns are 30% loss of ansi contrast, and corner distortions



ANSI CR is not effected. Some idiots have tried to circulate that BS. I disproved that 2 years ago. The subject was raised again after some German magazine confirmed this.


Earlier this year I exchanged directly with the ISCO engineers. The effect on ANSI is actually smaller than the allowable error for ANSI measurement. Over a large number of runs, the error was coming in at around 1%. I did none of this testing myself. I called in a favor, and had it expertly done with world class equipment and facilities. ISCO verified the validity of the methodology.


ISCO confirmed that any minor effect on ANSI is due to incorrect installation or operation. If your machine has light spill it will effect it.


Also, you will see some idiots claiming that there is a significant light loss.Its less than 4%, as ISCO guarantee a minimum 96% transmittance.


I currently use 3 ISCO IIIs, and left 2 in my previous house. All measure exactly the same.


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17342523
> 
> 
> ANSI CR is not effected. Some idiots have tried to circulate that BS. I disproved that 2 years ago. The subject was raised again after some German magazine confirmed this.
> 
> 
> Earlier this year I exchanged directly with the ISCO engineers. The effect on ANSI is actually smaller than the allowable error for ANSI measurement. Over a large number of runs, the error was coming in at around 1%. I did none of this testing myself. I called in a favor, and had it expertly done with world class equipment and facilities. ISCO verified the validity of the methodology.
> 
> 
> ISCO confirmed that any minor effect on ANSI is due to incorrect installation or operation. If your machine has light spill it will effect it.
> 
> 
> Also, you will see some idiots claiming that there is a significant light loss.Its less than 4%, as ISCO guarantee a minimum 96% transmittance.
> 
> 
> I currently use 3 ISCO IIIs, and left 2 in my previous house. All measure exactly the same.




Thank you. Great information to know. So I guess the only concern now is minor distorted corners, but that’s not enough for me to "not" want a lens if it provides a better picture.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/17342577
> 
> 
> Thank you. Great information to know. So I guess the only concern now is minor distorted corners, but that’s not enough for me not to want a lens if it provides a better picture.



If you mean pincushion, it is not an issue at the relevant throw distances. I was the same as Art, around 1/2" over 14ft, and totally invisible.


If you are talking about some nasty effects on the image....not possible with an ISCOIII. All individually tested. No ISCO III lens has ever been returned for a performance issue.


----------



## Varrius




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17342352
> 
> 
> Look, this is a question specifically to consider what one might do if cost were not a factor. Is there a reason why you keep trying to take that back out of this most simple thread question ?
> 
> 
> I think there could be a reason to spend so much for a lens even in the face of projectors costing less and that is the longevity of the lens. There have been three generational improvements in projectors that could warrant swapping them out since I've owned my ISCO III.... just a thought.
> 
> 
> Art



Your going to get two answers to your question. One will be those who can afford (or choose to spend) the money on an A-lens already, who will gladly take you up on your offer if they don't already have an ISCO III. The other will be those who cannot afford (or choose not to spend money on) an A-lens, and they zoom. They will say they would try out your lens and determine which they like better.


Neither answer gets us any closer to the truth, really. The only ones who can really give you a meaningful answer are those who have seen both methods in a controlled enough environment to be able to determine a difference. The problem is, there aren't very many of those.


The best way to solve this discussion would be a blind test. Get a sample of citizens (preferably some 'experts', some not) and show them some clips with an A-lens, and then some using zoom. Somehow, keep them from knowing which is which, and read their notes. A well done blind test like that really would squash this entire debate.


So my answer is the latter of the original two I mentioned. I would take your lens and try it out. If I saw an improvement I would keep it, if not I'd return it. Now, that isn't really any help to the discussion is it?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Varrius* /forum/post/17342651
> 
> 
> The only ones who can really give you a meaningful answer are those who have seen both methods in a controlled enough environment to be able to determine a difference. The problem is, there aren't very many of those.



I have. The difference in PQ is readily apparent.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Varrius* /forum/post/17342651
> 
> 
> The best way to solve this discussion would be a blind test.



Assuming we are talking about good machines, and a normal viewing angle, blind testing is actually impossible with anyone who knows anything about HT. Its always blatantly obvious which is which.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17340343
> 
> 
> I think any cinematographer will tell you that the best lens is no lens, or put better, the less glass the better.



have you actually seen a Panavision lens? They are longer that the camera they are attached to! Less glass is better? I don't think so and by the look of the unit I saw at SMPTE, neither do they.


----------



## Dennis Erskine

When this 2.35:1 thing was first productized, zooming was an option; but, the difference in PQ was significant...night and day. There were also some subtle differences which came into play. That lamp in the projector is stupid, not smart. It illuminates 100% of the chip's surface area. It doesn't care that circa 25% of the chips are trying hard not to reflect light into the lens. The "A" way uses 100% of those illuminated chips. And there was an observed problem (back then) ... some dynamic iris implementations got confused and started closing the iris too soon.


Nonsense about distorted pixels has come to light. Nonsense. Yup, the pixels are more horizontal which is simply saying you need a purpose designed scaler whose algorithms are aware of that fact (most internal projector scalers aren't that smart). (We are, in the end, concerned with visible distortions not distortions which can occasionally be measured and fall within allowable error of the standard or measurement equipment.)


Pincushion was a function of throw distance ... long throws, less a problem. Short throws a problem. Fixed with screen curve. Once we tested with a curved screen we found something else out. The slight curvature of the screen improved edge to edge uniformity within the seating area and reduced light spill on to the walls.


With 1920x1080, A-lens plus scaling will win every time (the assumption is a good lens and purpose designed scaler). I've done testing with a 4096x2400 3-chip LCOS projector. Less of a difference between zooming and A-lens; but, the A-lens still won out with an obvious difference. (We even increased the lamp output when zoomed to keep ft.lamberts equal.)


No argument. A-wins. Period. Oops, if you throw in the cost factor, well, your decision process will change and likely hinge on your total budget and the cost of the projector. On the other hand, that ISCO III and sled can stick around as you upgrade projectors over time.


zoom zoom


----------



## Dennis Erskine




> Quote:
> have you actually seen a Panavision lens? They are longer that the camera they are attached to! Less glass is better? I don't think so and by the look of the unit I saw at SMPTE, neither do they.



I doubt he has, doubt he's been to Panavision, nor ever spoken to a Cinematographer. But, on the other hand, some people just enjoy stirring up bee's nests.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17342293
> 
> 
> Now, even a few thousand dollars is much better spent upgrading the projector rather than buying a lens and sled



When you add a lens, you are upgrading the projector. You upgrade it from 1.78:1 ro 2.37:1 (based on 1.33x lenses).


----------



## coldmachine

Excellent posts Dennis.


So many people ignore, or deny the existance of, the 800lb Gorilla...............There is always a huge dishonesty when this debate come up. Ive yet to meet a domestic zoomer who didn't have a real estate, or fiscal, limitation. Ive never seen it as an absolutely free choice.


An A-Lens is very clearly superior, Anyone who claims otherwise is blind, delusional, dishonest or all 3.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17343233
> 
> 
> An A-Lens is very clearly superior



Totally agreed, especially when your talking about a cylindrical lens like the ISCO III with fully adjustable astigmatism correction.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17343609
> 
> 
> totally agreed, especially when your talking about a cylindrical lens like the isco iii with fully adjustable astigmatism correction.



+1


----------



## darinp2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17342115
> 
> 
> My reason for this thread is to take cost out of the equation and see if it mattered to the zoomers. Perhaps we should say AVS had a contest with the equipment as the prize.



To get around the issue with people then saying that they would sell the lens for a lot of money and then buy something different, maybe consider a hypothetical situation where a new lens was introduced to the market that was as good as the ISCOIII, but only priced at $500 (so resale wouldn't be high) and a person won one in the contest you mentioned. Then would they use it?


Seems like a reasonable question to me.


--Darin


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17343609
> 
> 
> Totally agreed, especially when your talking about a cylindrical lens like the ISCO III with fully adjustable astigmatism correction.



Indeed. I cant even believe that a contrary point of view is given any legitimacy.


Its like one guy arguing, against others, for a flat earth. That doesn't mean there are 2 legitimate opinions. On one side there is a simple truth, on the other there is an acute case of delusion.


Ive also tested the zoom method on DCI machines, with their higher fill ratio. Still no competition. The superiority is simply undeniable.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17343730
> 
> 
> On one side there is a simple truth, on the other there is an acute case of delusion.



LOL. Here zoomers, ZOOM THIS!


----------



## GG386

I've always said that most (not all) zoomers won't use the lens/slide method more for economic reasons rather than from the purist angle of the equation. This is just part of making a good decission, all of us make them every day. Hey, if you can't swing it, so be it. I work with people/companies all the time that have to cut something here or there, no problem. I guess in a perfect world, the money part of it would be irrelevant, but the last I looked we still have a way to go for that world.


Anyway, with the help of this board I ended up using the IscoIII and Cineslide mainly because I perceived this setup as superior. There was a couple of added reasons (which have been touched on) but here they are- the lens is completely transferable to most any HT projector, and it's about the only piece of av gear that holds any kind of reasonable resale value. Mind you, these were'nt the most important but they all add to the mix. I have zoomed my pj just for s***s and giggles; there is a difference- not breath taking but definetly there. I rest my case, your honor


----------



## Craig Peer

I'd take it, even though I'm not sure it would work with my setup.


Art, if I gave you a case of Chateau Petrus 1989, would you drink it? At $ 2,800.00 / bottle, would you still drink it if you had to pay for it?


I don't think I ever said zooming was _better_ than using a lens. My experience has been that the lens wasn't worth the money for what it did - _in my opinion_.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Look, this is a question specifically to consider what one might do if cost were not a factor.



And for any generous millionares out there, if cost is not a factor, I'll also take a Ferrari, a Bentley, a house in Reno where you can send me a Browning Bar, an MG42, a Quad .50, a couple of MP5's, and I'll take a case of that 1989 Chateau Petrus......and the ISCO III while you are at it.


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17344117
> 
> 
> Art, if I gave you a case of Chateau Petrus 1989, would you drink it? At $ 2,800.00 / bottle, would you still drink it if you had to pay for it?



And what cheap domestic Merlot would you be offering to the Zoomers


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17343233
> 
> 
> An A-Lens is very clearly superior, Anyone who claims otherwise is blind, delusional, dishonest or all 3.



Would you think all A-lenses regardless of brand would be superior to zooming or just specific ones? ISCO III, ISCO II, Schneider Cinedigitar, UH480, HD-5000, H-FE850, CAVX, Home Theater Brothers, any others?


Also, would this statement changed based off varying throw distance, viewing distance, and screen size?


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Craig Peer
> 
> Art, if I gave you a case of Chateau Petrus 1989, would you drink it? At $ 2,800.00 / bottle, would you still drink it if you had to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what cheap domestic Merlot would you be offering to the Zoomers
Click to expand...


That's the thing - I put that 10K I would have spent on the lens etc. into good wine in my wine cellar. A bottle or two of good wine and you can't see the difference a lens makes anyway................................


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/17344309
> 
> 
> Would you think all A-lenses regardless of brand would be superior to zooming or just specific ones? ISCO III, ISCO II, Schneider Cinedigitar, UH480, HD-5000, H-FE850, CAVX, Home Theater Brothers, any others?
> 
> 
> Also, would this statement changed based off varying throw distance, viewing distance, and screen size?


No they are not all the same. If they were cars, would it be fair to compare a Mercedes to a Hyundai?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17342293
> 
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous to even think about putting a $10K lens and sled on a sub-$5K projector.



I used to think the same but when I ended up buying the schneider well the difference in PQ speaks for itself, Sensational!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17344596
> 
> no they are not all the same. If they were cars, would it be fair to compare a mercedes to a hyundai?



+1


----------



## R Harkness

I'm late to the party but....


Although I'm a "zoomer" at this point I'm not sure I'm the type of respondent Art had in mind, since I'm not doing strict CIH but varying my image size with 4 way masking.


But my take would be:


Yes I'd take the lens, to see if the image indeed looked better than zooming. But I would still want to keep my zooming capability even with the lens. I'd see the lens not so much as a convenience feature but for perhaps keeping better quality (if it is indeed the case in my set up) for my larger scope image sizes.


BUT...if zooming and with the A-lens in the set up wasn't possible and it were an either or, _I'd stick with zooming and wouldn't accept the lens etc_.


Being able to vary the image size as I desire is, to me, a more important advantage than what any A-lens would bring to my set up.


However, if I were doing a strictly CIH set up of course I'd like the lens and it's convenience. It's hard to imagine a CIH devotee saying "no".


----------



## Craig Peer

I don't do CIH either. My 2.35:1 screen is only 12" wider than my 1.78:1 screen. A lens would make the 2.35:1 image too big for my 12' seating distance.


Watched Contact on Blu Ray last night, and Star Trek Generations tonight on Blu Ray. They both look great on the Lumis - especially Generations. It looked totally 3 dimensional on many scenes, with incredible detail. With my setup, a lens won't add much if anything.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17345075
> 
> 
> A lens would make the 2.35:1 image too big for my 12' seating distance.



Is your room width restricted based on the image height you choose for 16:9?



> Quote:
> With my setup, a lens won't add much if anything.



Easy to say when you have not actually seen what a propper lens can do.


----------



## Craig Peer

My room is only 12 feet from the seating to the screen. I have the biggest 2.35:1 screen I'd want, and a slightly smaller 16:9 screen, as I don't like to compromise that image size. That's how I roll.


I've seen plenty of nice A lens setups. They throw a nice picture. Just not nice enough to make me want one.


----------



## Highjinx

Wow, it's not to hard to spot the folks who make a $ or $$ out of this stuff.










Once anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material is available I'll put my hand up!..........but since that _may_ be in the future, if at all......I'll stick with sitting at the perfect viewing angle and thus distance for a *1920 x 1080/810* panel projector.....preserve pixel mapping, not worry about scaling artifacts, extra glass, when it's not needed, as it's pseudo anamorphic without the proper encoded source material.....!










This thread always makes me smile!







............it's priceless!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15022269 


Bring on the anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material and Art's lens or similar will be a must have!!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/17345221
> 
> 
> Wow, it's not to hard to spot the folks who make a $ or $$ out of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material is available I'll put my hand up!..........but since that _may_ be in the future, if at all......I'll stick with sitting at the perfect viewing angle and thus distance for a *1920 x 1080/810* panel projector.....preserve pixel mapping, not worry about scaling artifacts, extra glass, when it's not needed, as it's pseudo anamorphic without the proper encoded source material.....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread always makes me smile!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ............it's priceless!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15022269
> 
> 
> Bring on the anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material and Art's lens or similar will be a must have!!



Who is making money out of it?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/17344309
> 
> 
> Would you think all A-lenses regardless of brand would be superior to zooming or just specific ones? ISCO III, ISCO II, Schneider Cinedigitar, UH480, HD-5000, H-FE850, CAVX, Home Theater Brothers, any others?
> 
> 
> Also, would this statement changed based off varying throw distance, viewing distance, and screen size?



1. My personal experience is limited to ISCOII and ISCOIII, with few views of a Schneider.


2. Obviously the throw ratio must be within the guidelines given by the manufacturer.


3. Obviously the viewing distance must be appropriate. Viewing both methods from 10 screen widths would shown no difference


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/17345221
> 
> 
> preserve pixel mapping, not worry about scaling artifacts, extra glass, when it's not needed



Don't forget about all the dust from not having that seal between the projector's lens and the anamorphic lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17345385
> 
> 
> Don't forget about all the dust from not having that seal between the projector's lens and the anamorphic lens.



The what??


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17345393
> 
> 
> The what??



Apparently he has a problem with lens cleaning products and his solution this was to place a seal between the primary and the anamorphic. The idea probaly could work if you never removed the anamophic from the light path, however given his phobia of scaling, using the 4 x 3 mode for optically expanding the 16:9 image just wouldn't work.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17345411
> 
> 
> Apparently he has a problem with lens cleaning products.










lol


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17345273
> 
> 
> 1. My personal experience is limited to ISCOII and ISCOIII, with few views of a Schneider.
> 
> 
> 2. Obviously the throw ratio must be within the guidelines given by the manufacturer.
> 
> 
> 3. Obviously the viewing distance must be appropriate. Viewing both methods from 10 screen widths would shown no difference



This is interesting input from coldmachine. We have several folks insisting that one only needs to see the difference between zooming and using an A-lens to see the obvious superiority of using the A-lens (image quality wise).


But then a very experienced member, coldmachine, with experience of the top A-lenses, seems to offer a contrary opinion.


And the debate goes on ....I guess.


EDIT: I missed the "10 screen widths." LOL.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/17345221
> 
> 
> Once anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material is available I'll put my hand up!..........but since that _may_ be in the future, if at all......I'll stick with sitting at the perfect viewing angle and thus distance for a *1920 x 1080/810* panel projector.....preserve pixel mapping, not worry about scaling artifacts, extra glass, when it's not needed, as it's pseudo anamorphic without the proper encoded source material.....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread always makes me smile!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ............it's priceless!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15022269
> 
> 
> Bring on the anamorphically encoded Blu Ray source material and Art's lens or similar will be a must have!!



My sentiments exactly. And everyone who ridicules zooming should look at that test pattern from Cine4home and read some of the comments on that post.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I don't think anyone ridicules zooming, it seems to be more the case that zoomers suggest it's better than an A lens unless you get an ISCO III and even then it would only be a marginal improvement.


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17345818
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone ridicules zooming, it seems to be more the case that zoomers suggest it's better than an A lens unless you get an ISCO III and even then it would only be a marginal improvement.
> 
> 
> Gary



I agree who ridicules it, its mainly the other way around.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17344596
> 
> 
> No they are not all the same. If they were cars, would it be fair to compare a Mercedes to a Hyundai?



It looks like we have some communication issues as you keep misconstruing my postings. First off my question was never directed at you. Secondly, my question was not if all the lenses were at the same level of performance (which we all know what the answer is), but if all lenses were better than zooming and trying to get some clarity around his statements. I got his answer so I'm good. Thanks CM.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17345273
> 
> 
> 3. Obviously the viewing distance must be appropriate. Viewing both methods from 10 screen widths would shown no difference



You must have a darn good set of eagles eyes on you.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17345768
> 
> 
> My sentiments exactly. And everyone who ridicules zooming should look at that test pattern from Cine4home and read some of the comments on that post.



I put up images a while back that clearly demonstrated that my own machines VP software scaled with no visible artifacts whatsoever. They were very close up and used very tight 1 pixel grids.


I am in the middle of taking some similar shots of CA and MC for the high end PJ forum. I'll take some scaling shots. I'll also post some with dual axis scaling at even larger ratios than 1.33.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17343762
> 
> 
> LOL. Here zoomers, ZOOM THIS!



If scope BD's were anamorphically encoded, you may have actually had a point.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17344924
> 
> 
> I used to think the same but when I ended up buying the schneider well the difference in PQ speaks for itself, Sensational!!



That's fine, if you spend $10K on a lens, your eyes are going to see $10K of improvement- whether it's actually there or not.










Now, can you really say upgrading your sub-$5K projector to a $10-15K projector wouldn't be a difference in PQ? Wouldn't be a sensational difference from the cheaper one?


At the very least, wouldn't it be marginally a greater improvement than adding the lens to the cheaper projector?


Let's say that zoomers concede that the PQ a quality lens brings is better than zooming.


Upgrading your projector will still be a better upgrade of PQ, dollar for dollar for most people.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17345907
> 
> 
> I put up images a while back that clearly demonstrated that my own machines VP software scaled with no visible artifacts whatsoever. They were very close up and used very tight 1 pixel grids.
> 
> 
> I am in the middle of taking some similar shots of CA and MC for the high end PJ forum. I'll take some scaling shots. I'll also post some with dual axis scaling at even larger ratios than 1.33.



Something like this needs to be done more exhaustively for it to apply to the


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You don't have to spend thousands on a lens - even some of the cheaper ones show an improvement.


My ISCO II cost me $800 from this forum and I bought one even cheaper locally for someone else. I guess second hand costs don't count though.


Gary


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by Franin
> 
> I used to think the same but when I ended up buying the schneider well the difference in PQ speaks for itself, Sensational!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, if you spend $10K on a lens, your eyes are going to see $10K of improvement- whether it's actually there or not.
> 
> 
> Now, can you really say upgrading your sub-$5K projector to a $10-15K projector wouldn't be a difference in PQ? Wouldn't be a sensational difference from the cheaper one?
> 
> 
> At the very least, wouldn't it be marginally a greater improvement than adding the lens to the cheaper projector?
> 
> 
> Let's say that zoomers concede that the PQ a quality lens brings is better than zooming.
> 
> 
> Upgrading your projector will still be a better upgrade of PQ, dollar for dollar for most people.
Click to expand...


That's my opinion too. Upgrading to the Lumis ( with no 10K + lens setup ) was a picture quality improvement over a projector that was 10K less in cost.


For the record, I thought the current Panamorph lens with a JVC RS25 I saw at CEDIA threw a great picture, IF you have a CIH screen setup. I don't, so I would still have to zoom.


Also for the record, my previous experiences have been with the Panamorph lens specifically made for the NEC HT1000. As far as I was concerned, it screwed uo the picture more than it improved it. My next experience was with whatever the top of the line Prismasonic lens was available when the Optoma H79 was king. Their lenses are much better now, and even then they were good. But when Guitarman was over calibrating the H79 and after I put the lens in place he said " why is it fuzzier now ? ", that was it for lenses and me. I'm sure the ISCO III would not have these problems. I'm just not willing to go there a third frack'n time. 'Cause with my setup, the picture is perfectly stunning, and I'm completely happy now - it's only top notch source material that is the limiting factor now.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17346724
> 
> 
> That's fine, if you spend $10K on a lens, your eyes are going to see $10K of improvement- whether it's actually there or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you really say upgrading your sub-$5K projector to a $10-15K projector wouldn't be a difference in PQ? Wouldn't be a sensational difference from the cheaper one?
> 
> 
> At the very least, wouldn't it be marginally a greater improvement than adding the lens to the cheaper projector?
> 
> 
> Let's say that zoomers concede that the PQ a quality lens brings is better than zooming.
> 
> 
> Upgrading your projector will still be a better upgrade of PQ, dollar for dollar for most people.



I have to admit there is a big improvement and yes its worth it. Luckily for me I was able to give it a test before I bought it if there was no improvement I was able to return it, but there was.


The JVC once properly calibrated can actually give a stunning picture and to keep the same quality you need to buy a good lens no question about it.


But anyway zoom, this whole topic which has basically completely gone off topic is wether given a free ISCO III to enjoy not to sell will you still keep it or give it back.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17346908
> 
> 
> That's my opinion too. Upgrading to the Lumis ( with no 10K + lens setup ) was a picture quality improvement over a projector that was 10K less in cost.
> 
> 
> For the record, I thought the current Panamorph lens with a JVC RS25 I saw at CEDIA threw a great picture, IF you have a CIH screen setup. I don't, so I would still have to zoom.
> 
> 
> Also for the record, my previous experiences have been with the Panamorph lens specifically made for the NEC HT1000. As far as I was concerned, it screwed uo the picture more than it improved it. My next experience was with whatever the top of the line Prismasonic lens was available when the Optoma H79 was king. Their lenses are much better now, and even then they were good. But when Guitarman was over calibrating the H79 and after I put the lens in place he said " why is it fuzzier now ? ", that was it for lenses and me. I'm sure the ISCO III would not have these problems. I'm just not willing to go there a third frack'n time. 'Cause with my setup, the picture is perfectly stunning, and I'm completely happy now - it's only top notch source material that is the limiting factor now.



Personally I don't have anything against people zoom and with your Lumis Im sure you get a stunning picture without a doubt.I guess giving a free ISCO III to enjoy not to sell you will say no because as you said your not willing to go a thir frack'n time


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17347175
> 
> 
> I have to admit there is a big improvement and yes its worth it. Luckily for me I was able to give it a test before I bought it if there was no improvement I was able to return it, but there was.
> 
> 
> The JVC once properly calibrated can actually give a stunning picture and to keep the same quality you need to buy a good lens no question about it.
> 
> 
> But anyway zoom, this whole topic which has basically completely gone off topic is wether given a free ISCO III to enjoy not to sell will you still keep it or give it back.



You're avoiding the question










I'm sure the HD350 throws a fantastic picture with the Schneider in your setup. (I also want to say I love your room, it has a great look to it.)


But for the same money, are you telling me an HD990 being zoomed won't throw a better picture than the HD350 with the Schneider?


Is there anyone that would admit to that?


Now it doesn't necessarily apply to you, or everyone- depending on the order you purchase things. You could very well purchase a quality lens, and upgrade projectors through the years where the lens purchase doesn't affect the moolah you throw down on the PJs.

*My point is more this; say someone owns an HD350 right now- is dropping the cash on a Schneider going to improve the PQ more than selling the HD350 and upgrading to the HD990?*


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17347341
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the HD350 throws a fantastic picture with the Schneider in your setup. (I also want to say I love your room, it has a great look to it.)
> 
> 
> But for the same money, are you telling me an HD990 being zoomed won't throw a better picture than the HD350 with the Schneider?
> 
> 
> Is there anyone that would admit to that?
> 
> 
> Now it doesn't necessarily apply to you, or everyone- depending on the order you purchase things. You could very well purchase a quality lens, and upgrade projectors through the years where the lens purchase doesn't affect the moolah you throw down on the PJs.
> 
> *My point is more this; say someone owns an HD350 right now- is dropping the cash on a Schneider going to improve the PQ more than selling the HD350 and upgrading to the HD990?*



I don't know I have never seen the HD990 in action but once these projector are properly calibrated how much improvement is there? I really can't see any more improvement than what I see know, the blacks are inky black, the colours are great, what more improvement would there be?


Btw thanks for the compliments


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Personally I don't have anything against people zoom and with your Lumis Im sure you get a stunning picture without a doubt.I guess giving a free ISCO III to enjoy not to sell you will say no because as you said your not willing to go a thir frack'n time



For free I would go there a third frack'n time. But not for 10K on the chance that I might see a 4% possible " increase in picture quality " ? Especially considering that without a CIH screen, I'll still have to do just as much zooming with a lens, as just zooming............!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17347423
> 
> 
> I don't know I have never seen the HD990 in action but once these projector are properly calibrated how much improvement is there? I really can't see any more improvement than what I see know, the blacks are inky black, the colours are great, what more improvement would there be?
> 
> 
> Btw thanks for the compliments



Well, for one, how can the HD350 be "properly" calibrated?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17347423
> 
> 
> I don't know I have never seen the HD990 in action but once these projector are properly calibrated how much improvement is there? I really can't see any more improvement than what I see know, the blacks are inky black, the colours are great, what more improvement would there be?
> 
> 
> Btw thanks for the compliments



Similar to a lens, I guess you have to see it to understand it







.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17347552
> 
> 
> Well, for one, how can the HD350 be "properly" calibrated?



By an isf calibrator. Its actually quite amazing what they do and the end results are stunning.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17347641
> 
> 
> Similar to a lens, I guess you have to see it to understand it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Exactly!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17347341
> 
> 
> But for the same money, are you telling me an HD990 being zoomed won't throw a better picture than the HD350 with the Schneider?



Since the resolution of the 990 and the 350 is the same, and the lens only affects the resolution difference with zooming, then I think an A lens would still improve upon the 990 in that respect in the same way it would improve the 350. The 990 may have better contrast/lumens and colour accuracy, but it will still look much the same resolution wise as the 350 will if they were zoomed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17347341
> 
> *My point is more this; say someone owns an HD350 right now- is dropping the cash on a Schneider going to improve the PQ more than selling the HD350 and upgrading to the HD990?*



I'd say yes if they were zooming.


Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17347737
> 
> 
> Since the resolution of the 990 and the 350 is the same, and the lens only affects the resolution difference with zooming, then I think an A lens would still improve upon the 990 in that respect in the same way it would improve the 350. The 990 may have better contrast/lumens and colour accuracy, but it will still look much the same resolution wise as the 350 will if they were zoomed.
> 
> 
> I'd say yes if they were zooming.
> 
> 
> Gary



I didn't say anything about adding a lens to the HD990. This is simply HD350 + Schneider, or HD990 zoomed.


You'd say yes to what?


You're saying better contrast and color accuracy (between HD350 and HD990) is harder to notice than the PQ "improvements" a lens provides?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17347423
> 
> 
> once these projector are properly calibrated how much improvement is there? I really can't see any more improvement than what I see know, the blacks are inky black, the colours are great, what more improvement would there be?



There are very significant improvements to be gained over the units you are referring to.


If you cant imagine better, that's one thing, but better most certainly does exist.


If I misread your post, and you were comparing to the 990 rather than anything that's available, ignore this post.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17347827
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about adding a lens to the HD990. This is simply HD350 + Schneider, or HD990 zoomed.
> 
> 
> You'd say yes to what?
> 
> 
> You're saying better contrast and color accuracy (between HD350 and HD990) is harder to notice than the PQ "improvements" a lens provides?



I'm saying that you'd notice the difference between a zoomed 990 and a 350 with a lens in probably the same way you'd notice the difference in the other improvements you mention. Contrast perception may be harder because we don't see in a linear fashion, so even with the same white level you may have trouble determining the difference in black level (between 990 and 350). We perceive a 50% difference in brightness only when the luminance has actually dropped by around 82%. They're basically the same panel so the resolution difference with and without a lens will be visible. But as CM mentioned, the further back you sit, the less difference a lens will make in the same way the further back you sit, the less difference you will see between 1080 over 720.


Gary


----------



## taffman

Can someone with an A-lens please post some comparison screen shots between zooming and A-lens on the same size screen? If the difference is as startling as claimed, then it should be readily apparent from some good screenshots.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17348576
> 
> 
> I'm saying that you'd notice the difference between a zoomed 990 and a 350 with a lens in probably the same way you'd notice the difference in the other improvements you mention. They're basically the same panel so the resolution difference with and without a lens will be visible. But as CM mentioned, the further back you sit, the less difference a lens will make in the same way the further back you sit, the less difference you will see between 1080 over 720.
> 
> 
> Gary



So you prefer PQ increases in the form of resolution (upscaled, not source) over contrast and color accuracy?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17348703
> 
> 
> So you prefer PQ increases in the form of resolution over contrast and color accuracy?



I've no idea how you'd come to that conclusion given the question I was answering. I'm not even sure what my image preferences are if I had to list them in order, but if I can see something lacking somewhere I'd try to improve it. I used to zoom but the pixels were noticeably larger and SD material looked chunky. That's why I ended up with a lens.


I did things like adding a lens filter (FL-Day) to colour correct the UHP lamp and calibrate to D65 to ensure a flat gray scale, with the by product of a better black level and higher CR, as well as add black material to the walls and ceiling to increase the ANSI CR I was realising in the image. There were probably other things but those are just examples of the things I'd done to improve the image I was getting in my room from my pj. Going CIH and then adding a lens were other improvements along with a closer seating distance.


Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17348865
> 
> 
> I've no idea how you'd come to that conclusion given the question I was answering.



Simple.


For the same dollar, you can choose to add a lens to the HD350 or upgrade to the HD990. (This is the hypothetical I discussed with Franin, and you responded to.)


You stated the benefits of "increased resolution" with the lens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> They're basically the same panel so the resolution difference with and without a lens will be visible.



You preferred this over the benefits (contrast and color being two) the HD990 brings.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Contrast perception may be harder because we don't see in a linear fashion...



What I hear you saying, is given a choice in upgrade, for the same price, you'd rather add a lens to the HD350 rather than step up to the HD990.


You appreciate resolution increase (in the form of upscaling, not source) over contrast and color improvements when spending your money on PQ upgrades. Correct?


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17342293
> 
> 
> Obviously cost matters or 90%+ of this sub-forum wouldn't have sub-$10K (and most sub-$5K) projectors.
> 
> 
> Now, even a few thousand dollars is much better spent upgrading the projector rather than buying a lens and sled- and a few thousand dollars only gets you the sled in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous to even think about putting a $10K lens and sled on a sub-$5K projector.
> 
> 
> Even an RS25 zoomed would have many advantages over it's little brother, the RS15 with a $2K A-lens to make both setups equal in cost.
> 
> 
> The only way you can take cost out of the equation is taking this discussion to the $20K+ forum and finding anyone that prefers to zoom there.



Interestingly, my ISCOIIIL anamorphic lens has gone UP in value since I purchased it.

No other consumer electronic (or HT seating, etc for that matter) gear in my home theater has that quality.


Mike


----------



## HogPilot

I don't understand why some people have such a problem with Art's original question, which was aimed at those who have stated in absolutes that zooming will always produce a better 'scope picture than when using an anamorphic lens. He asked his question such that the merits of using an anamorphic lens as opposed to zooming can be discussed and evaluated on a purely performance-based level.


What Art _hasn't_ said is - for the majority of us here who are on a relatively modest HT budget - that we should accept any quality of projector as long as it allows us to integrate an anamorphic lens in our systems. I have yet to see anyone advocate purchasing a $1000 projector to use with a $3000 lens. It's absurd and clearly not the intent of Art's original post.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17349422
> 
> 
> I don't understand why some people have such a problem with Art's original question, which was aimed at those who have stated in absolutes that zooming will always produce a better 'scope picture than when using an anamorphic lens. He asked his question such that the merits of using an anamorphic lens as opposed to zooming can be discussed and evaluated on a purely performance-based level.
> 
> 
> What Art _hasn't_ said is - for the majority of us here who are on a relatively modest HT budget - that we should accept any quality of projector as long as it allows us to integrate an anamorphic lens in our systems. I have yet to see anyone advocate purchasing a $1000 projector to use with a $3000 lens. It's absurd and clearly not the intent of Art's original post.



Anyone will take a freebie, that teaches us nothing- and it has no basis in reality.


The better question is at what price point does an A-lens become the clear PQ superiour (price point meaning both scaler cost and lens cost)- and at what price point is it the better buy (over a PJ upgrade).


Those are two topics A-lens advocates like to avoid.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349523
> 
> 
> Anyone will take a freebie, that teaches us nothing- and it has no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> The better question is at what price point does an A-lens become the clear PQ superiour (price point meaning both scaler cost and lens cost)- and at what price point is it the better buy (over a PJ upgrade).
> 
> 
> Those are two topics A-lens advocates like to avoid.



You miss Art's point, which is NOT about money at its core, but rather about performance. The purpose of this thread is a little deeper than "would you take $10K of free stuff?" In fact, Art's only purpose in mentioning the monetary aspect is to eliminate it and make the discussion purely performance based.


Again, Art is neither saying that the real world solution to 'scope HT design is black and white, nor is he saying that an A-lens should be valued over all other things in such a setup. He's simply trying to ascertain whether the hardcore zoomers - taffman, for example - think that using zoom would still be preferable to a free, high-quality anamorphic lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349523
> 
> 
> Anyone will take a freebie, that teaches us nothing- and it has no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> The better question is at what price point does an A-lens become the clear PQ superiour (price point meaning both scaler cost and lens cost)- and at what price point is it the better buy (over a PJ upgrade).
> 
> 
> Those are two topics A-lens advocates like to avoid.



I could of upgraded the projector but why knowing that LED is on the way. I will able to upgrade then and still keep my lens.


----------



## JlgLaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349523
> 
> 
> Anyone will take a freebie, that teaches us nothing- and it has no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> The better question is at what price point does an A-lens become the clear PQ superiour (price point meaning both scaler cost and lens cost)- and at what price point is it the better buy (over a PJ upgrade).
> 
> 
> Those are two topics A-lens advocates like to avoid.




That question can also lead to a meaningless response. Value is relative. My number is MY number. Given the improvements I see in my system with an A-Lens in place (versus zooming, which I've done), and given that I want to squeeze every last drop of potential PQ quality from my system, and given my disposable income level, I would probably have paid $20-$30K for the Lens setup, maybe more. I didn't, but I would have. Those numbers may be ridiculous to some people because we all value our money differently, and that value is likely affected by how much we actually have available to spend on such things.



Jim


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JlgLaw* /forum/post/17349674
> 
> 
> That question can also lead to a meaningless response. Value is relative. My number is MY number. Given the improvements I see in my system with an A-Lens in place (versus zooming, which I've done), and given that I want to squeeze every last drop of potential PQ quality from my system, and given my disposable income level, I would probably have paid $20-$30K for the Lens setup, maybe more. I didn't, but I would have. Those numbers may be ridiculous to some people because we all value our money differently, and that value is likely affected by how much we actually have available to spend on such things.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim



Well obviously, but would you lay down that cash for a setup placed in front of a $3K projector?


I'm not saying you can't do that... I'm just saying the cost of a lens isn't always the best upgrade for the money.


It would be interesting to find out at what price point the lens improves PQ more than an upgrade in PJ horsepower of equivalent money.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349523
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is at what price point does an A-lens become the clear PQ superiour (price point meaning both scaler cost and lens cost)- and at what price point is it the better buy (over a PJ upgrade).
> 
> 
> Those are two topics A-lens advocates like to avoid.



I dont think anyone is avoiding them at all. I can only answer for the machines I have actually used, I assume all other honest posters are in the same position.


Also, the assumption that a scaler is part of the cost is misleading. Most people I know don't use, or need, one. I certainly don't.


----------



## LilGator

By the way, since it's usually brought up in these threads- doesn't Chris Dallas own a Ferrari and ... *zoom* a 150" wide 2.35:1?


Do you think cost is the issue there?


From what I remember, screenshots of his setup were spectacular.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349768
> 
> 
> By the way, since it's usually brought up in these threads- doesn't Chris Dallas own a Ferrari and ... *zoom* a 150" wide 2.35:1?
> 
> 
> Do you think cost is the issue there?
> 
> 
> From what I remember, screenshots of his setup were spectacular.



So given a free isco III for you to enjoy will you keep it or will you be happy to stay with the zooming?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17349767
> 
> 
> I dont think anyone is avoiding them at all. I can only answer for the machines I have actually used, I assume all other honest posters are in the same position.
> 
> 
> Also, the assumption that a scaler is part of the cost is misleading. Most people I know don't use, or need, one. I certainly don't.



I was referring to Dennis' quote (see the bold):



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis Erskine* /forum/post/17343138
> 
> 
> Nonsense about distorted pixels has come to light. Nonsense. Yup, the pixels are more horizontal which is simply saying you need a purpose designed scaler whose algorithms are aware of that fact (*most internal projector scalers aren't that smart*). (We are, in the end, concerned with visible distortions not distortions which can occasionally be measured and fall within allowable error of the standard or measurement equipment.)
> 
> 
> With 1920x1080, A-lens plus scaling will win every time (the assumption is a good lens and purpose designed scaler).



I'm just saying a comparison between low-end PJ internal scaling vs VP's vs zooming would be interesting to see which actually do look better- and which don't produce artifacts.


Same for low quality lenses in the above scenarios.


At a certain price point, zooming may in fact look better. I'm sure many have seen this with cheap equipment.


What price point is needed in either PJ, lens, or scaler combination where it beats (or matches) zooming PQ-wise?


At this price point, is the cost involved in the lens/scaler (or just lens) better spent on a projector upgrade?


Just some things that should be fleshed out more I think before either side makes blanket statements like zooming is always better than a lens, or vice versa.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17349790
> 
> 
> So given a free isco III for you to enjoy will you keep it or will you be happy to stay with the zooming?



As I stated before, free is free- but it's also irrelevant to learning anything useful.


If you're referring to Chris Dallas, well ... you'd have to ask him.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17348678
> 
> 
> Can someone with an A-lens please post some comparison screen shots between zooming and A-lens on the same size screen? If the difference is as startling as claimed, then it should be readily apparent from some good screenshots.



Screenshots are pointless, there are too many variables involved that extend back to your own computer.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349768
> 
> 
> By the way, since it's usually brought up in these threads- doesn't Chris Dallas own a Ferrari and ... *zoom* a 150" wide 2.35:1?
> 
> 
> Do you think cost is the issue there?
> 
> 
> From what I remember, screenshots of his setup were spectacular.



Why do you keep bringing cost into the discussion? Art asked a question about performance and PQ. Yeah, great, we all know that people have to consider cost when building a 'scope setup. That's not what Art asked about - in fact, it's the opposite, because Art asked about PQ alone, not cost.


I'm not sure what Chris's zoomed RS1 on a large HP screen is support of, aside from the fact he chose to not spend exorbitant amounts of money on his theater, which again has nothing to do with Art's original question.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349814
> 
> 
> I was referring to Dennis' quote (see the bold):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying a comparison between low-end PJ internal scaling vs VP's vs zooming would be interesting to see which actually do look better- and which don't produce artifacts.
> 
> 
> Same for low quality lenses in the above scenarios.
> 
> 
> At a certain price point, zooming may in fact look better. I'm sure many have seen this with cheap equipment.
> 
> 
> What price point is needed in either PJ, lens, or scaler combination where it beats (or matches) zooming PQ-wise?
> 
> 
> At this price point, is the cost involved in the lens/scaler (or just lens) better spent on a projector upgrade?
> 
> 
> Just some things that should be fleshed out more I think before either side makes blanket statements like zooming is always better than a lens, or vice versa.



just to let you know I've never said A-lens was better than zooming, never even thought about it to be honest. I'm extremely happy with my current situation wether people think that's absurd so be it.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349768
> 
> 
> By the way, since it's usually brought up in these threads- doesn't Chris Dallas own a Ferrari and ... *zoom* a 150" wide 2.35:1?
> 
> 
> Do you think cost is the issue there?
> 
> 
> From what I remember, screenshots of his setup were spectacular.



What does that prove. My wife drives a lexus LS600hL and she only uses a $200 point and shoot camera, does that mean she should buy the same camera as me, a Canon 1Ds MKIII that is 40 times the cost? Do you think there is a cost issue here too?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349823
> 
> 
> As I stated before, free is free- but it's also irrelevant to learning anything useful.
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Chris Dallas, well ... you'd have to ask him.



Sorry I don't know Chris Dallas but you will take the lens then being that is free and setup free. Cool I guess that's what was needed to know.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Why do you keep bringing cost into the discussion? Art asked a question about performance and PQ.



Because cost does make a difference. Art's premise was would us zoomers take and use an ISCO III lens it if it was free. We all would. I'd drink '89 Chateaux Petrus every night if it was $20.00 too. Except for the wealthiest of us, cost always matters sooner or later. Unless you are George Soros rich.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349823
> 
> 
> As I stated before, free is free- but it's also irrelevant to learning anything useful.



There is something to be learned here. That for no cost to you, you would actually be able to see the image with your own eyes when using 100% of the panel (1920 x 1080) Vs 75% (1920 x 810) of the panel when projecting an image of the same size.


You used to own a BenQ W20000, what projector do you own now?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17349866
> 
> 
> Why do you keep bringing cost into the discussion? Art asked a question about performance and PQ. Yeah, great, we all know that people have to consider cost when building a 'scope setup. That's not what Art asked about - in fact, it's the opposite, because Art asked about PQ alone, not cost.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what Chris's zoomed RS1 on a large HP screen is support of, aside from the fact he chose to not spend exorbitant amounts of money on his theater, which again has nothing to do with Art's original question.



Cost is the driving factor in the stated question. It doesn't exist. In real life, it does exist.


I think we've migrated from Art's question into something more useful. But excuse me, let's go back to discussing the world where money doesn't exist.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17349870
> 
> 
> just to let you know I've never said A-lens was better than zooming, never even thought about it to be honest. I'm extremely happy with my current situation wether people think that's absurd so be it.



How does that approach help anyone learn anything?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/17349880
> 
> 
> What does that prove. My wife drives a lexus LS600hL and she only uses a $200 point and shoot camera, does that mean she should buy the same camera as me, a Canon 1Ds MKIII that is 40 times the cost? Do you think there is a cost issue here too?



Is your wife an active member of DSLR forums? I she a camera enthusiast? What possible relation are you drawing between the two?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17349960
> 
> 
> Because cost does make a difference. Art's premise was would us zoomers take and use an ISCO III lens it if it was free. We all would. I'd drink '89 Chateaux Petrus every night if it was $20.00 too. Except for the wealthiest of us, cost always matters sooner or later. Unless you are George Soros rich.



No one here has claimed that cost isn't an issue when people chose how to build a 'scope theater. Everyone here is well aware that zooming is the cheapest method to fill a 'scope screen.


However, from a purely performance-oriented standpoint, Art is asking why someone wouldn't want to use a lens, ignoring the cost issue. Because there are those here who seem insistent that zooming is flat-out superior PQ-wise to using a lens.


It seems that this cost thing has been been thrown out to steer the thread away from its original premise, and used to justify zooming as if someone were condemning it as unequivocally wrong irregardless of the reason.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349986
> 
> 
> I think we've migrated from Art's question into something more useful. But excuse me, let's go back to discussing the world where money doesn't exist.



Your personal dislike for the thread topic doesn't make it any more or less relevant a question. The fact that Art's question is academic in nature doesn't make it useless - the reactions we've seen here, although not straightforward answers, have actually been quite revealing. There's plenty to be learned from honest answers from zoomers, especially the die-hard ones who see it as the only "real" method for obtaining a 'scope picture. Some of them have obviously gotten defensive about the subject and are trying to steer the thread elsewhere - a separate thread would probably be more appropriate.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17349969
> 
> 
> There is something to be learned here. That for no cost to you, you would actually be able to see the image with your own eyes when using 100% of the panel (1920 x 1080) Vs 75% (1920 x 810) of the panel when projecting an image of the same size.
> 
> 
> You used to own a BenQ W20000, what projector do you own now?



I never said I'd see a difference, or that I'd prefer the difference. Only that I'd keep a $10K freebie installed.


(OT: I've since sold the W20K, waiting to hear about the new InFocus 8602 before I make my next jump (or go with the Planar). Using a SP7210 right now ... which, glad you brought it up, looks fantastic even though it contains 44% of a 1080 panel's pixels







)


----------



## coldmachine

Going slightly OT here, by way of a humorous observation.


There is just something about the word "zoomer" that makes it sound like a term of abuse. It sounds as if its a name for someone who is afflicted with some sort of serious retardation.


"Hey Joe, have you seen that toothless ass flap over there playing the banjo"


"Holy Sh1t, what a total zoomer"


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350006
> 
> 
> No one here has claimed that cost isn't an issue when people chose how to build a 'scope theater. Everyone here is well aware that zooming is the cheapest method to fill a 'scope screen.
> 
> 
> However, from a purely performance-oriented standpoint, Art is asking why someone wouldn't want to use a lens, ignoring the cost issue. *Because there are those here who seem insistent that zooming is flat-out superior PQ-wise to using a lens.*
> 
> 
> It seems that this cost thing has been been thrown out to steer the thread away from its original premise, and used to justify zooming as if someone were condemning it as unequivocally wrong irregardless of the reason.



I still haven't seen one person in this thread making that claim. I'm certainly not. Where are these people?


Why are you so scared of a useful discussion about the price/performance ratio a lens vs. zooming provides?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350037
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen one person in this thread making that claim. I'm certainly not. Where are these people?
> 
> 
> Why are you so scared of a useful discussion about the price/performance ratio a lens vs. zooming provides?



Scared? You're the one wanting to steer the thread OT for your own personal reasons. Why are you so scared to rationally answer Art's question?


CINERAMAX is one of the most vehement zoomers on AVS, and the guy sells projectors that cost more than a new BMW. I don't say this to slight him, only to answer your question as to who and where "these people" are.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350037
> 
> 
> Why are you so scared of a useful discussion about the price/performance ratio a lens vs. zooming provides?



Price/performance ratio is, by definition, a personal call.


I consider the price/performance ratio of the ISCOIII and slide to be outstanding.


My systems would not be significantly less expensive without the lenses, but their price/performance ratio would take a massive downturn.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349986
> 
> 
> 
> How does that approach help anyone learn anything?



I was just responding to the comment below.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349814
> 
> 
> 
> At this price point, is the cost involved in the lens/scaler (or just lens) better spent on a projector upgrade?
> 
> 
> Just some things that should be fleshed out more I think before either side makes blanket statements like zooming is always better than a lens, or vice versa.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17350075
> 
> 
> Price/performance ratio is, by definition, a personal call.
> 
> 
> I consider the price/performance ratio of the ISCOIII and slide to be outstanding.
> 
> 
> My systems would not be significantly less expensive without the lenses, but their price/performance ratio would take a massive downturn.



coldmachine, is there a price point for an A-lens that you know of (or have seen/used) where you'd prefer zooming to it- or do you prefer any A-lens over zooming?


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349986
> 
> 
> Is your wife an active member of DSLR forums? I she a camera enthusiast? What possible relation are you drawing between the two?



Yes , she is a member of Canon Digital Photograhy Forum (P.O.T.N.) and yes she is an photography enthusiast and she picked up her point and shoot second hand by the way.


What relation am I drawing to the two examples, she drives a car that is worth over $100K but chooses to use a point and shoot, just b/c your friend drives a Ferrari does not mean he/she is going to have the bees knees in any toy he/she decides to buy. My point is you can't say that b/c someone drives a ferrari that they will automatically spend dollars to buy the best in everything, I am sure there were a lot things that he/she considered when decideding to zoom instead of use a lens, and believe it or not PQ may not have come into the equation?


Do you know why he/she chose to zoom?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350059
> 
> 
> Scared? You're the one wanting to steer the thread OT for your own personal reasons. Why are you so scared to rationally answer Art's question?
> 
> 
> CINERAMAX is one of the most vehement zoomers on AVS, and the guy sells projectors that cost more than a new BMW. I don't say this to slight him, only to answer your question as to who and where "these people" are.



I've answered the question.


I have no problem admitting zooming probably doesn't look better in any scenario than using an ISCO III.


But I'm going to put $10K into my projector, long before I ever think about an A-lens.


If the ISCO was $2K, I might reconsider. Are there $2K lenses that look better than zooming?


Am I not asking legitimate questions, or are we still stuck on the mind games from post #1?


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> However, from a purely performance-oriented standpoint, Art is asking why someone wouldn't want to use a lens, ignoring the cost issue. Because there are those here who seem insistent that zooming is flat-out superior PQ-wise to using a lens.



Well, in the two examples where I owned an A lens, the lens did not provide a superior picture, in both my opinion, and the opinion of average observers I enlisted. There were always artifacts created by the lens that offset any positives I saw. So in those cases, I thought that zooming ( which I only did with the H79 btw ) was superior.


----------



## Vern Dias

One thing everyone seems to ignore:


You buy a high quality anamorphic lens *once*. You will buy a new projector periodically because the lifetime of most projectors is just not great and the improvements in new models make the upgrade worthwhile.


This lens will work on any projector you own today or will purchase in the future. So it makes sense to invest in one of the higher quality anamorphic lenses even though it may be overkill for your current projector.


Vern


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/17350211
> 
> 
> Yes , she is a member of Canon Digital Photograhy Forum (P.O.T.N.) and yes she is an photography enthusiast and she picked up her point and shoot second hand by the way.
> 
> 
> What relation am I drawing to the two examples, she drives a car that is worth over $100K but chooses to use a point and shoot, just b/c your friend drives a Ferrari does not mean he/she is going to have the bees knees in any toy he/she decides to buy. My point is you can't say that b/c someone drives a ferrari that they will automatically spend dollars to buy the best in everything, I am sure there were a lot things that he/she considered when decideding to zoom instead of use a lens, and believe it or not PQ may not have come into the equation?
> 
> 
> Do you know why he/she chose to zoom?



That is not what I said. Just pointing out the simple fact that saving money is clearly not the reason he zooms. The rest is speculation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/17350265
> 
> 
> One thing everyone seems to ignore:
> 
> 
> You buy a high quality anamorphic lens *once*. You will buy a new projector periodically because the lifetime of most projectors is just not great and the improvements in new models make the upgrade worthwhile.
> 
> 
> This lens will work on any projector you own today or will purchase in the future. So it makes sense to invest in one of the higher quality anamorphic lenses even though it may be overkill for your current projector.
> 
> 
> Vern



I've been around here long enough to know to never assume a purchase will last you a long time. The upgrade bug hits fast and hard.







I buy projectors now only assuming I'll keep them a year ... if that.


What was everyone using before the ISCO III was released? Why did they upgrade?


----------



## ilsiu

Man, I think we're a pretty boring bunch. There's been basically no advancement in CIH hardware (save the Panny) to discuss, so we end up arguing the same things over and over again.


I think the only new things that come up are the derogatory attributes Coldmachine gives to zoomers:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17350029
> 
> 
> Going slightly OT here, by way of a humorous observation.
> 
> 
> There is just something about the word "zoomer" that makes it sound like a term of abuse. It sounds as if its a name for someone who is afflicted with some sort of serious retardation.
> 
> 
> "Hey Joe, have you seen that toothless ass flap over there playing the banjo"
> 
> 
> "Holy Sh1t, what a total zoomer"


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/17350265
> 
> 
> One thing everyone seems to ignore:
> 
> 
> You buy a high quality anamorphic lens *once*. You will buy a new projector periodically because the lifetime of most projectors is just not great and the improvements in new models make the upgrade worthwhile.
> 
> 
> This lens will work on any projector you own today or will purchase in the future. So it makes sense to invest in one of the higher quality anamorphic lenses even though it may be overkill for your current projector.
> 
> 
> Vern



Spot on Vern


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17350351
> 
> 
> Spot on Vern



Well I would hope you only buy your A-lens once, since you bought one to "join the club" and not because you perceive an increased PQ difference compared to zooming.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17349870
> 
> 
> just to let you know I've never said A-lens was better than zooming, never even thought about it to be honest.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350216
> 
> 
> I've answered the question.
> 
> 
> I have no problem admitting zooming probably doesn't look better in any scenario than using an ISCO III.



Until now, you _haven't_ answered the question, you've avoided it and tried to steer the thread to discussing price vs. performance. Your statements to the effect that "anyone would like $10K of free goodies" are hardly tantamount to an admission that a quality lens will always yield a superior picture as compared to zooming.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350216
> 
> 
> But I'm going to put $10K into my projector, long before I ever think about an A-lens.



Great. Only Art wasn't asking about how to best spend a fixed amount of money to maximize one's PQ based on their setup. He was asking about the merits of using a lens vs zooming, ignoring cost. But you already know that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350216
> 
> 
> If the ISCO was $2K, I might reconsider. Are there $2K lenses that look better than zooming?



Yes, Panamorph and Prismasonic are two brands that fall in that category, and are quite well-known brands here in the CIH forums. You can easily pick them up B-stock or used for that price or less.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350216
> 
> 
> Am I not asking legitimate questions, or are we still stuck on the mind games from post #1?



Are you frustrated that your tangential questions keep getting pointed out as having no bearing on this thread? Claiming that Art is using "mind games" while you consistently attempt to steer his thread off is defensive, not to mention a little ironic.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350366
> 
> 
> Well I would hope you only buy your A-lens once, since you bought one to "join the club" and not because you perceive an increased PQ difference compared to zooming.



What club? I did not know there was a club. I had a good entry prisim lens and decided I wanted to go one step futher and go cylindrical which I wont lie made a big improvement in my picture, so yes I did see a big difference. I don't know why you keep mentioning zooming to me I told you when I got into 2:35:1 it did not occur to me people were zooming to achieve that. I have not been an owner for very long but I like to get the best out of my system, though Ive never said one bad thing about zooming because ive never tried it. But I was interested in this particular topic because one thing I did notice in this 2:35:1 forum that some people that zoom keep arguing that there method is better so I wanted to see what there answer where.


So there is no club, I did not get a t-shirt, no key ring. I have joined the AVS club I get an Avatar


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17350235
> 
> 
> Well, in the two examples where I owned an A lens, the lens did not provide a superior picture, in both my opinion, and the opinion of average observers I enlisted. There were always artifacts created by the lens that offset any positives I saw. So in those cases, I thought that zooming ( which I only did with the H79 btw ) was superior.



I have never had a Prismasonic lens in my HT, although I did own a Panamorph UH380 with my H79 before I replaced it with an RS1. The UH380 is a pretty good lens, with little or no CA and minimal pincushion. I definitely found the picture to be less coarse and brighter on the H79 with the UH380 vs zooming. The difference was less noticable with my RS1, but because of my seating distance - about 1.2 screen widths - and my 20/15 vision, the decrease in pixel structure from using the UH380 was still relatively apparent as opposed to zooming.


Of course, the UH380 (now succeded by the UH480) is one of the better lenses out there, reaching about 85% the performance of an ISCO III for a fraction of the cost. I can definitely see how lesser lenses would muddy the picture enough to make it undesirable as compared to zooming.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350390
> 
> 
> Until now, you _haven't_ answered the question, you've avoided it and tried to steer the thread to discussing price vs. performance. Your statements to the effect that "anyone would like $10K of free goodies" are hardly tantamount to an admission that a quality lens will always yield a superior picture as compared to zooming.
> 
> 
> Great. Only Art wasn't asking about how to best spend a fixed amount of money to maximize one's PQ based on their setup. He was asking about the merits of using a lens vs zooming, ignoring cost. But you already know that.
> 
> 
> Yes, Panamorph and Prismasonic are two brands that fall in that category, and are quite well-known brands here in the CIH forums. You can easily pick them up B-stock or used for that price or less.
> 
> 
> Are you frustrated that your tangential questions keep getting pointed out as having no bearing on this thread? Claiming that Art is using "mind games" while you consistently attempt to steer his thread off is defensive, not to mention a little ironic.



You feel better yet?










I believe coldmachine related using a panamorph to "trying to demo a high end audio source through a frikkin Bose wave radio".


Art seems to be picking a fight with someone who hasn't shown up in this thread. Not a single person here has said zooming always produces better PQ over an A-lens. There seem to be examples of people preferring zooming over certain lenses, and people preferring certain lenses over zooming.


Funny you should mention ironic, you see, you haven't directly answered Art's question yourself.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350494
> 
> 
> I believe coldmachine related using a panamorph to "trying to demo a high end audio source through a frikkin Bose wave radio".



I'm aware of the performance hierarchy of anamorphic lenses because I've viewed them with my own eyes. You?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350494
> 
> 
> Art seems to be picking a fight with someone who hasn't shown up in this thread. Not a single person here has said zooming always produces better PQ over an A-lens. There seem to be examples of people preferring zooming over certain lenses, and people preferring certain lenses over zooming.



Art asked a simple question, and you of all people showed up guns a-blazin'. You brought the fight whether he was looking for it or not.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350494
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention ironic, you see, you haven't directly answered Art's question yourself.



I had the first response - your definition of "direct" must severely differ from mine and Webster's:

Post #2 

Post #8


----------



## LilGator

1. Depending on the quality of the lens and scaler, zooming can produce better PQ.


2. Depending on the quality of the lens and scaler, an A-lens can produce better PQ.


Does anyone here dispute these two points?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350603
> 
> 
> I'm aware of the performance hierarchy of anamorphic lenses because I've viewed them with my own eyes. You?
> 
> 
> Art asked a simple question, and you of all people showed up guns a-blazin'. You brought the fight whether he was looking for it or not.
> 
> 
> I had the first response - your definition of "direct" must severely differ from mine and Webster's:
> 
> Post #2
> 
> Post #8



Ah, so different people have different opinions about which lenses are superiour to zooming?


Not looking for a fight, just useful information- of which you're providing some (and I'm interested in hearing more)- though you seem more interested in pointless bickering over nothing.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350277
> 
> 
> That is not what I said. Just pointing out the simple fact that saving money is clearly not the reason he zooms. The rest is speculation.



What is the reason he zooms then? And why bring up the fact that a member does not use an A-lens due to money constraints when the topic at hand is about PQ and the cost of owning a lens? You very well implied that he/she was zooming due to PQ by the simple fact that you refered to his "awsome screen shots", which by the way can be made look great by anyone. Screenshots mean nothing, absolutely nothing.


So I ask you why would you bring up a member who zooms and owns a ferrari if the rest is speculation? Was it your intent to throw in a "red herring"?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JapanDave* /forum/post/17350713
> 
> 
> What is the reason he zooms then? And why bring up the fact that a member does not use an A-lens due to money constraints when the topic at hand is about PQ and the cost of owning a lens? You very well implied that he/she was zooming due to PQ by the simple fact that you refered to his "awsome screen shots", which by the way can be made look great by anyone. Screenshots mean nothing, absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> So I ask you why would you bring up a member who zooms and owns a ferrari if the rest is speculation? Was it your intent to throw in a "red herring"?



You're digging too deep here. It was thrown out there that people tend to zoom because of the cost savings.


I pointed out an example of a large-scale CIH theater, obviously done with thought and a relatively "unlimited" budget that did not contain an A-lens.


My simple "observation" is that the lack of A-lens isn't due to a luck of funds. He's not zooming because it's cheaper, and we have pretty good proof of that much. The rest (the why's you're looking for) is speculation, and I find myself repeating this to you again.


Regarding screenshots, I'm fully aware of their use. However, I've found over time that the screenshots regarded most highly on this forum tend to be from equally regarded equipment. From what I recall, Chris Dallas' Kung Fu Panda screenshots were among the "prettiest" I've seen here, and among my favorites. So you don't care about screenshots- did I say you had to? That's your prerogative.


----------



## HogPilot

I'm going to be as clear as I can be about this: what I have never said is that the whole lens vs. zoom issue is black and white. I've never said that one is superior to another in _all_ cases.


What I have done is agreed with the premise of Art's initial question and asked why some people seem to have such a tough time answering it. Especially since there are people who frequent AVS who would answer no to his question - those are the ones who I'm most interested in hearing an explanation from. As I've pointed out ad nauseum, it's no secret that a lot of people zoom for budgetary reasons, and those really aren't the people that Art was addressing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350682
> 
> 
> Ah, so different people have different opinions about which lenses are superiour to zooming?



I've addressed this clearly above.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350682
> 
> 
> Not looking for a fight, just useful information- of which you're providing some (and I'm interested in hearing more)- though you seem more interested in pointless bickering over nothing.



It's a little irrational that I'm the one trying to keep the thread on topic yet I get accused of "pointless bickering over nothing" - by one of the people who steered the conversation off track in the first place. Your demeanor has been contrary from the start, so don't be surprised when your attempts at getting "useful information" aren't met with arms.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350823
> 
> 
> I'm going to be as clear as I can be about this: what I have never said is that the whole lens vs. zoom issue is black and white. I've never said that one is superior to another in _all_ cases.
> 
> 
> What I have done is agreed with the premise of Art's initial question and asked why some people seem to have such a tough time answering it. Especially since there are people who frequent AVS who would answer no to his question - those are the ones who I'm most interested in hearing an explanation from. As I've pointed out ad nauseum, it's no secret that a lot of people zoom for budgetary reasons, and those really aren't the people that Art was addressing.
> 
> 
> I've addressed this clearly above.
> 
> 
> It's a little irrational that I'm the one trying to keep the thread on topic yet I get accused of "pointless bickering over nothing" - by one of the people who steered the conversation off track in the first place. Your demeanor has been contrary from the start, so don't be surprised when your attempts at getting "useful information" aren't met with arms.



I see. So instead of useful information about the topic *implied*, let's sit around and wait for these imaginary people to show up and answer the original post the way you're waiting for.










I'm glad you're here to keep us straight.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> I pointed out an example of a large-scale CIH theater, obviously done with thought and a relatively "unlimited" budget that did not contain an A-lens.



If you're talking about the same RS1/HP theater, that's hardly an unlimited budget theater. By your own admission, he could make drastic improvements in PQ by upgrading projectors and shouldn't be using a lens. If you're looking for an example of an "ultra-high end" theater that only uses zooming, I'd suggest you seek out some of CINERAMAX's work. It would actually fit what you're trying to demonstrate.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> My simple "observation" is that the lack of A-lens isn't due to a luck of funds. He's not zooming because it's cheaper, and we have pretty good proof of that much. The rest (the why's you're looking for) is speculation, and I find myself repeating this to you again.



Since your first example doesn't apply, I'll revert to the example I supplied for you - CINERAMAX. He's the kind of guy I'd like to see give a reason as to why he prefers zooming over the use of an anamorphic lens. Again, without monetary constraints - which was the original premise of Art's thread here - I'm curious as to why he still chooses to zoom over use an ISCO III.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350857
> 
> 
> I see. So instead of useful information about the topic *implied*, let's sit around and wait for these imaginary people to show up and answer the original post the way you're waiting for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're here to keep us straight.



Since you personally don't like the premise of the thread, I'm glad you're here to steer us in the right direction given your vast firsthand experience in the realm of lens-based CIH.








right back at ya


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> You're digging too deep here. It was thrown out there that people tend to zoom because of the cost savings.



And yes, the tendency is that most people don't use A-Lens is a cost factor.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> I pointed out an example of a large-scale CIH theater, obviously done with thought and a relatively "unlimited" budget that did not contain an A-lens.



You said it yourself, "the rest is speculation" , meaning you have no idea why he went with zooming? Could well have been a cost factor. Like I said before My wife could very well buy a Digital back Hassleblad for $40K , we can afford no problem but in her eyes cost was the determining factor to go with a point and shoot, so don't assume that b/c someone may have unlimited funds that costs are not considered.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> My simple "observation" is that the lack of A-lens isn't due to a luck of funds. He's not zooming because it's cheaper, and we have pretty good proof of that much. The rest (the why's you're looking for) is speculation, and I find myself repeating this to you again.



Again pure speculation on your behalf.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350773
> 
> 
> Regarding screenshots, I'm fully aware of their use. However, I've found over time that the screenshots regarded most highly on this forum tend to be from equally regarded equipment. From what I recall, Chris Dallas' Kung Fu Panda screenshots were among the "prettiest" I've seen here, and among my favorites. So you don't care about screenshots- did I say you had to? That's your prerogative.



When did I say I don't care abut screen shots? I said they are pointless to provide answers to what everyone is looking for.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350897
> 
> 
> If you're talking about the same RS1/HP theater, that's hardly an unlimited budget theater. By your own admission, he could make drastic improvements in PQ by upgrading projectors and shouldn't be using a lens. If you're looking for an example of an "ultra-high end" theater that only uses zooming, I'd suggest you seek out some of CINERAMAX's work. It would actually fit what you're trying to demonstrate.
> 
> 
> Since your first example doesn't apply, I'll revert to the example I supplied for you - CINERAMAX. He's the kind of guy I'd like to see give a reason as to why he prefers zooming over the use of an anamorphic lens. Again, without monetary constraints - which was the original premise of Art's thread here - I'm curious as to why he still chooses to zoom over use an ISCO III.



It was an RS20/HP theater in the screenshots I saw, and from what I remember he prefers the LCOS look over more expensive DLPs (though he has the budget for them). It is much more relevant to this sub-$20K forum being a very common projector, and him as an example shows me more than one of CINERAMAX's mansion d-cinema theaters.


So why don't you ask him?


Why do we have to lay thread "traps" to see if we can catch him, and only release when he gives us an answer?










I feel like I stumbled into the trap set for CINERAMAX and you're trying to get me to leave so you can lure him again...


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350943
> 
> 
> It was an RS20/HP theater in the screenshots I saw, and from what I remember he prefers the LCOS look over more expensive DLPs (though he has the budget for them). It is much more relevant to this sub-$20K forum being a very common projector, and him as an example shows me more than one of CINERAMAX's mansion d-cinema theaters.
> 
> 
> So why don't you ask him?
> 
> 
> Why do we have to lay thread "traps" to see if we can catch him, and only release when he gives us an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I stumbled into the trap set for CINERAMAX and you're trying to get me to leave so you can lure him again...



Trap? The only traps set here are ones by you in your incessant and unending attempts to vehemently disapprove of this thread's existence unless further discussion occurs on your terms. You're beginning to sound like my friend's two year old who just repeats "mine" irregardless of how you may try to reason with him.


And whether Chris has an RS1 or RS20, either way you cut it it's not a "high end HT" that has magically escaped the evil lens-mongers. I tried to point you in the right direction but at this point it's obvious that you're just having more fun being contrary than anything else. As several people have told you before, any possible valuable message that you may have gets lost in your piss-poor delivery.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17350996
> 
> 
> Trap? The only traps set here are ones by you in your incessant and unending attempts to vehemently disapprove of this thread's existence unless further discussion occurs on your terms. You're beginning to sound like my friend's two year old who just repeats "mine" irregardless of how you may try to reason with him.
> 
> 
> And whether Chris has an RS1 or RS20, either way you cut it it's not a "high end HT" that has magically escaped the evil lens-mongers. I tried to point you in the right direction but at this point it's obvious that you're just having more fun being contrary than anything else. As several people have told you before, any possible valuable message that you may have gets lost in your piss-poor delivery.



I don't disapprove of this thread's existence. Do you enjoy making things up? Not a single person in this thread has an issue with the ongoing discussion, though a slight tangent from OP's question (which is still open to answers from those who haven't), but you.


Seems you're the one who wants to dictate the terms here, and I couldn't care less.


I do enjoy pissing you off, I can't deny that- your superiority complex is entertaining to poke.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17351024
> 
> 
> I don't disapprove of this thread's existence. Do you enjoy making things up? Not a single person in this thread has an issue with the ongoing discussion, though a slight tangent from OP's question (which is still open to answer's from those who haven't), but you.
> 
> 
> Seems you're the one who wants to dictate the terms here, and I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> I do enjoy pissing you off, I can't deny that- your superiority complex is entertaining to poke.



And I thought you were being defensive on your first post - the ad hominem attacks definitely take it all over the top. What amazes me is how most everyone in this thread has taken you to task, yet according to you somehow I'm the one who is OT and going against the grain. Your ability to re-engineer reality and center it upon yourself is impressive, to say the least.


----------



## JapanDave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hogpilot* /forum/post/17351080
> 
> 
> and i thought you were being defensive on your first post - the ad hominem attacks definitely take it all over the top. What amazes me is how most everyone in this thread has taken you to task, yet according to you somehow i'm the one who is ot and going against the grain. Your ability to re-engineer reality and center it upon yourself is impressive, to say the least.



+1.


----------



## CAVX

I am so over this thread.


I am off to watch a Scope movie using my new cylindrcial anamorphic lens which has continiously adjustable astigmatism correction to compliment its excellent chromatic abberation correction. This means that the lens is virtually transparent and my images are as sharp with this lens in place as they are when it is removed. Oh and of course, my Scope images look amazing as they are made up from using 100% of the panel (not 75%) and I don't need to apply any zoom to rid those annoying black bars.


----------



## drewski11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17351196
> 
> 
> I am so over this thread.
> 
> 
> I am off to watch a Scope movie using my new cylindrcial anamorphic lens which has continiously adjustable astigmatism correction to compliment its excellent chromatic abberation correction. This means that the lens is virtually transparent and my images are as sharp with this lens in place as they are when it is removed. Oh and of course, my Scope images look amazing as they are made up from using 100% of the panel (not 75%) and I don't need to apply any zoom to rid those annoying black bars.



but think of the scaling artifacts!!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drewski11* /forum/post/17351543
> 
> 
> but think of the scaling artifacts!!!



None here 







Actually the only thing that slightly bugs me about this system is the BenQ does not run a true 24Hz, and I guess the only solution there is to upgrade the projector. At least I get to keep my lens with the upgrade


----------



## markrubin

Moderator


please limit your posts to technical issues


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17350216
> 
> 
> I've answered the question.
> 
> 
> I have no problem admitting zooming probably doesn't look better in any scenario than using an ISCO III.
> 
> 
> But I'm going to put $10K into my projector, long before I ever think about an A-lens.
> 
> 
> If the ISCO was $2K, I might reconsider. Are there $2K lenses that look better than zooming?
> 
> 
> Am I not asking legitimate questions, or are we still stuck on the mind games from post #1?



And this is the question answered. If you weren't constrained fiscally ,in the set up, you'd choose an anamorphic lens.


The whole point of my thread is to get out of the muddy waters of why zooming is better, when from a technical perspective, in fact ,it simply isn't. Your choice to not employ a lens in your set up is due to it's cost.


The point of my thread is to take us out of the mode of invalidating the use of an ISCO III just because it costs a lot. The cost doesn't invalidate it technically but fiscally.


I've made decisions in my home theater and in other areas of my life where something is simply too expensive so I accept the compromises and prefer to save the money to spend in other areas (eg Creston control). The thing is, I just come out and say it's too expensive for me to buy, program and maintain that is why I didn't install it (using a Phillips touchscreen IR remote instead). I don't say my Phillips remote is better.


Art


----------



## JosephF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> And this is the questioned ansered. If you weren't constrained fiscally in the set up you'd choose an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> The whole point of my thread is to get out of the muddy waters of why zooming is better when from a technical perspective when in fact it simply isn't. Your choice to not employ a lens in your set up is due to it's cost.
> 
> 
> The point of my thread is to take us out of the mode of invalidating the use of an ISCO III just because it costs a lot. The cost doesn't invalidate it technically but fiscally.
> 
> 
> I've made decisions in my home theater and in other areas of my liofe where something is simply too expensive so I accept the compromises and prefer to save the money to spend in other areas (eg Creston control). The thing is I just come out and say it's too expensive for me to by program and maintain that is why I didn't install it.
> 
> 
> Art



Your entire point is dead on for me. If the cost had no bearing I would absolutely go with an anamorphic lens.


Being the cheap [email protected]$tard that I am, this option does not come into consideration.


----------



## CAVX

Well $aid Art. Co$t has alway$ been the key i$$ue to why $omeone will $ay that they don't need a piece of kit over admitting that the $aid piece of kit is too expen$ive for them.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> And this is the question answered. If you weren't constrained fiscally ,in the set up, you'd choose an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> The whole point of my thread is to get out of the muddy waters of why zooming is better, when from a technical perspective, in fact ,it simply isn't. Your choice to not employ a lens in your set up is due to it's cost.
> 
> 
> The point of my thread is to take us out of the mode of invalidating the use of an ISCO III just because it costs a lot. The cost doesn't invalidate it technically but fiscally.
> 
> 
> I've made decisions in my home theater and in other areas of my life where something is simply too expensive so I accept the compromises and prefer to save the money to spend in other areas (eg Creston control). The thing is, I just come out and say it's too expensive for me to buy, program and maintain that is why I didn't install it (using a Phillips touchscreen IR remote instead). I don't say my Phillips remote is better.
> 
> 
> Art



+1


I think your point has been made, amidst many attempts to the contrary.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> I've made decisions in my home theater and in other areas of my life where something is simply too expensive so I accept the compromises and prefer to save the money to spend in other areas (eg Creston control). The thing is, I just come out and say it's too expensive for me to buy, program and maintain that is why I didn't install it (using a Phillips touchscreen IR remote instead). *I don't say my Phillips remote is better.*
> 
> Art



The line I underlined/bold is the key difference in what's going on here. Most make compromises in our set ups vs the best/highest performance alternative. The difference is not being so "married" to the compromise that you are convinced no one else should do otherwise. The question is not bang for the buck, but performance w/o the financial consideration. (I know I'm only repeating what many have tried to convey).


Here's what I said in another thread in the projector's forum, but I think it applies here too:



Do I love my theater for it's performance as well as it's "value" relative to my earnings?...damn right I do.


Can my theater compare performance wise to some of the best theaters owned by other members? NO, it does not. I would be delusional to think it does.


Does that make mine less of a postive experience for me? No. But, I don't attack those who know more or have more than me either.


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of my thread is to get out of the muddy waters of why zooming is better, when from a *technical perspective*, in fact ,it simply isn't. Your choice to not employ a lens in your set up is due to it's cost.



Without starting a huge war again, what are all the extra technical benifits to an A-Lens that you know of?


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> And this is the question answered. If you weren't constrained fiscally ,in the set up, you'd choose an anamorphic lens....



Very good thread despite the efforts of those trying to turn it into a value question. I am also interested in the pure PQ question of A lens vs zooming. IIRC gregr is a no A lens proponent but he does not seem to be around much anymore.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HoustonHoyaFan* /forum/post/17352975
> 
> 
> Very good thread despite the efforts of those trying to turn it into a value question. I am also interested in the pure PQ question of A lens vs zooming. IIRC gregr is a no A lens proponent but he does not seem to be around much anymore.



Art's question is essentially a rhetorical one - the clear majority believe in the technical superiority of lenses.


As far as I know, only two well respected video gurus, Joe Kane and Gregr (three if you want to include Cineramax), advocate zooming over A lens. They're the ones Art should be challenging, not small potatoes like Taffman and Lilgator (no offense to you guys







).


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/17352840
> 
> 
> 
> does that make mine less of a postive experience for me? No. But, i don't attack those who know more or have more than me either.



+1


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17352355
> 
> 
> And this is the question answered. If you weren't constrained fiscally ,in the set up, you'd choose an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> The whole point of my thread is to get out of the muddy waters of why zooming is better, when from a technical perspective, in fact ,it simply isn't. Your choice to not employ a lens in your set up is due to it's cost.
> 
> 
> The point of my thread is to take us out of the mode of invalidating the use of an ISCO III just because it costs a lot. The cost doesn't invalidate it technically but fiscally.
> 
> 
> I've made decisions in my home theater and in other areas of my life where something is simply too expensive so I accept the compromises and prefer to save the money to spend in other areas (eg Creston control). The thing is, I just come out and say it's too expensive for me to buy, program and maintain that is why I didn't install it (using a Phillips touchscreen IR remote instead). I don't say my Phillips remote is better.
> 
> 
> Art



This is incorrect, as it wasn't the question asked. If given an ISCO III and sled, I would keep it. Nothing more, nothing less. This is mainly due to the fact I've never seen an ISCO III. Why would I reject something I haven't seen?


You can't deduce from that that I'd choose an ISCO III if not constrained fiscally- and you can't assume that for anyone answering the question "yes".


You've gone from specifics, back to generics.


Are you saying zooming is always inferior to a lens, or zooming is inferior to an ISCO III?


There is a big difference there, and this thread only "supports" the latter.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17353240
> 
> 
> Art's question is essentially a rhetorical one - the clear majority believe in the technical superiority of lenses.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, only two well respected video gurus, Joe Kane and Gregr (three if you want to include Cineramax), advocate zooming over A lens. They're the ones Art should be challenging, not small potatoes like Taffman and Lilgator (no offense to you guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I fully agree with this. I also think Art knew full well that he'd really only get responses from people with limited budgets and projectors costing far less than the lens setup he'd be offering in this scenario.


The confusion, and lack of practicality in this question come from the fact that it's really directed to folks in the >$20K forum, but instead placed here to illicit the exact responses that have been provided.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17354235
> 
> 
> ...The confusion, and lack of practicality in this question come from the fact that it's really directed to folks in the >$20K forum, but instead placed here to illicit the exact responses that have been provided.



Why do you continue to try to derail this thread? This is the 2.35:1 CIH forum. A question regarding the PQ difference between zooming and an ISCO III for 2.35:1 CIH is absolutely appropriate in this forum. Wyh does it need to be in the > $20K forum?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HoustonHoyaFan* /forum/post/17355421
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to try to derail this thread? This is the 2.35:1 CIH forum. A question regarding the PQ difference between zooming and an ISCO III for 2.35:1 CIH is absolutely appropriate in this forum. Wyh does it need to be in the > $20K forum?



Because I can.










2.35:1 CIH discussion isn't banned from the >$20K forum- and that's closer to what this "question" was really targeting- cost being no object.


People that have the money to buy an ISCOIII and Cineslide, but would still rather zoom tend to be located there more often than here. Proof of that being we've had no one here post that they'd reject the freebie.


By the way, I'd start my own thread discussing the points I had been making but- oh wait, I did, and it was deleted. Apparently only Art is allowed to post hyopthetical give-away scenarios here.










So here I remain.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17355519
> 
> 
> Proof of that being we've had no one here post that they'd reject the freebie.



Actually I did reject the offer on the first page of this thread.







Admitedly it was part of a reverse psycology trial whereby I would win the 'offered' ISCO III and sled......


I would love to try an ISCO III but it's just too much money for me (nearly bought an ISCO II I was offered but the timing was bad and I wasn't sure it would work with my HD350 so I missed out).


I've considered the Aussiemorph Mk3, but I don't know anyone near me that has one so I could have a demo and even that price is too much to risk incase it is a disapointment. Next time a 'quality' lens comes up secondhand I hope I'll be in a position to purchase. If it turns out to be a disapointment, then I should be able to resell on at little or no loss, but I have a sneeking suspicion that I won't need to, my VP can do a single button AR change just as easily with a lens as it can currently do the 'shrink' so I'm ready on that score.


It's funny that there is a separate thread about the attitude on these forums, given how heated this thread has become....remember that you don't have to sit and watch Art's setup (and maybe he wouldn't invite you anyway







) so it's not like it's spoiling your setup and personal choice.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17355519
> 
> 
> Because I can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.35:1 CIH discussion isn't banned from the >$20K forum- and that's closer to what this "question" was really targeting- cost being no object.
> 
> 
> People that have the money to buy an ISCOIII and Cineslide, but would still rather zoom tend to be located there more often than here. Proof of that being we've had no one here post that they'd reject the freebie.
> 
> 
> By the way, I'd start my own thread discussing the points I had been making but- oh wait, I did, and it was deleted. Apparently only Art is allowed to post hyopthetical give-away scenarios here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here I remain.



Your inability to leave cost out of a purely technical thread astounds me (and obviously others as well). Your value vs. performance discussion would have been well received in another thread from the start, but given your persistence here its obvious that your intent is to stir the pot and ruin an otherwise valuable discussion rather than participate in meaningful discourse.


Given the vitriol you've brought to this thread, its very clear why your posts here and other threads have disappeared. I only wish I could claim to be directly causal in either case, but apparently the mods or other forum members are just as tired of your tantrum-tangents as I am.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17356108
> 
> 
> Your inability to leave cost out of a purely technical thread astounds me (and obviously others as well). Your value vs. performance discussion would have been well received in another thread from the start, but given your persistence here its obvious that your intent is to stir the pot and ruin an otherwise valuable discussion rather than participate in meaningful discourse.
> 
> 
> Given the vitriol you've brought to this thread, its very clear why your posts here and other threads have disappeared. I only wish I could claim to be directly causal in either case, but apparently the mods or other forum members are just as tired of your tantrum-tangents as I am.



There is no technical discussion asked for here. It's simply a yes/no hypothetical.


A value vs. performance discussion would be a valid approach to this topic for the very reason that nearly everyone in this thread agrees that while they would keep an ISCO III- they wouldn't necessarily pay for one.


It's completely on-topic, and I don't see why you have to police the discussion of it. Besides, you're not adding any technical discussion yourself- you simply exist to make an effort at shutting me up. How's that working out for you?


Do you really think Art wasn't trying to stir the pot? Not even a little?


----------



## markrubin

please limit your posts to technical discussions


thank you


----------



## HogPilot

Art,


Have you ever demonstrated zooming vs anamorphic lens in your current theater to anyone? If not would you ever consider doing so?


----------



## thebland

I bought an ISCO III and sled simply because Art had one... I always follow the guys in 'the know'.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17356359
> 
> 
> I bought an ISCO III and sled simply because Art had one... I always follow the guys in 'the know'.



And how have you found it's performance?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17349986
> 
> 
> Cost is the driving factor in the stated question. It doesn't exist. In real life, it does exist.
> 
> 
> I think we've migrated from Art's question into something more useful. But excuse me, let's go back to discussing the world where money doesn't exist.



You are the one who has migrated, in fact, you simply refuse to accept the question and repeatedly reinsert cost benefit ratios and price point arguments to sidestep the original question. Why do you insist on doing this over and over ?


Art


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17356604
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on doing this over and over ?
> 
> 
> Art



Because he can tell others what they have to disciss, they just can't tell him what he has to discuss. He's an HT rebel!


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17356604
> 
> 
> You are the one who has migrated, in fact, you simply refuse to accept the question and repeatedly reinsert cost benefit ratios and price point arguments to sidestep the original question. Why do you insist on doing this over and over ?
> 
> 
> Art



I confess that I was the first to bring in the value question in post #11. Sorry about opening that can of worms







.


In my defense, I thought no one would respond to your question in the negative, so after answering the original question, I thought asking the value question was also relevant. If all you wanted was a simple yes/no answer, then I've already answered and will refrain from posting in this thread.


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17356459
> 
> 
> And how have you found it's performance?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17356359
> 
> 
> I bought an ISCO III and sled simply because Art had one... I always follow the guys in 'the know'.



Well, I used a Panamorph prior. Nice piece for the money but not nearly as precise and accurate as the ISCO.


The idea of CIH, to me, is the best thing about my home theater.


1. I think the picture looks fantastic with the lens in. Far better tahn the Panamorph I used to own.


1. It's cool to watch the masks and picture expand after the Blu Ray (16:9) menus into a large scope feature image. It makes the experience just like the [better] theaters.


2. And equally important is how the slide works on a trigger. So, as soon as my remote prompts me to choose an aspect, the 2.35 button moves the lens perfectly and quickly into place. If I am flipping between sources, it automatically moves out the lens for a 16:9 image such is on cable. No getting up and playing around with the zoom.


3. It is nice knowing there isn't a better lens on the market for the task at hand.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17357355
> 
> 
> I confess that I was the first to bring in the value question in post #11. Sorry about opening that can of worms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> In my defense, I thought no one would respond to your question in the negative, so after answering the original question, I thought asking the value question was also relevant. If all you wanted was a simple yes/no answer, then I've already answered and will refrain from posting in this thread.



I appreciate your post and really I was asking for technical input regarding preferences for zooming that didn't bring in cost . To me ,and the majority of others here , this allows one to take the emotion connecterd with dollars out of it. I didn't expect just a yes or no but that and ones reasons if budget weren't the constraint.


Art


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17358707
> 
> 
> I was asking for technical input regarding preferences for zooming that didn't bring in cost . To me ,and the majority of others here , this allows one to take the emotion connecterd with dollars out of it. I didn't expect just a yes or no but that and ones reasons if budget weren't the constraint.
> 
> 
> Art



Perhaps if it had been asked like this in the beginning, the responses would have been much more in line with the discussion you wanted to have.


-Suntan


----------



## Dennis Erskine

I glanced over a comment about Joe Kane preferring zooming. I haven't spoken to Joe about this; but, my understanding is that his preference is a 2.0:1 or 2.1:1 aspect screen with four-way masking. While "cost" is not to be a factor here, precise zooming and a quality lens (with memory positions) plus a four-way mask system will fall in the same general ballpark as ISCOIII and sled.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17358852
> 
> 
> Perhaps if it had been asked like this in the beginning, the responses would have been much more in line with the discussion you wanted to have.
> 
> 
> -Suntan





> Quote:
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, _Cineslide_ motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?



I thought he did.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17358852
> 
> 
> Perhaps if it had been asked like this in the beginning, the responses would have been much more in line with the discussion you wanted to have.
> 
> 
> -Suntan





> Quote:
> If you were given an ISCO III lens, Cineslide motorized sled ,installation with your projector, integration with your remote all for free and all you had to do was sit down and enjoy it would you reject it and still zoom ? If so why ?



There was nothing wrong the way it was asked, are you telling me that you could not understand the original question?


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17358939
> 
> 
> are you telling me that you could not understand the original question?



I'm saying that the discussion could possibly have been different (dare I say, more productive) if the question was asked a different way.


-Suntan


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17358965
> 
> 
> I’m saying that the discussion could possibly have been different (dare I say, more productive) if the question was asked a different way.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



Well I did not see why it went different in the first place, how hard is to say:


Yes I will take ISCO III, the cineslide and the free installation and will enjoy it, thankyou!!


or


No I still prefer my zooming method as I find having a lens in place is not suitable for me


or even


I will give it a try but to be honest if I found there was an improvement I will keep it but if not I will give it back.


That is not exactly hard. Just a few people did not like answering and starting bringing other question to the thread.


----------



## SOWK

Mike_WI and I are going to do a test soon that may finally answer (if any) unanswered questions, and our official take on an A-Lens vs Zooming, using a ISCOIIIL / JVC HD750


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17359011
> 
> 
> Well I did not see why it went different in the first place, how hard is to say:
> 
> 
> Yes I will take ISCO III, the cineslide and the free installation and will enjoy it, thankyou!!
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> No I still prefer my zooming method as I find having a lens in place is not suitable for me
> 
> 
> or even
> 
> 
> I will give it a try but to be honest if I found there was an improvement I will keep it but if not I will give it back.



Perhaps a poll with those three options would be a good way of asking it in the future.


-Suntan


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17359145
> 
> 
> Perhaps a poll with those three options would be a good way of asking it in the future.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



Another Poll ? When we polled regarding simply zooming vs lens and 70% said lens ,and it crossed cost with projectors, the arguments were that the 235 forum wasn't representative of the whole country.










Art


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17359203
> 
> 
> Another Poll ?



Well, are you happy with the responses you got asking it this way?


-Suntan


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17359320
> 
> 
> Well, are you happy with the responses you got asking it this way?
> 
> 
> -Suntan



Of those who answered the question straight ,yes. Certainly saying in a poll mutiple choices rather than just answering and then technically, qualifying it (which a poll would do anyway also) should be adequate. My feeling is those who are resisting this are those who don't like the honest answer to the question.


Art


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17358486
> 
> 
> Well, I used a Panamorph prior. Nice piece for the money but not nearly as precise and accurate as the ISCO.
> 
> 
> The idea of CIH, to me, is the best thing about my home theater.
> 
> 
> 1. I think the picture looks fantastic with the lens in. Far better tahn the Panamorph I used to own.
> 
> 
> 1. It's cool to watch the masks and picture expand after the Blu Ray (16:9) menus into a large scope feature image. It makes the experience just like the [better] theaters.
> 
> 
> 2. And equally important is how the slide works on a trigger. So, as soon as my remote prompts me to choose an aspect, the 2.35 button moves the lens perfectly and quickly into place. If I am flipping between sources, it automatically moves out the lens for a 16:9 image such is on cable. No getting up and playing around with the zoom.
> 
> 
> 3. It is nice knowing there isn't a better lens on the market for the task at hand.



This is interesting - so you found the ISCO to be significantly better than the Panamorph? I've never had the chance to do a side-by-side, only seen the ISCO in a couple setups that weren't my own so it was hard to definitively judge. Once I move to a bigger house I'd like to go back to CIH and I've often considered splurging for the ISCO to go with my RS35 (or whatever I have at the time).


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17359528
> 
> 
> My feeling is those who are resisting this are those who don't like the honest answer to the question.
> 
> 
> Art



Unfortunately, I think you are correct. There seems to be an emotional attachment that rivals the old HDM format war. It's too bad....one would hope we could embrace the fact that we all support a scope image as a way to capture the cinema expereince in our homes or that we are all OAR supporters. I've been away from this section of the forum, since I've been happy with my set up. It's sad to revisit this area and see what it's turned into.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17359145
> 
> 
> Perhaps a poll with those three options would be a good way of asking it in the future.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



You can't tell me people are that silly they require a poll for a very simple question that really deserved a yes or no answer.


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17359528
> 
> 
> My feeling is those who are resisting this are those who don't like the honest answer to the question.



So you are saying that it is just a case of sour grapes for some of the zoomers? Maybe.


It's no secret that this topic (in general, not just this thread) is already a bit contentious on these boards, and the fact that people tend to entrench on the stance they make when confronted, instead it's possible that it could be a matter of zoomers resisting the notion being pushed on them that lenses are better, just believe us when they haven't seen much in the way of proof to actually show them there is a benefit. I'm not saying that there is no proof to be shown, but that they haven't seen it themselves.


Given the reality that shipping a lens out to each of the unbelievers is a little impractical, it's going to require a different method of conveying why a lens is better than zooming before the rest see the light.


In any case, I still maintain that asking someone to change their tune if they were just flat out given these thousands of dollars of components, followed directly by a post disingenuously suggesting that you might as well just get rid of your components, is not the best way to get people to talk openly about the subject.


-Suntan


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17359777
> 
> 
> You can't tell me people are that silly they require a poll for a very simple question that really deserved a yes or no answer.



I think people tend to resist being instructed what to talk about when the desired end result is just to have them agree with you.


If you want to hear people’s opinions on a subject, don’t get mad when they give them to you. Even when it isn’t one of the scripted answers you want to hear.


-Suntan


----------



## drewski11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17358486
> 
> 
> Well, I used a Panamorph prior. Nice piece for the money but not nearly as precise and accurate as the ISCO.
> 
> 
> The idea of CIH, to me, is the best thing about my home theater.
> 
> 
> 1. I think the picture looks fantastic with the lens in. Far better tahn the Panamorph I used to own.



which Panamorph lens did you have?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17360067
> 
> 
> I think people tend to resist being instructed what to talk about when the desired end result is just to have them agree with you.
> 
> 
> If you want to hear people's opinions on a subject, don't get mad when they give them to you. Even when it isn't one of the scripted answers you want to hear.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



So who got mad? If someone prefers zooming great I wasn't going to become angry because they chose zooming over an A-lens.


----------



## perfectevolution




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17359528
> 
> 
> My feeling is those who are resisting this are those who don't like the honest answer to the question.
> 
> 
> Art



You really think that is it? Remember your purpose built home theater probably cost more than a lot of member's houses. Your setup was painstakingly designed and installed with virtually no compromise. Few people have this luxury.


I am very happy with my setup but I realize mine is built on several compromises that your setup does not suffer from. Most obviously, I need better light control, better seating positions, a larger room, better room design, better equipment positioning, etc., etc. Adding an ISCO III into my setup will not fix the other compromises and deficiencies in the performance of my setup and as a result I highly doubt it would noticeably improve system performance and more importantly system enjoyment. In fact, based on the positioning of my equipment, adding a lens would probably add an additional eyesore to the physical appearance of my projector itself.


To honestly and specifically answer your original question, I would not use a "free" ISCO III lens on my system at this time. Ask me again in some time when I am able to appreciably resolve some of my current system's deficiencies and my answer may change.


----------



## taffman

Quote: "I highly doubt it would noticeably improve system performance and more importantly system enjoyment."

That is a really excellent point - enjoyment. If I were to go out and spend $10,000 on an Isco and slide, and only detected a marginal improvement in PQ, I would certainly not be enjoying my set up, in fact I would probably get ill! Sometimes less is more, in this case being able to really enjoy your home theater in the knowledge that it is probably 95% as good a PQ as the best, at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17360660
> 
> 
> Quote: "I highly doubt it would noticeably improve system performance and more importantly system enjoyment."
> 
> That is a really excellent point - enjoyment. If I were to go out and spend $10,000 on an Isco and slide, and only detected a marginal improvement in PQ, I would certainly not be enjoying my set up, in fact I would probably get ill! Sometimes less is more, in this case being able to really enjoy your home theater in the knowledge that it is probably 95% as good a PQ as the best, at a fraction of the cost.



95% as good? Your lack of experience with any sort of anamorphic lens is very apparent.







The difference in PQ in my old CIH setup was very apparent because of my close seating distance, and the extra light it afforded me with the size of my screen. Using my Panamorph UH380 made the picture natural and watchable, whereas zooming would have given me a dimmer and obviously digital looking image.


And in case you missed the several pages of bickering, this is a performance discussion thread, not a cost vs percieved PQ thread.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17360660
> 
> 
> in this case being able to really enjoy your home theater in the knowledge that it is probably 95% as good a PQ as the best, at a fraction of the cost.



Wow, you really think that you can get 95% of the PQ of the best HTs for a fraction of the cost.


That is just not possible, not even close. One look at a _genuine_ high end system would very quickly demonstrate that.


Probably a topic best kept elsewhere.


----------



## taffman

Quote from Projector Centrals bench testing of the new Panasonic AE4000:


Since the AE4000's picture quality not only surpasses the competitors in its price range, but rivals and in some cases exceeds that of "high-end" models selling for five times the price or more, it warrants a solid 5 stars for performance.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17360989
> 
> 
> Quote from Projector Centrals bench testing of the new Panasonic AE4000:
> 
> 
> Since the AE4000's picture quality not only surpasses the competitors in its price range, but rivals and in some cases exceeds that of "high-end" models selling for five times the price or more, it warrants a solid 5 stars for performance.



That's one persons opinion - a person who has rose colored glasses for anything LCD. Claiming that a projector with 3000:1 native CR is comparable to one with 50,000:1 is absurd.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17359856
> 
> 
> In any case, I still maintain that asking someone to change their tune if they were just flat out given these thousands of dollars of components, followed directly by a post disingenuously suggesting that you might as well just get rid of your components, is not the best way to get people to talk openly about the subject.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



My post had no more in it than asking folks who zoom to drop the fiscal side for a moment and compare the two methods technically and then if they still feel that zooming is better then describe why.


I believe to call that disingenuous infers that folks reading my original post are pretty stupid and therefore could not get why I posted that without an explanation. I'm assuming that you did get it.


Art


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17361192
> 
> 
> That's one persons opinion - a person who has rose colored glasses for anything LCD. Claiming that a projector with 3000:1 native CR is comparable to one with 50,000:1 is absurd.



Are you suggesting that Projector Central's testing has no credibility?


----------



## SOWK

Anyone that thinks a single aspect of measurment = image quality is absurd.










I would have taken my Marantz VP-11S2 (in iris 3 ~ 3,000:1 native) over an rs20/rs25/rs35 at 50,000:1+


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17361254
> 
> 
> My post had no more in it than asking folks who zoom to drop the fiscal side for a moment and compare the two methods technically and then if they still feel that zooming is better then describe why.



Sorry, I did not read it that way. Based on some of the responses by others, they didn’t either.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17361254
> 
> 
> I believe to call that disingenuous...



In your second post you said: “Well if zooming is really better ,I might as well.”


During this conversation, have you actually considered getting rid of your lens? If not, I’d call that a disingenuous remark. They don’t foster open dialog about a subject.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17361254
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that you did get it.



No need to assume. I’ve already explained how I read your first couple posts. If you are still not clear on my position, just ask me the points you want clarified. Assuming does little to clear up misunderstandings.


-Suntan


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17360989
> 
> 
> Quote from Projector Centrals bench testing of the new Panasonic AE4000:
> 
> 
> Since the AE4000's picture quality not only surpasses the competitors in its price range, but rivals and in some cases exceeds that of "high-end" models selling for five times the price or more, it warrants a solid 5 stars for performance.



I think maybe we have rather different ideas of what "best" means, as it pertains to HT. I think I may also have a different idea of "high end" to the reviewer you quote.


As I said earlier...."That is just not possible, not even close. One look at a _genuine_ high end system would very quickly demonstrate that."


Maybe we can get back OT.


----------



## SOWK

Come on Coldmachine you know the Panasonic can whoop the SIM2 lumis...










I think Art should sell his HT 5000 and get the panny! lol.


Art I'll take it off your hands for... $2000.00, Would you look at that Art... that would be perfect as the panasonic is priced at that level.










With it's zooming capabilities you can get rid of that annoying image distorter the ISCOIIIL too. Maybe sell that for $10.00 or so, and you'll come out a head with money in the end.


Get yourself a used blu-ray movie or a new DVD...











To sweeten (aka: add sugar to) the deal even more, you can even send me the Panasonic first and I'll calibrate it for you.


----------



## HoustonHoyaFan

It seems that the concensus from members who actually answered the question is that an A-lens has PQ advantages over zooming.


For the couple of posters who feel that this is a cost/value question. I am comfortable making that decision for myself.


----------



## taffman

You may wan't to take a look at the 'zoom versus lens screenshots' thread, which clearly shows that the mid-range A-lens used in that test was no better than zooming. In fact, dare I say it, the zoomed picture looks noticeably sharper.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17361335
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not read it that way. Based on some of the responses by others, they didn’t either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your second post you said: “Well if zooming is really better ,I might as well.”
> 
> 
> During this conversation, have you actually considered getting rid of your lens? If not, I’d call that a disingenuous remark. They don’t foster open dialog about a subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to assume. I’ve already explained how I read your first couple posts. If you are still not clear on my position, just ask me the points you want clarified. Assuming does little to clear up misunderstandings.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



Tongue in cheek,tongue in cheek. This is getting pretty wierd now really. If you want to believe I'm evil for starting this thread it is pretty easy to interpret almost everything here that I've said as such. The folks who find me now to be manipulative, disingenuous,elitist etc are zoomers. I feel that this in and of itself is an illustrattion of the point of why my attempt to level the field to get honest answers was valid but at the same time hopeless based on my now being vilified.


I think it is now pretty evident that my hope that foilks would say yea given the funds I'd choose a lens but don't have those funds or folks would actually come up with real technical advantages rather than monetary advantages to zooming would come foward was a pipe dream.


There is a small minority here who I feel have chosen to attack me or the question I 've asked rather than honestly answering, just my take.


Art


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17361308
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Projector Central's testing has no credibility?



Yes... not suggesting it either.


You get a better take on PJs at AVS.


----------



## Dennis Erskine




> Quote:
> There is a small minority here who I feel have chosen to attack me or the question I 've asked rather than honestly answering, just my take.



There seems to be a cadre of individuals who, absent the capability of adding anything (including intellect) to a conversation, choose to attack and criticize it.


----------



## SOWK

They moved from the over $3000.00 display forum after they convinced everyone that the JVC series of projectors are better then everything else, now want to convince everyone zooming is the best no matter what.







j/k


----------



## Suntan

All right Art, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think you're evil. If you want to have a talk about the thoughts of zoom vs lens, to understand why others think the way they do, fair enough. I'm fully ready to forget the preceding 8 pages if you are.


Quite frankly, I don't think your initial question is a very useful starting point for the discussion, so I'll just throw something out there.


Personally, I don't believe I can make a judgment that one is better than the other. I've never seen a lens based setup and I'm not about to proclaim one better than the other without seeing both of them setup such that they are comparably dialed in to give their best respective performance.


Having said that, with my personal understanding of lenses, and practical usage of them in real life (outside of HT applications) I don't see how adding an extra lens (even a very quality one) to the light path, while adding scaling artifacts (even very minimal ones from very quality scalers) can end up with a better image for a person such as myself who normally sits far enough away from the screen so as to see no SDE from the image even when zoomed. Now if BR discs were anamorphically encoded to begin with I would think that would throw a significant wrench in the works, but they aren't.


I'm open to real discussion of the performance based merits of a lens, either quantitative or qualitative, but comments (mostly from others, not necessarily from you) that basically boil down to "I have one, it's better, trust me." Just don't do it for me.


Now none of us like to talk about practicality when we're in the middle of a hypothetical which is best E-bout, but from a practical side, while not discussing cost, it took quite a battle to get approval to suspend a rather normal looking PJ 20 down from the ceiling. I would not like to try and gain approval from my lovely wife to try and mount a lens, on a slider, on a separate mount, 20 from the ceiling, in the middle of the room. As quite honestly, most A lens sleds just look downright techno-dorky. It's one thing if you have a hush box to conceal it all, but I don't. The PJ sits right in the middle of the room and I don't need what looks like an erector set creation hanging in front of it.


That's my point of view, now if you actually still want to talk on about petty lensers vs zoomers fair enough, I'll see myself out. You want to get down to talking about people's real opinions on it, we can do that too.


-Suntan


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17361254
> 
> 
> My post had no more in it than asking folks who zoom to drop the fiscal side for a moment and compare the two methods technically and then if they still feel that zooming is better then describe why.



I ended up answering a question that is in the same ballpark in a different thread recently, so I'll bite.


To fully take cost out of the picture, you'd also have to kick in a curved screen because I've got a relatively short TR (18' deep room, 10' wide scope screen). To play along in the spirit that I think you intended the question, then yes, I'd happily use the lens and I expect the PQ would improve.


What I don't really know is how much of an improvement would I get? I'm dealing with the same source material. In the case of zooming, I'm not using all of the panel so I lose some brightness (modulo pocoloco's data around that assumption) and the pixels are displayed larger on the screen than when using an a-lens, but they are 1:1 relative to the source material.


With an a-lens, I'm using all of the panel to display data that is interpolated from the source material. Having seen the significant benefits of a quality scaler on DVDs, I'm fine making the assumption that it will be a better image but wouldn't expect the difference to be anywhere near as significant.


CAVX encouraged me to go see for myself. I'll include my original response because it might be useful (and hopefully an honest assessment) in this discussion, but it was very much a cost/benefit tradeoff.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rolette* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd love to do that at some point. Having just finished spending $20K building out my first HT, I'll only do it right now if I can find a local dealer that has it setup where I can just pop in and do an A/B test without taking up their time.
> 
> 
> Hard to bring myself to take time from someone when I know I'm not ready to buy in the relatively near future.
> 
> 
> Well, that or I'll have to find someone local that likes to show off their toys to strangers
> 
> 
> FWIW, I went back and forth on whether to go the A-lens route or not in my HT and decided against it for now (just finished the build modulo furniture a few weeks ago). The room is only 18' deep so it would be a relatively short TR. To use an A-lens, I would have also had to do a curved screen.
> 
> 
> I ended up getting a better projector (RS20) and a significantly nicer sub (SVS PB13-Ultra) than what I would have gotten if I also had to get an A-lens and a curved screen.
> 
> 
> It probably doesn't help that my other expensive hobby is photography, so the CA and other issues from cheaper lenses weren't very acceptable to me personally.



Jay


----------



## drewski11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rolette* /forum/post/17362098
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To fully take cost out of the picture, you'd also have to kick in a curved screen because I've got a relatively short TR (18' deep room, 10' wide scope screen). To play along in the spirit that I think you intended the question, then yes, I'd happily use the lens and I expect the PQ would improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay



with front of lens at 16', you'd have a TR of 2.1 (based on 16:9 width with same height). i'm no expert, but i think the pincushion wouldn't be too dramatic and you could go either way on the curved screen.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> And in case you missed the several pages of bickering, this is a performance discussion thread, not a cost vs percieved PQ thread.



Based just on performance, the A lenses I've used in the past produced a less sharp picture than no lens. I don't like that. It's not " film like " as far as I'm concerned - it's just less sharp.


If the ISCO III and equally good lenses don't do that anymore, that's good.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17360660
> 
> 
> Quote: "I highly doubt it would noticeably improve system performance and more importantly system enjoyment."
> 
> That is a really excellent point - enjoyment. If I were to go out and spend $10,000 on an Isco and slide, and only detected a marginal improvement in PQ, I would certainly not be enjoying my set up, in fact I would probably get ill! Sometimes less is more, in this case being able to really enjoy your home theater in the knowledge that it is probably 95% as good a PQ as the best, at a fraction of the cost.



just reading that quote Art was right in making his point.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17361308
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Projector Central's testing has no credibility?



I didn't suggest anything, I said that PC has a strong LCD bias and that to claim that the AE4000 is in any way comparable to an RS35 is ridiculous.


I've seen the AE3000 and it's a good projector for the money, but no comparison to the picture my RS1 threw except in terms of gamut accuracy.


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17362472
> 
> 
> Based just on performance, the A lenses I've used in the past produced a less sharp picture than no lens. I don't like that. It's not " film like " as far as I'm concerned - it's just less sharp.
> 
> 
> If the ISCO III and equally good lenses don't do that anymore, that's good.



Actually, less sharp IS more film like.


But then again, CIH is what better movie houses use (and lenses). That is more movie like, too.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17362657
> 
> 
> actually, less sharp is more film like.
> 
> 
> But then again, cih is what better movie houses use (and lenses). That is more movie like, too.



+1


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/17362472
> 
> 
> Based just on performance, the A lenses I've used in the past produced a less sharp picture than no lens. I don't like that. It's not " film like " as far as I'm concerned - it's just less sharp.
> 
> 
> If the ISCO III and equally good lenses don't do that anymore, that's good.



Coming from a Prisim and know upgraded to the cylindrical the beauty about it is you focus the projector first then once place the cylndrical lens in front you can manually focus that also. The difference is amazing it's like watching 2:35:1 but it feels like there is no lens on it's path.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> Actually, less sharp IS more film like.



Not when the projector is incapable of accurately resolving film grain.


People shouldn't confuse "sharpness" with "detail".


Vern


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17363510
> 
> 
> Coming from a Prisim and know upgraded to the cylindrical the beauty about it is you focus the projector first then once place the cylndrical lens in front you can manually focus that also. The difference is amazing it's like watching 2:35:1 but it feels like there is no lens on it's path.



Frank: Which lens do you have?


Ron


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/17363687
> 
> 
> Frank: Which lens do you have?
> 
> 
> Ron



Hi Ron it's the schneider cine digi 1.33x with the kino linear sled


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17362657
> 
> 
> Actually, less sharp IS more film like.



If the astigmatism correction is adjusted correctly, there should be no discernable difference in sharpness between lens in and lens out, just the effects of optical stretch.


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17364626
> 
> 
> If the astigmatism correction is adjusted correctly, there should be no discernable difference in sharpness between lens in and lens out, just the effects of optical stretch.



I have never been to a cinema with a razor sharp picture like I have at home.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17362657
> 
> 
> Actually, less sharp IS more film like.
> 
> 
> But then again, CIH is what better movie houses use (and lenses). That is more movie like, too.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17364702
> 
> 
> I have never been to a cinema with a razor sharp picture like I have at home.



That is because the loop of film they run for making this adjustment does not have lines as fine as the single display pixel lines we can generate, and we tend to care more about our own images at home.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17364626
> 
> 
> If the astigmatism correction is adjusted correctly, there should be no discernable difference in sharpness between lens in and lens out, just the effects of optical stretch.



Spot on Mark!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17364702
> 
> 
> I have never been to a cinema with a razor sharp picture like I have at home.



And you never will, the home will always be better


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17363510
> 
> 
> Coming from a Prisim and know upgraded to the cylindrical the beauty about it is you focus the projector first then once place the cylndrical lens in front you can manually focus that also. *The difference is amazing it's like watching 2:35:1 but it feels like there is no lens on it's path.*



(Emphasis mine)


So you paid how much to buy a lens that achieves the look of _having no lens in the path_?

















(Sorry, couldn't resist).


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17364889
> 
> 
> (Emphasis mine)
> 
> 
> So you paid how much to buy a lens that achieves the look of _having no lens in the path_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Sorry, couldn't resist).



That's ok







Im happy with the end results that's all that matters. Personally how people go about it to achevie scope I think is great. Some zoom other prefers lens it nevers bothers me. But what can be annoying is when people keep persisting there way is better.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/17364702
> 
> 
> I have never been to a cinema with a razor sharp picture like I have at home.



You must have a 4K resolution projector. Either that or you only go to cinemas with 2k digital projectors. Home HD projection is not even in the same league as 35 mm film.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17365156
> 
> 
> You must have a 4K resolution projector. Either that or you only go to cinemas with 2k digital projectors. Home HD projection is not even in the same league as 35 mm film.



He was talking about film, and his observation is spot on - I have yet to be to a theater that is anywhere near as sharp as my picture at home. But that's to be expected, film is completely different than a digitally stored picture composed of discreet pixels. Not to go too far off topic, but that's one thing I love about LCoS is that, of the three digital display technologies used in FP, it most closely mirrors the fluid look of film.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17365156
> 
> 
> You must have a 4K resolution projector. Either that or you only go to cinemas with 2k digital projectors.



I think you will find that the current 4k commercial units are significantly outperformed by the current 2k units. The commercial 4k units, which I have used many times, have some very severe issues that impact thier PQ. They also need a serious defocus preset applied. They are also, for these reasons, despised by projectionists. This will be addressed next year with the new TI technology platform.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17365156
> 
> 
> Home HD projection is not even in the same league as 35 mm film.



Again wrong. I can speak with some significant authority here, as I have a Kinoton 35mm facility installed. It also happens to be the absolute best imaging 35mm machine available, bar none. It is also maintained and operated, by a professional projectionist, to the very highest standard. I have it because there are some things I like about film as a medium, and as a screening event. I wont bore every one with that.


Overall, the presentation of a high end digital unit is clearly superior to that of 35mm film. I can expand greatly on that, and have done in other parts of AVS. I have screened the same film on both formats on numerous occasions, using pristine prints. There is also the fact that almost every film you see will have been derived from a 2k DI process anyway. Add to that the fact the the actual print you see will never be a first generation print and will be not be performing at close to that of the original master or the DCP. There are some things that film does better, but overall a high end digital provides superior PQ. I think you'll find that _thebland_ has one such machine.


Hope this helps.


----------



## rboster

coldmachine: Thanks for your participation. I appreciate the information


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17365336
> 
> 
> one thing I love about LCoS is that, of the three digital display technologies used in FP, it most closely mirrors the fluid look of film.



I have to disagree. No digital PJ really looks like film.


More importantly, no digital PJ should impart a look of of its own. It should be transparent and source agnostic. LCoS is neither. It imparts a specific look, no matter the source. None of the other technologies are perfect either, but LCoS is not the one able to transpose the source information most transparently.


The notion of chasing a film look is also a false premise. Almost every film you see has been derived from a DI process and is actually degraded from the outset. The high speed transfer and higher generation count meant that the film you see at the local cinema, no matter how good, is already significantly below par.


I have seen pristine prints alongside 2k DCP and BD. 2k DCP is well ahead, due to data rate, followed by a good BD transfer, then comes the 35mm...all in terms of fine detail.


Thats all OT anyway.....we've had these discussions over on the PJ forums, and that's probably the best place for them.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/17365501
> 
> 
> coldmachine: Thanks for your participation. I appreciate the information



Thank you. I appreciate the appreciation.










I do have to say that its getting harder to sustain the effort here at the moment as certain people seem hell bent on fostering conflict, rather than exchanging information.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17365458
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the current 4k commercial units are significantly outperformed by the current 2k units. The commercial 4k units, which I have used many times, have some very severe issues that impact thier PQ. They also need a serious defocus preset applied. They are also, for these reasons, despised by projectionists. This will be addressed next year with the new TI technology platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again wrong. I can speak with some significant authority here, as I have a Kinoton 35mm facility installed. It also happens to be the absolute best imaging 35mm machine available, bar none. It is also maintained and operated, by a professional projectionist, to the very highest standard. I have it because there are some things I like about film as a medium, and as a screening event. I wont bore every one with that.
> 
> 
> Overall, the presentation of a high end digital unit is clearly superior to that of 35mm film. I can expand greatly on that, and have done in other parts of AVS. I have screened the same film on both formats on numerous occasions, using pristine prints. There is also the fact that almost every film you see will have been derived from a 2k DI process anyway. Add to that the fact the the actual print you see will never be a first generation print and will be not be performing at close to that of the original master or the DCP. There are some things that film does better, but overall a high end digital provides superior PQ. I think you'll find that _thebland_ has one such machine.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



Thanks.

Getting input from someone with theoretical and practical experience is priceless.


Mike


----------



## SOWK

Coldmachine: I know this is completely off topic, but... do you calibrate displays as well?


Would/do you calibrate a display to show video level 17 in the digital domain with DVD/Blu Ray?


-SOWK


ps, I would have PMed you, but your pm is turned off.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17365519
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. No digital PJ really looks like film.
> 
> 
> More importantly, no digital PJ should impart a look of of its own. It should be transparent and source agnostic. LCoS is neither. It imparts a specific look, no matter the source. None of the other technologies are perfect either, but LCoS is not the one able to transpose the source information most transparently.
> 
> 
> The notion of chasing a film look is also a false premise. Almost every film you see has been derived from a DI process and is actually degraded from the outset. The high speed transfer and higher generation count meant that the film you see at the local cinema, no matter how good, is already significantly below par.
> 
> 
> I have seen pristine prints alongside 2k DCP and BD. 2k DCP is well ahead, due to data rate, followed by a good BD transfer, then comes the 35mm...all in terms of fine detail.
> 
> 
> Thats all OT anyway.....we've had these discussions over on the PJ forums, and that's probably the best place for them.



If I conveyed that I think any digital projector actually looks like film, that was not my inent. I certainly don't sit down in my theater and expect to be fooled into thinking I'm watching a 35mm presentation on a digital projector.


However, in terms of having a "fluid" look - i.e. high fill factor and no SDE - I have found JVC's LCoS to be superior to LCD and DLP units in the same price range, not to include "high end" and DCI 3-chip DLP units, which I can't speak to since I have no experience with them. I find LCD to look the most digital because of the low fill rate and evident pixel structure, followed by DLP which is usually far too sharp to appear "film-like", and then LCoS. Again, just my personal opinion, and I freely admit that I have a lot less experience with FP technology (and film, as some like Cam Man do) than many people here and wouldn't presume to pretend I know more than them. I know I have certainly appreciated your frank and insightful discussions here and in other threads.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17368414
> 
> 
> If I conveyed that I think any digital projector actually looks like film, that was not my inent. I certainly don't sit down in my theater and expect to be fooled into thinking I'm watching a 35mm presentation on a digital projector.
> 
> 
> However, in terms of having a "fluid" look - i.e. high fill factor and no SDE - I have found JVC's LCoS to be superior to LCD and DLP units in the same price range, not to include "high end" and DCI 3-chip DLP units, which I can't speak to since I have no experience with them. I find LCD to look the most digital because of the low fill rate and evident pixel structure, followed by DLP which is usually far too sharp to appear "film-like", and then LCoS. Again, just my personal opinion, and I freely admit that I have a lot less experience with FP technology (and film, as some like Cam Man do) than many people here and wouldn't presume to pretend I know more than them. I know I have certainly appreciated your frank and insightful discussions here and in other threads.



Read and understood.


If only certain others, preventing these threads from progressing, had the same attitude.


Kudos.


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17361661
> 
> 
> I think it is now pretty evident that my hope that foilks would say yea given the funds I'd choose a lens but don't have those funds or folks would actually come up with real technical advantages rather than monetary advantages to zooming would come foward was a pipe dream.



My technical reasons for zooming were to avoid the possibility of scaling artifacts, geometric distortion at the corners, picture offset, complexity of setup, and compounding the flaws in glass.


I had an isco II from a previous setup. I tested it in my new setup, preferred zooming and sold the lens for $800. I understand isco III is a better lens, but I'm skeptical how much gain I would get it my setup. Factor in the price and the fact that it's impossible to demo, and I decided it just wasn't worth pursuing.


Assuming the isco III is as good as claimed and the cost to "do it right" isn't an issue, the only real technical issue I can see is the scaling. All else being equal, a 1:1 mapped image is going to look cleaner than one scaled by 0.3x.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17370979
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming the isco III is as good as claimed and the cost to "do it right" isn't an issue, the only real technical issue I can see is the scaling.



And did you have scaling artifacts (whilst watching a Scope films) with your last set up when using the ISCO II?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17370979
> 
> 
> Assuming the isco III is as good as claimed and the cost to "do it right" isn't an issue, the only real technical issue I can see is the scaling. All else being equal, a 1:1 mapped image is going to look cleaner than one scaled by 0.3x.



The scaling isn't an issue, and hasnt been for some time, depending, to a degree, on the scaling engine of your VP or PJ. Ask on the relevant PJ forum for _genuinely_ informed answers as to what machines are working well.


Watch the $20k forum for some interesting relevant shots soon. This will include scaling of a native 235 image to full vertical resolution. Lines will be single pixel. There are no visible scaling issues. The shots will be very close up.


Hope this helps


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17371002
> 
> 
> And did you have scaling artifacts (whilst watching a Scope films) with your last set up when using the ISCO II?



When I tested it on my then new 1080p PJ? Yes, I beleive some of the loss of fine detail was due to scaling but it was hard to isolate so can't be certain. Alan used to maintain a screenshot thread showing the negative effects various a-lenses had on test patterns. isco II was the best overall, but not perfect, so I tried to remove the lens as a variable.


But without the lens, I was compairing a cluster of 1:1 mapped pixels with 33% larger, vertically distorted pixels which is hard to AB. I tried increasing my distance from the screen to eliminate the 33% increase which is naturally going to look worse. But even then, was it the scaling or the scaler? No way to tell.


Another technical factor in the a-lens debate is the quality of the PJ lens & chips themselves. It's not as bad as it used to be, but the corners are generally the worst looking area on any PJ. Focus, convergence, uniformity, CA... they're all worse at the corners. Zoom uses the center of panel & projector lens. Depending how bad it is, throwing that part of the panel away may actually look better than using it.


For example, LCoS struggled with corner brightness/shading for a long time. Using an a-lens meant pulling those flaws up into your scope screen area. With zooming the best the PJ has to offer is on the screen, and the worst is put into the felt.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17374634
> 
> 
> Another technical factor in the a-lens debate is the quality of the PJ lens & chips themselves. It's not as bad as it used to be, but the corners are generally the worst looking area on any PJ. Focus, convergence, uniformity, CA... they're all worse at the corners. Zoom uses the center of panel & projector lens. Depending how bad it is, throwing that part of the panel away may actually look better than using it.
> 
> 
> For example, LCoS struggled with corner brightness/shading for a long time. Using an a-lens meant pulling those flaws up into your scope screen area. With zooming the best the PJ has to offer is on the screen, and the worst is put into the felt.



Very good points. Although when you zoom for 16:9, the flaws such as bright corners and poor focus will show up again. This is one of many reasons I'm so happy with the shrink method (downscaling 16:9) My RS1's bright corners have become a non-issue on all ARs.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17374634
> 
> 
> When I tested it on my then new 1080p PJ? Yes, I beleive some of the loss of fine detail was due to scaling but it was hard to isolate so can't be certain. Alan used to maintain a screenshot thread showing the negative effects various a-lenses had on test patterns. isco II was the best overall, but not perfect, so I tried to remove the lens as a variable.



On a still pattern, scaling artifacts will be visible regardless if the lens is used or not. I was asking about watching films.



> Quote:
> Another technical factor in the a-lens debate is the quality of the PJ lens & chips themselves. It's not as bad as it used to be, but the corners are generally the worst looking area on any PJ. Focus, convergence, uniformity, CA... they're all worse at the corners. Zoom uses the center of panel & projector lens. Depending how bad it is, throwing that part of the panel away may actually look better than using it.



Neither method throws any 'panel' away. Your right about optics on some projectors not being 100%. My BenQ's lens has heaps of CA once you know what it is your looking at.



> Quote:
> For example, LCoS struggled with corner brightness/shading for a long time. Using an a-lens meant pulling those flaws up into your scope screen area. With zooming the best the PJ has to offer is on the screen, and the worst is put into the felt.



If 'shadowing' is a problem, it will be present in both methods as both display the full width of the panel, it is just zooming that projects the top and bottom portions off the screen.


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17374890
> 
> 
> On a still pattern, scaling artifacts will be visible regardless if the lens is used or not. I was asking about watching films.



As I explained in my unbiased post, there was a loss of fine detail in my setup which I believe scaling contributed but was unable to truly isolate so I am not sure. We agree there will be scaling artifacts. The question is if they're visible with live content, and for that I don't have a definitive answer.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17374890
> 
> 
> Neither method throws any 'panel' away. Your right about optics on some projectors not being 100%. My BenQ's lens has heaps of CA once you know what it is your looking at.



You felt differently in the 'Am I headed down the right road ' post a few days ago in this same forum. Emphasis mine:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17332666
> 
> 
> Select LCDs like Panasonic offer lens memory. The method used is called *The Zoom Method and you throw away 25% of the vertical pixels away doing so for Scope.*
> 
> 
> If cost of a lens is an issue, then Zooming certainly is a means to an end.



I used your words. More accurate would be that Zoom uses the center cut of the display. The number of pixels used is less, but the quality of those pixels is higher.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17332666
> 
> 
> If 'shadowing' is a problem, it will be present in both methods as both display the full width of the panel, it is just zooming that projects the top and bottom portions off the screen.



Read what I wrote. I'm talking about the corners. Projecting the top and bottom of the image off the screen results in the corners being displayed off the screen. Thus any defects in the corners be it CA, uniformity, MC, brightness/shading/shadowing, focus, etc also get projected off the screen. With an a-lens, the whole panel is used including any defects in the corners. Zooming does _not_ include the corner defects in the viewable area. A-lens does.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17375624
> 
> 
> As I explained in my unbiased post, there was a loss of fine detail in my setup which I believe scaling contributed but was unable to truly isolate so I am not sure. We agree there will be scaling artifacts. The question is if they're visible with live content, and for that I don't have a definitive answer.



So you have gone back to to Zooming? Good for you. Just one question - can you please explain the proceedure you used to dial in your lens when you used it?


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17377600
> 
> 
> So you have gone back to to Zooming? Good for you.



Nope. I don't like zooming myself. Too much hassle. But I think this is a good discussion none the less. We should know the ins & outs of even the best a-lens before before unequivocally recommending it to anyone that can afford one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17377600
> 
> 
> Just one question - can you please explain the procedure you used to dial in your lens when you used it?



I know where you're going with it. Fair point. I added it as #3.




We're talking about technical reasons why zooming may be better than the best a-lens available (ISCO III & sled):

Scaling artifacts. Zoom method maintains 1:1 mapping of source pixels to projector pixels. A-lens requires interpolation scaling up by 0.33x. Matmatically, this is impossible without artifacts. A-lens supporters say the artifacts aren't noticable when watching movies. Zoomers aren't so sure.
Center cut. Zoom method uses the center of the panel & lens. Most imperfections occur at the edges, especially corners. A-lenses use the whole panel, thus incorporating these imperfections into the active image area. Zoom method doesn't. This area of the panel and the pixels in it are projected off screen. Depending on the severity of the imperfections the image may look better using the center of the panel (zoom method).
Complexity of installation. Your grandmother could do zoom method CIH with good results. A-lenses on the other hand require tight tolerances during installation and an exacting procedure one must follow to "dial in" the lens to get positive results.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17379988
> 
> 
> Complexity of installation. Your grandmother could do zoom method CIH with good results. A-lenses on the other hand require tight tolerances during installation and an exacting procedure one must follow to "dial in" the lens to get positive results.



And to think there are those that think that the only reason one would use an anamorphic lens is for convenience.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17379988
> 
> 
> [*]Complexity of installation. Your grandmother could do zoom method CIH with good results. A-lenses on the other hand require tight tolerances during installation and an exacting procedure one must follow to "dial in" the lens to get positive results.[/list]



That is true and your correct once done correctly you will see positive results.Btw I disagree with my grandmother she would not able to do zoom method


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17379988
> 
> 
> Nope. I don't like zooming myself. Too much hassle.



So what lens are you using now?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17384686
> 
> 
> And to think there are those that think that the only reason one would use an anamorphic lens is for convenience.



Operational, not installation, convenience.


I think convenience is a very underrated factor. After all, people will pay hundreds (up to a thousand) for automated lighting. Why not pay that for automated aspect ratio changes as well?


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17385751
> 
> 
> After all, people will pay hundreds (*up to a thousand*) for automated lighting.



ilsiu. I think your number is a bit off for an "up to"










That wouldn't even be close to buying you the time for someone to do the Crestron programming on many systems, let alone the actual hardware


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17385751
> 
> 
> Why not pay that for automated aspect ratio changes as well?



And constant pixel density, per square unit of screen illumination, same calibration settings and don't forget the most important aspect - 1080 vertical pixels for ALL ARs


----------



## GetGray

My wife and young kids would be zoom challenged. Their grandmother would not even understand what it was I don't think (mother in law, not my mother







). None of the family, even MIL have any trouble pressing the button that says "2.35" or "16:9" though. My son was 7 when I hung the first CineSlide. Within a week he was "aspect savvy" and recognized the difference between a 1.78 menu and the 2.35 movie. And knew how to press the button that changes them. With automation you can even have the lens move out of the way if you press "pause" revealing any otherwise off-screen information.


Maybe I have above average technical aptitude, but I find setting up an Isco to be trivial, maybe even fun. Mounting a CineSlide takes some care, but it's not rocket science either.


In either case, it's a one time thing, not an ongoing every day "adjustment" cycle that zooming is. Even for an ILS, moving a lens is much faster.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17385838
> 
> 
> Maybe I have above average technical aptitude, but I find setting up an Isco to be trivial, maybe even fun.



Yeah seeing those single pixel H and V lines come into focus is very cool. Watching a Scope film after that is even cooler


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17385806
> 
> 
> ilsiu. I think your number is a bit off for an "up to"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wouldn't even be close to buying you the time for someone to do the Crestron programming on many systems, let alone the actual hardware



I based the price range (hardware only) from the Grafik Eye thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=557480 


Nevertheless, if the price was underestimated, that just reinforces my point. People will pay top dollar so that they don't have to walk to the light switch - those same people probably wouldn't want to zoom either, even if they thought there was picture quality to be gained.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17386034
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, if the price was underestimated, that just reinforces my point. People will pay top dollar so that they don't have to walk to the light switch - those same people probably wouldn't want to zoom either, even if they thought there was picture quality to be gained.



I think this really does help illustrate one of the points that's relevant here. Many people simply haven't directly experienced _genuine_ high end HT systems, and the huge performance hike they deliver. With such a lack of experience, inevitably comes lack of understanding.


The idea of lighting automation, in a high end HT, is not about not having to walk to "the light switch". Its about tailored performance and maximum flexibility. Typical lighting systems, and the user requirements from them, currently being installed in most most _genuine_ high end systems would simply be impossible to configure and operate without automation. Convenience isn't the main driver, its a totally different level of capability and functionality.


Hope this helps.


PS. I think we are starting to get way OT now.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17386119
> 
> 
> I think this really does help illustrate one of the points that's relevant here. Many people simply the direct experience of _genuine_ high end HT systems and the huge performance hike they deliver.



True - I think very few people here have access to genuine high end HT systems. It's certainly a very abstract concept to me.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17386119
> 
> 
> The idea of lighting automation, in a high end HT, is not about not having to walk to "the light switch". Its about tailored performance and flexibility.



This is off topic, so I'll just comment that all the complex lighting tasks (controlling different zones, synchronizing lighting with other actions, and stuff I'm sure I can't conceive in my wildest dreams) can be done control panel on the wall. People see value in automating those tasks (and doing it remotely from their seat), thus many are willing to pay a great deal for it.


Aspect ratio changes can be done manually (be it zooming or sliding a lens in place), but similar to lighting control, there are people that would greatly appreciate an automated solution.


At this time, automated zoom options are extremely limited (either very low end or very high end), so anamorphic lenses will be the preferred solution. So automation should be an important factor when taking the price of anamorphic systems into consideration. That's all I wanted to point out.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17386257
> 
> 
> This is off topic, so I'll just comment that all the complex lighting tasks (controlling different zones, synchronizing lighting with other actions, and stuff I'm sure I can't conceive in my wildest dreams) can be done control panel on the wall. People see value in automating those tasks (and doing it remotely from their seat), thus many are willing to pay a great deal for it.



We are getting OT, but I need to explain further, in response to your post.


Again, lack of direct experience may be obscuring the issue, and actually causing incorrect conclusions to be drawn.


The type of system, and control, I was referring to is always remote anyway. The type of panel needed for that will typically be a Crestron/AMX display monitor. They can be fitted to a wall, and they can be fitted to a seat or be a handhold.


The wall mounted option is frequently far more expensive than the seat console or handhold option, and simply makes absolutely no sense in that environment.


Hope this helps.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17386374
> 
> 
> We are getting OT, but I need to explain further, in response to your post.
> 
> 
> Again, lack of direct experience may be obscuring the issue, and actually causing incorrect conclusions to be drawn.
> 
> 
> The type of system, and control, I was referring to is always remote anyway. The type of panel needed for that will typically be a Crestron/AMX display monitor. They can be fitted to a wall, and they can be fitted to a seat or be a handhold.
> 
> 
> The wall mounted option is frequently far more expensive than the seat console or handhold option, and simply makes absolutely no sense in that environment.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



This will be my last post on this (off) topic, I promise










There are lots of different levels of remote lighting control. Some are very basic - they just turn on, off, or dim by remote control; all of which can be done manually at a standard, wall mounted dimmer switch. There are lots of people that buy those basic systems so they don't have to go to a wall mounted switch to perform exactly the same tasks. I believe those people would place much value in the automated aspect ratio changes an anamorphic lens allows.


The above may or may not apply to high-end users. I defer to you on describing on what high end users want or need. I do feel qualified to comment on low end users







.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17386476
> 
> 
> This will be my last post on this (off) topic, I promise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of different levels of remote lighting control. Some are very basic - they just turn on, off, or dim by remote control; all of which can be done manually at a standard, wall mounted dimmer switch. There are lots of people that buy those basic systems so they don't have to go to a wall mounted switch to perform exactly the same tasks. I believe those people would place much value in the automated aspect ratio changes an anamorphic lens allows.
> 
> 
> The above may or may not apply to high-end users. I defer to you on describing on what high end users want or need. I do feel qualified to comment on low end users
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



And this will be my last too.










I totally understand that some people may wish to simply avoid walking to the wall to switch a light. However, even a user of a basic system who ties a lighting profile to a pause control on his BD, that also calls up some background music, is likely to see that as increased functionality, rather than simple convenience.


For others, automation makes possible what would otherwise be utterly impossible. Also, in many cases, with extreme light controlled HTs, having to use a wall panel to operate the lighting would constitute a safety issue.


It was that difference in outlook, and experience, prompted by the "up to", that I wished to comment on.


Im back on Topic now too.


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17385838
> 
> 
> My wife and young kids would be zoom challenged. Their grandmother would not even understand what it was I don't think (mother in law, not my mother
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). None of the family, even MIL have any trouble pressing the button that says "2.35" or "16:9" though. My son was 7 when I hung the first CineSlide. Within a week he was "aspect savvy" and recognized the difference between a 1.78 menu and the 2.35 movie. And knew how to press the button that changes them. With automation you can even have the lens move out of the way if you press "pause" revealing any otherwise off-screen information.



As *ilsiu* pointed out I was referring to the difficulty in initial setup - not ongoing operation. For daily operation, I would agree it's the simplest no compromise solution. I do one button masking for CIW now. I will likely be a future customer when I make it back to CIH since ease of use is important to me.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rabident* /forum/post/17388348
> 
> 
> I was referring to the difficulty in initial setup - not ongoing operation.



I understand, thanks. I didn't mean to misrepresent your comment with my answer, sorry. Just wanted to point out the install isn't that bad. For initial setup, mounting a CineSlide once is definitely harder than zooming, once for sure. Adjusting the lens (a large Isco IIIL in particular), just isn't *that* hard though. Some new owners have had a lot of fear that it would be very difficult but find it is really reasonably straight forward. Unless they are spatially/mechanically challenged. But those filks are normally having an installer do the construction work anyway. There's a member or 2 around here who have obsessed with fine tuning but in normal installations, the thing is really pretty forgiving and not very hard to setup.


----------



## GG386




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17388745
> 
> 
> the thing is really pretty forgiving and not very hard to setup.



It took me longer to dress up the wiring and ceiling tile than to get it hanging


----------



## tbase1

Is a motorized sled for a Isco 3L worth buying if I'm close to my projector? If so how much do they cost?


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17446241
> 
> 
> Is a motorized sled for a Isco 3L worth buying if I'm close to my projector? If so how much do they cost?



If you plan on leaving the lens in place all the time and use AR changing in your video processor (or projector) then you don't need a slide.


If you are close and don't mind moving it manually, you don't need it.

It is nice however.


Here is a link:

*TechHT CineSlide* 


MSRP: $2595

You can PM GetGray for more info.


Mike


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I would totally sell the ISCO II and sled and buy four AE4000's.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17447000
> 
> 
> I would totally sell the ISCO II and sled and buy four AE4000's.



An ISCO II sells for about $800 these days, so I doubt that would fund your four AE4000 Pannys


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17454215
> 
> 
> An ISCO II sells for about $800 these days, so I doubt that would fund your four AE4000 Pannys



OT question: is that new or used? US dollars?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17454444
> 
> 
> OT question: is that new or used? US dollars?



Yes used , and yes US Dollars.


That is for the older ISCO II not the ISCO III Art has.


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17454461
> 
> 
> Yes used , and yes US Dollars.
> 
> 
> That is for the older ISCO II not the ISCO III Art has.



That's a good price considering you can still buy the ISCO II new and for about half what the III costs. Any thoughts on why the II's drop in value so quickly?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/17454986
> 
> 
> That's a good price considering you can still buy the ISCO II new and for about half what the III costs. Any thoughts on why the II's drop in value so quickly?



I didn't know the ISCO II was still available new. I thought that the smaller lens was an ISCO IIIs.


Anyway, I think these lenses were seriously undervalued when people began to sell them off. The point with the ISCO II is that is not a true cylindrical lens. It actually has weak sperical elements which cause a height shift between lens in and lens out, so unless you intend to leave the lens in the light path 100% of the time (as I do with my own lens), there will be a small amount of zoom required for CIH The ISCO III (apart from being very much larger, hence the extra cost) does not have this issue and why it is the preferred lens for CIH.


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17455011
> 
> 
> I didn't know the ISCO II was still available new. I thought that the smaller lens was an ISCO IIIs.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I think these lenses were seriously undervalued when people began to sell them off. The point with the ISCO II is that is not a true cylindrical lens. It actually has weak sperical elements which cause a height shift between lens in and lens out, so unless you intend to leave the lens in the light path 100% of the time (as I do with my own lens), there will be a small amount of zoom required for CIH The ISCO III (apart from being very much larger, hence the extra cost) does not have this issue and why it is the preferred lens for CIH.



Thanks Mark, maybe this site screwed up the description...

http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/ 


At long throws and if you're going to leave the lens in place it sounds like a used ISCO II may be a good buy.


Speaking of which, how's your new baby coming along and any idea of price yet.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/17455063
> 
> 
> Thanks Mark, maybe this site screwed up the description...
> 
> http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/
> 
> 
> At long throws and if you're going to leave the lens in place it sounds like a used ISCO II may be a good buy.



Exactly. It is a smaller lense so needs the longer throw and if you intend to leave the lens in the light path all the time, then this lens is perfect (TR pending of course).



> Quote:
> Speaking of which, how's your new baby coming along and any idea of price yet.



It is in production and whilst I can't post a price here, you can contact me with email for the price. The MK4 works with TRs down to 1.4:1 as well.


----------



## tbase1

I hope my IIIL does not make me wish I kept my birthday cash. I have a

prismasonic V1000 that I'm happy with, so there better be a WOW factor or it goes back for a refund.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17458552
> 
> 
> there better be a WOW factor or it goes back for a refund.



If you didn't see an imporovement with the ISCO III, I'd suggest taking those glasses (the ones calibrated for 50') back for a refund


----------



## tbase1

maaaaaan you are on your "A" joke game. Maybe I'll get two of the IIIL's and make glasses out of them...That'll teach those Zoomers.


----------



## CAVX

WOW Glasses with continiously adjustible astigmatis correction. Your on a winner their Tbase1







and you'd not need to get a pair of 51' cal'd glasses next year







You might want a neck brace to hold them up though


----------



## tbase1

one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the

prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.


----------



## drewski11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17468576
> 
> 
> one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the
> 
> prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.



watch one then the other and then switch back just to make sure


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17468576
> 
> 
> one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the
> 
> prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.



I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system


----------



## tbase1

We will soon see, and to keep with the thread I'll see what it looks like with zoom as well. At the end of the day I'll be able to say if I'll zoom instead of using the prismasonic or the isco IIIL lens. I don't have the sled so i can't really answer Art's question, but will know real soon when I get my panasonic ae4000 projector.


----------



## CAVX

Simply put, even with correction elements, prisms base lenses are always going to have a "sweet spot" that they work best at. This is not to do with the prisms themselves, rather the correction element.


A true cylindrical lens does not have a sweet spot as its front (or rear) lens can be moved in or out to bring both lenses into the same focal plain together. The result is that both horizontal and vertical lines are brought into focus at the same time anywhere in the lenses opperating range.


Until you see this for self, it is easy to dismaiss the benefit and assume all anamorphics to be the same. They are not.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17470042
> 
> 
> simply put, even with correction elements, prisms base lenses are always going to have a "sweet spot" that they work best at. This is not to do with the prisms themselves, rather the correction element.
> 
> 
> A true cylindrical lens does not have a sweet spot as its front (or rear) lens can be moved in or out to bring both lenses into the same focal plain together. The result is that both horizontal and vertical lines are brought into focus at the same time anywhere in the lenses opperating range.
> 
> 
> Until you see this for self, it is easy to dismaiss the benefit and assume all anamorphics to be the same. They are not.



+1


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/17469702
> 
> 
> I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system



Imagine having the ability to focus your image across the whole screen and top and bottom. Also the optics used are from the highest quality which also counts when it comes to pq, that's the beauty of a cylindrical. When I move from prism to cylindrical the difference was night and day.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/17469702
> 
> 
> I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system




tbase1 has a 5 year-old, 2-element Prismasonic lens, which do not have focus or CA correction. It would be same if the EPSON's five-year-old projector model were compared to the Panasonic's latest one.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/17472506
> 
> 
> tbase1 has a 5 year-old, 2-element Prismasonic lens, which do not have focus or CA correction.



Really? I thought the H/V1000 was CA corrected


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17472601
> 
> 
> Really? I thought the H/V1000 was CA corrected



There is no such Prismasonic lens model as V1000. The only vertical compression lens models we have had in past are the V-200 and V-500. They both are 2-element lenses. They are otherwise similar to each other but V-500 has the AR-coatings.


We have been selling the H-1000 (horizontal expansion) lens in 2004. It was our first lens with the achromatic optics (CA corrected), but it did not have the front element for focus correction.


----------



## tbase1

Now I'm perplexed.....please see the attached pic. and tell me what lens this is because the package and information I got with it said V1000, But what do I know I just play with these things from time to time.


----------



## elmalloc

Is there any place I could try out the isco 3 to see if I like it and return it if not? That's a large investment for some if it just doesn't work out well for them.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17473226
> 
> 
> That's a large investment for some if it just doesn't work out well for them.



That is a large risk for the supplier to just ship it out to someone for a test drive too. Why would it not work out? The ISCO III is the most versatile lens on the market so far as throw ratios go. The only competition it has (out side of Germany) is my MK4 [shameless plug







] with workable TR down to 1.4:1. The only other large diameter lens on the market is the XL Schnieder which costs even more than the ISCO III.


----------



## elmalloc

I don't care about the supplier, I'm the consumer - lol.


I'm sure I'm not the only one not willing to fork over a certain amount because they haven't had a chance to see it in action yet. Normally I buy things without seeing them anyway...


It's not like I can go to my local HT shop and ask to see an isco 3...


Anyway I am now contacting you regarding your MK4, lol


----------



## tbase1

elmalloc,


You live 15 min. or so from me and 30 min. if that from a highend AV store that has a IIIL on a Runco 3 chip dlp. If you like, when I get my lens setup you can come by and check it out or we can setup a meet at the highend AV store in medina. It's appointment only, but I know the entire team.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17473431
> 
> 
> It's appointment only, but I know the entire team.



Nice. Its not what you know, it is who you know







A Runco 3 chipper + ISCO III is worth checking out.


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17473431
> 
> 
> elmalloc,
> 
> 
> You live 15 min. or so from me and 30 min. if that from a highend AV store that has a IIIL on a Runco 3 chip dlp. If you like, when I get my lens setup you can come by and check it out or we can setup a meet at the highend AV store in medina. It's appointment only, but I know the entire team.



tBase - awesome, thanks friend!


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17473592
> 
> 
> tBase - awesome, thanks friend!



Just sent you a PM with my cell#.


----------



## tbase1

okay....the IIIL has arrived at my office and I have to say it's heavy as the dickens and I can see why that cost so much. You get a pretty metal carrying case and keys to lock it up. The mount is steel also and it's adjustable to boot. Now the question is.....with my sony ruby being 17' from my screen will it work well by just taking down my prismasonic or try to move the projector closer before mounting the isco.


----------



## elmalloc

coming over tonight to see LOL


----------



## tbase1

i would love to have you over sport, but I don't know if all will be done before you get there. I hate to just lift this monster up and sway back and forth to see what we can see. maybe friday if my ruby is still around...if not maybe I can bring it by your house since I'll be up there anyway. give me a call.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Well I wasn't quite given an ISCO III and sled, but I've put my money where my mouth is to a degree: I've just agreed to buy an ISCO II so I'll be able to try it for myself. As I've been zooming for the last 2 1/2 years and combined it with 'shrinking' for the last 9 months or so. It doesn't come with a sled, but I'll cope with using my VP to squeze 16:9 with the lens in place (or remove it completely for a whole film).


I'm at a fairly long throw of around 2.5 or more with a HD350, a Lumagen HDQ and a 1.5 gain 2.35:1 tab tensioned Beamax. I'm hoping this is going to be a worthwhile purchase, but as I haven't paid over the odds I'm sure I'd be able to sell it on a little or no loss if it doesn't suit.


Can't wait for it to arrive now......


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17476856
> 
> 
> I've just agreed to buy an ISCO II



Well done







Kevin and Tbase1. I want to see photos!


Can you connect your PC to the projector? I suggest that you create a test pattern with single pixel lines that run in both H and V directions to allow you to be able to adjust the astigmatism correctly. If you email me, I can send you mine


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks Mark. Yes I can connect my HTPC to the PJ...I use it to watch BBC HD channels on the rare occasions there is something I want to watch. I'll PM you my email if that's OK.


I feel a bit cheeky having asked about the Mk3, but this ISCO II was too good a deal to miss (and I did miss this exact example last time it came up for sale).


Cheers,

Kelvin.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17477207
> 
> 
> I'll PM you my email if that's OK.




Please do. I just have to add you to the friends list first.


----------



## tbase1

Cavx,


I would have setup my IIIL lens but I desided to go out and have a couple of brews, so I'll set it up tomorrow...my bad....sorry.


----------



## CAVX

Given that you recently turned 50, I'll let you off


----------



## tbase1

Thanks man....at this point I would be willing to pay someone to set it up for me. Like danny glover said "I'M GETTING TO OLD FOR THIS S****. Stick a fork in me I'm done.







GOOD NIGHT


----------



## CAVX

A bit more than a day trip Tbase1, or I'd happily do that.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17473209
> 
> 
> Now I'm perplexed.....please see the attached pic. and tell me what lens this is because the package and information I got with it said V1000, But what do I know I just play with these things from time to time.



Yes this is either V-200 or V-500 lens with 2-element optics. Where did you purchase this lens? This must be a second hand lens, because we have never sold any lens with V1000 package labels, simply because there is no such lens we have manufactured.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *prismasonic* /forum/post/17479166
> 
> 
> Yes this is either V-200 or V-500 lens with 2-element optics. Where did you purchase this lens? This must be a second hand lens, because we have never sold any lens with V1000 package labels, simply because there is no such lens we have manufactured.



It's been 4 years, multiple upgrades, and to much brewski's to remember where. However, if you say it's a V500 I'll settle with that.










Now to my new big baby (IIL). What's the best way to set this up. I have

a 8' wide scope stewart videomatte 200 screen, ruby projector, 17' throw, and I'm currently not using my VP30 scaler, but could bring it back on line if it would help until i get my new scaler if needed. I'm running everything currently this way samsung up5000> AVR> Ruby via HDMI.


----------



## GetGray

There are some Isco setup instructions on our website in the CineSlide Manual's appendix. See downloads section www.techht.com


----------



## tbase1

thanks getgray....now...should I use a scaler with this lens for a fix setup or sled for variable setup?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17480993
> 
> 
> thanks getgray....now...should I use a scaler with this lens for a fix setup or sled for variable setup?



See the caption under my userid? My opinion should be obvious










Cheers, Scott


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks Getgrey for the link to the ISCO setup guide....there's more to it than I'd imagined. I managed to teach myself calibration, so hopefully I'll cope.










Also thanks to Mark for the test pattern, which I'll also need to set it up.


I just received a message to say I should have my lens tomorrow, I need to find a piece of wood to stand my PJ on and to fix the ISCO on as my PJ is in a bookcase....I'll have to get my thinking cap on as they say.


Still undeceided whether I'll bother making up a slide or if I'll just use 4:3 mode to squeze 16:9 with the lens in place. IIUC this will still give me a higher resolution for 16:9 than my current shrink method (1440 x 820 vs 1440 x 1080). I find most of my HD viewing is 2.35:1 anyway and 16:9 would probably be SD, so not a major issue to worry about a slide for me.


All of this depends on what I make of the lens per se. If I don't find it an improvement over zooming/shrinking then I'll say so and at least I'll have given it an honest try....on the other hand I have a feeling I'll be keeping it.


----------



## tbase1

I made a sled out of cabinet draw rails for $12 a pair. (home depot) They're the kind that have two extention rails and don't come apart. They're strong enough to hold my IIIL so I know they'll hold your II with no problem.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks Tbase1, that's the kind of thing I had in mind and may even have a pair in my loft somewhere. I think I'll try having a fixed lens for now, as the HDQ will do all the required scaling. The main exercise is to see what I think of a lens for 2.35:1.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi Kelvin,


The ISCO II increases the height a tad as well (around 5% IIRC), so if you remove it for 16:9 you may have to zoom a little to get the image height back.


Gary


----------



## Kelvin1965S

That's a shame.....if I stick with a lens I don't want to have worry about zooming still.










I thought that the ISCO II and III _worked_ the same, it's only that you pay more for the extra glass of the III, perhaps I misunderstood.







One of the UK websites that advertise these lenses seem to say that the II is for use as a fixed lens and has a smaller size better for longer throws like over 2.0:1. The III being for shorter throws and/or larger image areas to avoid vigneting (sp?). As my throw is around 2.5 -maybe slightly more- then I was hoping I'd get no different results in my setup than if I'd bought a III.....maybe I'm deluded.







For what I paid it's still less than any new lens and will probably hold it's value from what I understand.


Rambling again.....just waiting for tomorrow.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17482755
> 
> 
> One of the UK websites that advertise these lenses seem to say that the II is for use as a fixed lens and has a smaller size better for longer throws like over 2.0:1.



And they are correct. It would be difficult to explain about the slight vertcial magnification this lens has to someone not knowing what an anamorphic lens can do or not do, so stating that it is best to leave this lens in place is just easier for everyone.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks yet again Mark, for the small number of HD 1.85:1 films I watch I could live with the occasional zoom if I find I can really see a difference compared to squezing with the lens in place.


I still think that Art should have actually given me his ISCO III lens and sled to try though. It's become a slightly expensive thread for me to post in.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17483241
> 
> 
> It's become a slightly expensive thread for me to post in.



For you and me both


----------



## tbase1

The IIIL came in s and L lens types. As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.


By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17484264
> 
> 
> As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.



Then you need to quickly remove the existing lens to give yourself a sense of urgency











> Quote:
> By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?



I don't know. What did you pay for it and more to the point, what are you expecting for it?


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17484264
> 
> 
> The IIIL came in s and L lens types. As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.
> 
> 
> By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?



you got an L lense? Dang man what job do you have. Is the primasonic lense good enough for me since I live in Brusnwick you can give it to me for a few hundred


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17487732
> 
> 
> you got an L lense? Dang man what job do you have. Is the primasonic lense good enough for me since I live in Brusnwick you can give it to me for a few hundred




I'm just a lowly area manager for Verizon







....however, give me call and we might be able to do a deal on the prismasonic.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I got my ISCO II today and an Arcam P1000 power amp arrived also (thank goodness for my neighbours who signed for these two huge boxes...the ISCO box was so well packed it was bigger than the amp package







).


I've only had a quick setup as I've had to bring a piece of 3/4" plywood to make a deeper shelf for now (don't think it will pass the OH though, so it's temporary







). I'm at minimum zoom on my HD350 as with the 5% increase in picture size with the lens in place the image is a fraction too big, but it helps to trim the very slight pincushion. My Lumagen is useful for the aspect ratio change as the ISCO stand blocks the IR of the HD350 so I need to see if I can sort that out, though I don't really need to access the PJ's settings once the disc is put in.


I have adjusted the astigmatism and other adjustments quickly (having already spent some time ensuring my unlensed 16:9 image was spot on and focussed), just using the PJ's own test pattern. I'm collecting some new glasses tomorrow, so I'll be able to use CAVX's 1080p pattern to fine tune the various settings, but I don't think it's far off. My PJ's menu is set to pop up on the left hand side and apart from being stretched it looks sharp from my seat, so my worries about softness don't seem to be necessary. In fact it is far sharper than the left hand side of my old Panasonic AE3000 when it was zoomed







. Text on screen has a slight 'ring' to it when I'm right up to the screen, but more than half a screen widht back it looks fine. I can still make out the individual pixels on the word 'focus' when on that menu.


I suppose I'm getting the optimum out of this lens as my PJ's zoom is on the back stop, so I'm getting maximum contrast and the image is still plenty bright enough even at iris setting 12 (with a single lamp on as I type this). I think the 16:9 image with the lens in place looks better than the old 'shrunk' version without lens, though I've only had some fairly low quality SD on for my son, so that could be placibo. I haven't setup my screen tent yet, so I'll do some more critical viewing later and report back.


----------



## tbase1

Good to hear someone spent some time setting up their lens...I'm still missing in action. What did you notice right off that bat that improved your image?


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.










The first improvement seemed to be higher contrast believe it or not....I've had to close the iris a step or two as the bright scenes were too much. I suppose having my zoom right at minimum compared to something over 1.33 (plus a bit more allowing for the 5% enlargement of the ISCO II), has got that last little bit of extra contrast. using the full panel has made the image brighter, hence needing to knock the iris down a little, which will also help CR.


I just watched a BluRay called 'Assembly' which unfortunately has black bar subtitles, but the picture quality seemed richer, more 3D, etc. Kind of hard to put my finger on exactly what, but it just seems better. I've still got some more adjustments to make, but maybe I'm already 99% there perhaps by happy accident or because I'm such a long throw makes it easier to setup?


What I have noticed is that where my zoomed black bars used to hit the bottom of my border and a little of the dark brown wall behind, there is nothing in my peripheral vision at all now. It's completely black, even my TV screen slightly shows beneath my screen and I can't see it at all now.


I thought I might make a hundred or two profit if I sold this lens on, but I actually think I'll be keeping in based on what I've seen so far.


----------



## elmalloc

pics required instead of text


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17490106
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I might make a hundred or two profit if I sold this lens on, but I actually think I'll be keeping in based on what I've seen so far.



Awesome


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17490295
> 
> 
> pics required instead of text



I'll take some pictures of the lens on the rough temporary shelf if you want, but it's not that exciting to look at, maybe some of the screen. I'm no photographer and we only have a simple point and shoot type 5mp camera, so I'm not going to get into taking close up screenshots as I don't think I'll help either way....You just have to try it to see what you think it seems, which is kind of boring from a forum point of view, but often that's the case with AV.


Hopefully someone else will give a lens a try and come away feeling like I do, but if they don't I wouldn't try to 'convince' them. I was watching my zoomed setup last weekend, thinking 'how could this get any better?' so it's not like I had a rubbish setup before, so if the ISCO hadn't come up for sale I would have happily carried on enjoying what I already had as I wouldn't have dreamed of buying one new at £2,500







I was only looking at this guy's Radiance advert (on the UK AVForums) out of noseyness (had no intention of bidding







) and saw he'd added the ISCO II and he had asked the mods to change his thread title to show the lens....I bought it before the mods had chance.










EDIT: Meant to add in my earlier post: In theory I had lost some precious (in the case of a HD350) ANSI contrast, due to the lens and also due to slightly closing the iris, but my room isn't perfect (a light coloured back wall and only half the ceiling or less is covered by my black cloth 'tent'), however I didn't notice anything negative on that score. Dark scenes with bright camp fires or end credits still seemed to look how I expect them to (which is what brought me to the HD350 from the AE3000 as I prefered not to have brightness compression and those scenes looked better on the HD350). I've never had a problem with bright scene performance and clips of Casino Royale looked very full of depth (I used the same scenes that I originally demod the HD350 against the HD750 in my own house) and only an external CMS could 'perfect' what I saw (the Lumagen HDQ doesn't do a bad job either to be fair, but I'm not used to perfect colours so it doesn't seem to bother me too much).


----------



## elmalloc

Thanks for the update


----------



## tbase1




Kelvin1965S said:


> I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it. I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth. I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17492913
> 
> 
> 
> I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby



Tbase1, am I missing something? You're selling the SONY and going to buy a Panny?


----------



## Franin




tbase1 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17490106
> 
> 
> I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it. I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth. I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you getting the automated cineslide tbase1?
Click to expand...


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17495385
> 
> 
> Tbase1, am I missing something? You're selling the SONY and going to buy a Panny?



That's right I'm selling it. I'm not sure if I'm going back or forward these days.


----------



## tbase1




Franin said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17492913
> 
> 
> 
> Are you getting the automated cineslide tbase1?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...I want to go with a fix setup.
Click to expand...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17495584
> 
> 
> That's right I'm selling it. I'm not sure if I'm going back or forward these days.



Not to be accused of Panny bashing, with a lens like what your about to install, I'd just want to have a display device that can run single pixel alternating lines (black white black white) and not have you see a grey block. I'll leave the rest to you


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17492913
> 
> 
> I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it.



Yes, I see your point....I'm about to draw a deep breath and start tidying up all the cabling in my equipment rack. It wasn't worth doing it until I got my new power amp.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17492913
> 
> 
> I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth.



If you find the scaler doesn't add anything to the picture then I can understand wanting to simplify it, though IIRC there is no 'direct button' on the AE3000 (maybe the AE4000 is the same?) you have to cycle through each setting: 16:9>s16:9>V-stretch>H-stretch>4:3 then back again. With my HDQ it's a choice of two buttons, I imagine the VP30 is the same.


I'd really like to clear out some of my equipment rack, but I think I need to keep the HDQ as it's much easier to change AR than the PJ. I also use the masking controls to help trim the image. Maybe though a bit of work adjusting the lens setup could solve that. However I'd also need to find a player that can upscale DVDs as well and I don't know if there is anything that doesn't cost $$$s.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17492913
> 
> 
> I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.



I didn't pay £2,500 for mine....that's the new price, I only paid a third of that. If you only paid 1k over that then that was a great deal.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17496035
> 
> 
> Not to be accused of Panny bashing, with a lens like what your about to install, I'd just want to have a display device that can run single pixel alternating lines (black white black white) and not have you see a grey block. I'll leave the rest to you



One of my comparisons with the lens in place on the HD350 was that my image is sharper than my old AE3000 was when zooming. Now it might have been a poor example (my AE2000 was a little sharper) and the AE4000 may be improved, but I have to agree with Mark on this one. Make sure you demo it first or get a good returns policy as at the least they seem variable.


----------



## tbase1

One of my comparisons with the lens in place on the HD350 was that my image is sharper than my old AE3000 was when zooming. Now it might have been a poor example (my AE2000 was a little sharper) and the AE4000 may be improved, but I have to agree with Mark on this one. Make sure you demo it first or get a good returns policy as at the least they seem variable.[/quote]


I wonder if smooth screen had anything to do with the ae3000 not being sharp. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to zoom given the fact that I have the lens, but I'm wondering if I need to think the ae4000 purchase over based on what Mark is saying. At this point I'm not on the fence I spit the fence if you know what mean.







Given the fact that you own or have owned a

AE series projector would you zoom with a ae4000 or use a IIIL with it or another projector with the lens?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

The Panasonics have a double refraction crystal in the light path and although it does a good job of reducing SDE it's said to reduce high frequency detail as well.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/pr...nter/lc_ss.asp 


That being the case, I'd opt for another pj like the JVC and use the ISCO.


Gary


----------



## elmalloc

Honestly Tony I would not consider the panasonic a projector high enough quality to match with an isco3 lense. I agree with Gary and Mark here...


I once owned a JVC RS1 and I thought it was a great PJ, but the color saturation was not always spot on (known push).


I wish my last name was lightfoot.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17496236
> 
> 
> The Panasonics have a double refraction crystal in the light path and although it does a good job of reducing SDE it's said to reduce high frequency detail as well.
> 
> http://www.panasonic.com/business/pr...nter/lc_ss.asp
> 
> 
> That being the case, I'd opt for another pj like the JVC and use the ISCO.
> 
> 
> Gary



So based on what you're saying I would be going back from the ruby to the ae4000? If that's the case it's now time to look JVC or SONY. I don't want to fork out more then $2,500 for one, so what would be the used bet in that price range?


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17496212
> 
> 
> Given the fact that you own or have owned a
> 
> AE series projector would you zoom with a ae4000 or use a IIIL with it or another projector with the lens?



Given that I'm a very recent convert to using a lens, I'm a little biased.







But I have owned the AE1000, 2000, 3000 & JVC HD350 and zoomed with all of them. I know how variable the sharpness was between each of my AExxxx models (my AE2000 was the sharpest, then the AE3000 followed by my AE1000 which was 'blur city'







). I honestly wouldn't put my ISCO II in front of an AExxxx series, let alone the newer IIIL. While you may well get more accurate colours out of an AE4000 than with a HD350/550, there are more ways to achieve a good result (see link below). I also believe that it helps to have a pin sharp image before you put the lens in place, so at the least you'd need to select your AE4000 to find a good one judging on my experiences. If you just wanted to zoom and were lucky (or they have improved QC of the lens) then by all means give the AE4000 a go.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17424692 If you are quick.










While I've probably upset any AExxxx owners who may read this thread, I hope it's taken in context. I feel the AE3000/4000 is an _alternative_ to using a lens, not a supplement.


----------



## tbase1

A couple of pic.'s of the IIIL. I let my son hold it for about a good 5 seconds until he began to act like it was getting to heavy for him.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17496269
> 
> 
> 
> I wish my last name was lightfoot.



I'm in the UK and my Dad used to say we were descended from native Saskatchewan indians.










I've since done some family tree stuff and so far (back to early 1800) no Indian link.


Someone once told me the name originates from the name given to runners for the King which sounds kinda romantic, and so far that's probably more likely than the Saskatchewan link. It doesn't rain when I dance so I think that's the clincher.










This site is useful for finding out stuff like that too.

http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Lightfoot 


Cheers


Gary


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17496355
> 
> 
> A couple of pic.'s of the IIIL. I let my son hold it for about a good 5 seconds until he began to act like it was getting to heavy for him.



Looking forward in reading your impressions on the lens.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17496276
> 
> 
> So based on what you're saying I would be going back from the ruby to the ae4000? If that's the case it's now time to look JVC or SONY. I don't want to fork out more then $2,500 for one, so what would be the used bet in that price range?



IMHO yes.


I've tried the ISCO II in front of a JVC HD100 and it worked well, so your IIIL will be fine with the JVCs too. Some of the newer Sony's get good reviews though I've not seen them myself, but if you're not a DLP fan the the JVCs or Sonys should be a good bet. The vplhw10 is in your price range new I think but I've not seen one.


Gary


----------



## Art Sonneborn

When I pulled the ISCO III out of its box all I could think of was a line by Auric Goldfinger "_I love its color, its brilliance, its divine heaviness_" .










Art


----------



## tbase1

I think I pulled a Groin muscle lifting this thing. Seriously....I did..damn it, what else can go wrong today. Art you own me heath care for following your lead on this.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/17496402
> 
> 
> IMHO yes.
> 
> 
> I've tried the ISCO II in front of a JVC HD100 and it worked well, so your IIIL will be fine with the JVCs too. Some of the newer Sony's get good reviews though I've not seen them myself, but if you're not a DLP fan the the JVCs or Sonys should be a good bet. The vplhw10 is in your price range new I think but I've not seen one.
> 
> 
> Gary



The only reason i'm looking at the AE4000 is I put a bunch of jack in the IIIL because it was to good a deal to pass up, and I sold my Ruby. Maybe I'll dump some of my goodies I'm not using and up the budget to about

4k...which would put me in striking distance of a projector that's worrrthy of the IIIL.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17496418
> 
> 
> I think I pulled a Groin muscle lifting this thing. Seriously....I did..damn it, what else can go wrong today. Art you own me heath care for following your lead on this.



All I can do is straighten your teeth , sorry. Did you drop it on your face ?










Art


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17496472
> 
> 
> Maybe I'll dump some of my goodies I'm not using and up the budget to about 4k...which would put me in striking distance of a projector that's worrrthy of the IIIL.



Now that sounds like a plan.










Gary


----------



## elmalloc

Does anyone know where I might find a used ISCO3 lense? PM me if you know - not sure if I can afford an MSRP one at this time (or any competitor near that price, lol).


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17496495
> 
> 
> All I can do is straighten your teeth , sorry. Did you drop it on your face ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



Well...you already did that by taking the lead on this great lens.







As to the face.... That would be an improvement for me.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17496651
> 
> 
> Does anyone know where I might find a used ISCO3 lense? PM me if you know - not sure if I can afford an MSRP one at this time (or any competitor near that price, lol).



Bad news. Isco has announced a price increase on them. Everyone who has one, they appreciated (again). If tbase got one for under 2 (or 4) then whoever was selling didn't know what they had. MSRP on lens (only) is now $8913. Plus Multistand II is $630 (for use with a IscoScope/CineSlide), or $730 including tabletop base. And, the lens to stand adapter ring is another $167.














One woudl think that's too much but there's a waiting list to boot







. If tbases buddy has any more I'll take them










Fortunately AVS is a good resource for this problem.


----------



## tbase1




GetGray said:


> Bad news. Isco has announced a price increase on them. Everyone who has one, they appreciated (again). If tbase got one for under 2 (or 4) then whoever was selling didn't know what they had. MSRP on lens (only) is now $8913. Plus Multistand II is $630 (for use with a IscoScope/CineSlide), or $730 including tabletop base. And, the lens to stand adapter ring is another $167.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One woudl think that's too much but there's a waiting list to boot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . If tbases buddy has any more I'll take them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holly Cow Batman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's over 9k...... Now it's time to lock it up in it's metal case and up my home owner insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send the waiting list my way for that kind of jack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend knew what he had because he has one installed in his room. He's a highend installer that sets up ball player rooms, however, they might not know what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's a question for me and the forum, in light of what getgray said out the value of these lenses due a waiting list.
> 
> *Q) If you were me and you could sell the iscoIIIL and get a panasonic
> 
> AE4000 and 3k in cash would you Zoom or put 2k to your 2k budget and get a JVC or Sony Projector?*


----------



## GetGray

Well, fortunately for the savvy AVS customer they don't street for that. And used deflates it some more. Used is however very, very rare for one of these. But I was serious when I said if you didn't want it I'd be interested.


----------



## tbase1

Thanks for the offer, but I have to pass at this time. One of these days and hopefully sooner then later I'll get it setup. What have you found to be a good mid-range projector to pair with this lens? I sold my Ruby before I was able to setup the lens. It's still hanging in my room, but only until I receive payment for it from the buyer. That's the main reason why I've not set it up to date.


----------



## GetGray

Rs20+, but there are a lot of parameters to consider when selecting a projector that are out of scope of this thread. That lens will work with anything fine.


----------



## tbase1

Thanks for the information getgray.......I just finished my DIY manual sled. Not bad using two cabinet draw rails. I'm more interested in a fix lens setup, but thought I better give myself a out.


----------



## elmalloc

tbase knows i'd buy it off him first getgray, i don't care how famous you are - medina city enthuasiasts stick together!


Now way I'd pay 9K for a dumb lense and transport on my salary. Now what tbase paid for it used, certainly I'd consider it.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17499669
> 
> 
> tbase knows i'd buy it off him first getgray, i don't care how famous you are - medina city enthuasiasts stick together!
> 
> 
> Now way I'd pay 9K for a dumb lense and transport on my salary. Now what tbase paid for it used, certainly I'd consider it.





WOW







......now now gentleman I would have to consult my friend before I would sell this thing. He's been good to me over the years that I've been moving up in the home theater hobby and I would let him have it back before I go else where.







or split the additional dollars with him if I sold it to someone else.


----------



## tbase1

*Q) If you were me and you could sell the iscoIIIL and get a panasonic

AE4000 and 3k in cash would you Zoom or put 2k to your 2k budget and get a JVC or Sony Projector?*













































































[/quote]


Does anyone want to answer this question







...seeing that it's related to Art's orig. subject?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17497369
> 
> *Q) If you were me and you could sell the iscoIIIL and get a panasonic
> 
> AE4000 and 3k in cash would you Zoom or put 2k to your 2k budget and get a JVC or Sony Projector?*



Are you intentionally omitting DLP from your options?


Since you already have the ISCO, maybe consider the Epson 8500UB and Sony HW15, both should be 

But to answer your question, *I* would try to sell the ISCO at a profit and put the money towards only the AE4000 and save the extra for the next great projector breakthrough (LED?). Here's my reasoning - at this point in time, the Panny is the only projector that offers that same level of convenient AR changes as a lens system. Projectors that have better picture quality can be zoomed, but I think manual zooming will quickly become tiresome (especially if the projector is ceiling mounted and not easily accessible). So better projectors still need a lens or a scaler (shrink method) for convenient aspect ratio changes.


If you're concerned about the picture quality of the Panasonic vs the more expensive models (say the JVC RS15/HD550), that's a harder question to answer. To me, the higher picture quality doesn't outweigh the cost saving and convenience of the AE4000. However, is the AE4000 doesn't meet your threshold for picture quality, then it's a non starter. Ironically, because the Panny's smoothscreen results in a "softer*" picture, it actually doesn't benefit a great deal from the increased pixel density a lens provides, so you probably wouldn't miss a lens. However, the benefit may be more easily apparent with a sharper projector (think single chip DLP), so the lens may become more of a necessity with a more expensive projector.


* for perspective on Panny softness and other concerns, take a look at Joseph Clark's comparisons of the AE4000 vs the Sharp20k:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17479180 


Here's an excerpt:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joseph Clark* /forum/post/17479180
> 
> 
> ...Sharpness was a question mark for me initially, but that was because I had trouble focusing the Panasonic at first. I had to switch to my computer screen and focus on fine text. I then realized that the Panasonic was plenty sharp. I got up close, about a foot away. The pixel fill factor on the Panasonic was nearly perfect. With the sharp, each pixel has a black "square" around it. This might make the Sharp seem a little sharper, but that part of the perception is an illusion. I doubt any 3-chip design is going to beat the Sharp if you examine each pixel, but for all practical purposes, the Panasonic seems superbly sharp to me. Once I had the text focused on the computer screen, any misgivings I had about the Panasonic and the clarity of the Windows desktop evaporated...



Finally, to provide some context for my opinions, I am extremely budget conscious and have to weigh my desire for a great home theater with other desires (travel, remodelling kitchen, etc). If I had greater funding, I would have a lot more options, but my limited funding constrains me only to a few.


----------



## tbase1




ilsiu said:


> Are you intentionally omitting DLP from your options?
> 
> 
> No.....I have a low ceiling so I need lens shift for better placement and there's not a lot of DLP's with lens shift compared to LCD. Thanks for the thread link, I found that it was helpfull. My main concern was how soft smooth screen makes the image and if the company improved that issue with 4k.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17499810
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> *Q) If you were me and you could sell the iscoIIIL and get a panasonic
> 
> AE4000 and 3k in cash would you Zoom or put 2k to your 2k budget and get a JVC or Sony Projector?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone want to answer this question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...seeing that it's related to Art's orig. subject?
Click to expand...


There is no way I would change from a cylindrcial anamorphic lens


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17500591
> 
> 
> There is no way I would change from a cylindrcial anamorphic lens



100% spot on. I ain't selling mine


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Is the appreciation of the ISCO III due to the dollar or something else ?


Art


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17501665
> 
> 
> Is the appreciation of the ISCO III due to the dollar or something else ?
> 
> 
> Art



I think this is a supply side issue, however, lack of demand could impact the cost as well. ( not due to quality ) I don't think if there was a







exodus of scope customers buying these they would increase the price.







Don't let the zoomers hear about this, because they'll contribute the increase to zooming


----------



## elmalloc

I certainly won't think about affording an ISCO3 at that MSRP. I don't have a deck yet, i.e. there are other things I would rather have - lol. I'm sure it's all quality though. I wish I made enough to throw 10K around more than once a year.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17502475
> 
> 
> I certainly won't think about affording an ISCO3 at that MSRP. I don't have a deck yet, i.e. there are other things I would rather have - lol. I'm sure it's all quality though. I wish I made enough to throw 10K around more than once a year.



You might be better off going after the isco 2 given the price of the isco3. The CAVX, prismasonic, and the panamorh are also good lenses. I'll give a call to the highend AV store in medina to see if they have a line on a used or if they'll be willing to sell the isco3 they have on their runco 3chip DLP if you like. Who knows...they might want to sell it to you if you're very interested.


----------



## greg1292

Tbase1 congrats on your upgrade path!!!!! You sure troll for the deals! Maybe someday

you will have a picture better than my Zenith LC1200x. I would go dlp and keep the lens just my 2 crt sense!


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17501665
> 
> 
> Is the appreciation of the ISCO III due to the dollar or something else ?
> 
> 
> Art



The something else could be Schneider and their marketing strategies.


----------



## elmalloc

I noticed Schneider has upped their prices since the beginning of the year...


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17504883
> 
> 
> I noticed Schneider has upped their prices since the beginning of the year...



Well I'm glad I bought mine when I did.


----------



## tbase1

Franin,


getgray informed the forum of the increase and the waiting list. What lens do you have and how much did your lens increase? On another note.... the zoomers just ran a punt back for a touch down based on this increase, but they're still down 16 points.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17505154
> 
> 
> Franin,
> 
> 
> getgray informed the forum of the increase and the waiting list. What lens do you have and how much did your lens increase? On another note.... the zoomers just ran a punt back for a touch down based on this increase, but they're still down 16 points.



sorry read the question wrong that's why the edit.


I have the schnieder 1.33x lens I don't know how much it's gone up but if it's gone up for you guys it's sure going to go up for us.


----------



## GetGray

They all went up. Schneider and Isco.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17506045
> 
> 
> They all went up. Schneider and Isco.



Well Im definitley glad when I bought it


----------



## tbase1

Will the 3L work well with a DVDO VP50 fix lens setup? Does it work well with a stewart videomatte 200 1.8 gain scope screen? I have a lowly 8' scope screen, so is it better to use a min. or max throw with my setup?


----------



## Interleave

Franin,


May I be rude and ask where you bought the Schneider in Australia and what you paid for it. PM me if you like the details. I have found the dstributor in Victoria but have not had much info from them as yet. Similarly the ISCO supplier is amazingly cheap at $12999AUD


Regards

Arthur


----------



## elmalloc

I wonder if 13K AUD is a sarcastic cheap statement


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Interleave* /forum/post/17513226
> 
> 
> Franin,
> 
> 
> May I be rude and ask where you bought the Schneider in Australia and what you paid for it. PM me if you like the details. I have found the dstributor in Victoria but have not had much info from them as yet. Similarly the ISCO supplier is amazingly cheap at $12999AUD
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Arthur



Hi Arthur is that the ISCO III lens for that price? Because if it is they usually retail 18k for that lens. That's due to it's size I've been told over here.


----------



## thebland

Curious... What does an *ISCO III* go for these days (MSRP)?


----------



## elmalloc

it bumped to nearly 9K USD. Stupid rich.


----------



## R Harkness

Wow, that's a brutal price for the ISCO 3.


I was thinking at some point maybe I'd pick one up if I felt the need, but now I find myself very happy zooming and can't see ever paying that much for an A-lens.


----------



## elmalloc

Well, that's MSRP. =)


But yes, I agree, brutal. I mean at that price you better be pairing it wiht a projector in that range as well?


I sometimes think "wow, that guy spent 50K in his home theater!" then I realize - is that guy me, too?


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17513851
> 
> 
> it bumped to nearly 9K USD. Stupid rich.



Wow! I think when I bought mine, it was $6K MSRP. I paid a lot less, however.. (less than 2 years ago).


But look at the Euro. ~ $1.55 today. So, ISCO prices are up a bit and further increased by the failing dollar. I think the dollar was closer to $1.20 when I bought.


----------



## tbase1

I think it's a supply and demand issue more so then dollar vs Euro...... GetGray said it's a waiting list, so we can blame it on them. Hey Elmo...I'm glade I'm the smart middle class.







>


----------



## elmalloc

dang it obama get the dollar back up high again


----------



## tbase1

If the price continues to increase I think they will totally price these lenses out of the market. I also think they should come out with a sub 5k lens before zooming take them over.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17515505
> 
> 
> If the price continues to increase I think they will totally price these lenses out of the market. I also think they should come out with a sub 5k lens before zooming take them over.



If ISCO has a waiting list, then they may have priced themselves out of "a" market but not "the" market.


What is the MSRP on the ISCOIIIS or Schneider?

Those may be the higher value lenses for people if they are compatible with the projector.


Mike


----------



## elmalloc

Good questions, you can check schneider optics website for varying MSRPs. Their stuff seems to have jumped up quite a bit in price from earlier in the year from my little research...


I think some of us (myself included) push the limit to trying to get the nicer lenses, but there are many who purchase it and think nothing of the money. I know I'm part of the middle class crowd that gets made fun of for his projector costing the same as a kia...


ELmO


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/17515523
> 
> 
> If ISCO has a waiting list, then they may have priced themselves out of "a" market but not "the" market.
> 
> 
> What is the MSRP on the ISCOIIIS or Schneider?
> 
> Those may be the higher value lenses for people if they are compatible with the projector.
> 
> 
> Mike



I stand to be corrected...."A" market is right.


----------



## elmalloc

Did the audience for the market suddenly double in perceived value though? Because that's what seems to have happened in 2 years.


----------



## tbase1

Based on what the thread set out to acheive I think having a isco3L with auto sled gained the edge over zooming.







Which leads me to think it's best to keep my lens until zooming becomes the norm other then the exception and then I'll zoom.







Hell...by that time these lenses will be worth 13k or so.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

tbase....the only worry is who would we sell our lenses to if everyone is zooming by then.


----------



## elmalloc

How does zoom work if I'm already at max zoom on my PJ to get the largest picture? Am I misunderstanding zoom?


----------



## tbase1

At this present time this is zooming for me.







Don't hate the player...hate the game. I have not truly setup the lens...I just wanted to see how it would hang on my DIY sled.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5696/hpim0667copy.jpg


----------



## elmalloc

Which PJ is that, the JVC?


I'm still disappointed in your screen size, using an ISCO3 - I have a chance of pumping out 14+ ft! Give it here please. =(


----------



## tbase1

It's a Sony Ruby.... My room is 14'x25'. I had to frame around my ducts which prevented me from going larger.







Size only matters with somethings.


----------



## elmalloc

Haha!!


----------



## greg1292

Charles I didn't know you had a stalker on this thread


----------



## tbase1

Greg....I wonder what kind of image you would get if you could mod three 3L's to your CRT? 9" CRT with isco 3L lenses.


----------



## Interleave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17513669
> 
> 
> Hi Arthur is that the ISCO III lens for that price? Because if it is they usually retail 18k for that lens. That's due to it's size I've been told over here.



Franin,


That is for the ISCO III. Now I still find that price obscene ($12,999) at $18000 that you have been quoted is even more outrageous. I know its a precision piece of glass etc etc but I personally cannot justify spending anywhere near $13K for a lens. And before anyone jumps to conclusions its not a financial matter either. The time we would spend in the theatre would be no where near the value of appreciating the lens and its benefits. Some people call this a hobby others call it passion for me its more entertainment.


Do I see value in a lens yes I do. Is the lens around the $8K mark then lets talk. At the price of a small car I have troubles hanging it in the home theatre room.


I struggle to come to grips with all pricing on the lenses. It seems the limited market in Australia really gets hammered. If anything the only one that comes in close to the US pricing is the Prismasonic. Even the Panamorph fetches $9,300 retail. In all this I have left the Aussiemorph product out as Marks pricing is local and the global price is in line. Strange how it works one way but not the other ie exporting the product to US, US buyers see currency benefit and parity pricing going the other way though its not the same.


Enough of my ramblings







I can go on about luxury imported cars too but that will fall on deaf ears too unfortunately.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Interleave* /forum/post/17519502
> 
> 
> Franin,
> 
> 
> That is for the ISCO III. Now I still find that price obscene ($12,999) at $18000 that you have been quoted is even more outrageous.



Thats why I did not bother even talking to them about the Isco III.







I was quoted $12000 for the panamorph UH480 and the sled and for $2000 less I got the Schneider and the Kino Linear Sled


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17519892
> 
> 
> With that said and well i might add...... Is the lens companies driving people that would other wise buy a lens mad enough to zoom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a meeting with my HT contact today about them selling their 3L. I'm wondering if they know the price has increased.



I don't blame them, I mean the prices for these lenses is astronomical expensive. Not just lenses I might add in Australia its pre/pro, speakers etc we pay double sometimes triple. Interleave is right over here we get taken to the cleaners or raped as he chose to say it. I was asked by a member once here on the AVS who wanted to settle in Australia and asked how the prices of HT gear were and when I told him well he wasnt to pleased.


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17519904
> 
> 
> I don't blame them, I mean the prices for these lenses is astronomical expensive. Not just lenses I might add in Australia its pre/pro, speakers etc we pay double sometimes triple. Interleave is right over here we get taken to the cleaners or raped as he chose to say it. I was asked by a member once here on the AVS who wanted to settle in Australia and asked how the prices of HT gear were and when I told him well he wasnt to pleased.



I feel bad but at the same time smirk at this comment. This would be my main decision for not moving there then!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17520083
> 
> 
> I feel bad but at the same time smirk at this comment. This would be my main decision for not moving there then!



Don't blame you, you guys are lucky you also have a wider range of selction to choose from.


----------



## taffman

These lens prices are totally absurd, but no doubt their cost is the result of the microscopic market for them. Certainly nobody with any modicum of financial responsibility is going to pay this amount to get CIH, when zooming can acheive essentially the same thing at zero cost. No, the market for Isco A-lenses is now reduced to a miniscule number of extremely wealthy people, period. So clearly, if that is the market, you can pretty well name your price!


----------



## tbase1

Fellow members,


Being caught up in the fun of moment I broke a AVS rule. I can't speak to what that rule was because i'm not 100% exactly sure







, but none the less the rules are the rules and I can't complain because I loss a point and have been warned.


once again...I'm sorry










Tbase1


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> These lens prices are totally absurd, but no doubt their cost is the result of the microscopic market for them. Certainly nobody with any modicum of financial responsibility is going to pay this amount to get CIH, when zooming can acheive essentially the same thing at zero cost. No, the market for Isco A-lenses is now reduced to a miniscule number of extremely wealthy people, period. So clearly, if that is the market, you can pretty well name your price!



False.


----------



## JlgLaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/17515523
> 
> 
> .....What is the MSRP on the ISCOIIIS or Schneider?..............Mike




ISCO-III-S is $6,613

ISCO-III-L is $8,913


Schneider is:

$10,423 (XL)

$7,713 (M)

$4,750 (Original Cine-Digitar)


These prices are MSRP and Lens only, they do not include stands/mounts. Pricing continues to change based on many factors, but mostly cost of glass and dollar/euro exchange rate.



Jim


----------



## elmalloc

Schneider owns ISCO now, is this not correct?


Food for thought then - I wonder then, what Schneider thinks of their XL vs the ISCO3L - from various readings in AVS they seem to be similar in performance -- but for some reason not priced nearly the same.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> These lens prices are totally absurd, but no doubt their cost is the result of the microscopic market for them.



What a grossly ill informed assertion. The main price determinant is simply the manufacturing cost (including the huge cost of optical glass). High quality lenses take a long time to make and the process requires very skilled personnel. The link below gives some idea. The ISCOIII is far larger and therefore requires far more work. German production at this end of the market is the best in the game, and that costs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_wL...rom=PL&index=5 


The size of the market for anamorphic lenses has no real bearing on the price. The manufacturing process dictates that. Some brief research will show you exactly why that is, and there is no real prospect for change.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> Certainly nobody with any modicum of financial responsibility is going to pay this amount to get CIH, when zooming can acheive essentially the same thing at zero cost.



There is absolutely nothing financially irresponsible about purchasing an ISCOIII. Nor is there any in buying a $100k PJ or $300K HT audio. There are people here who, due to their own success, choose to enjoy HT to the fullest possible extent. It is not, in any way, irresponsible to do so if such is within ones means. People with large disposable incomes, who chose to spend some of it. pay huge amounts of tax and keep many people in employment, both of these benefit the economy greatly. I understand that the cost of an ISCOIII seems very significant to you, others may see it very differently.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> No, the market for Isco A-lenses is now reduced to a miniscule number of extremely wealthy people, period. So clearly, if that is the market, you can pretty well name your price!



You most certainly don't need to be "extremely wealthy" to buy an ISCOIII. You also cant simply name your price. The overall high end optical market determines that.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17524452
> 
> 
> Schneider owns ISCO now, is this not correct?
> 
> 
> Food for thought then - I wonder then, what Schneider thinks of their XL vs the ISCO3L - from various readings in AVS they seem to be similar in performance -- but for some reason not priced nearly the same.



The Cine Digitar XL is listed at over $10k. The Cine Digitar X is listed at $4750. The 1.25 XL is over $17k


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JlgLaw* /forum/post/17524044
> 
> 
> ISCO-III-S is $6,613
> 
> ISCO-III-L is $8,913
> 
> 
> Schneider is:
> 
> $10,423 (XL)
> 
> $7,713 (M)
> 
> $4,750 (Original Cine-Digitar)
> 
> 
> These prices are MSRP and Lens only, they do not include stands/mounts. Pricing continues to change based on many factors, but mostly cost of glass and dollar/euro exchange rate.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim



Thanks Jim I guess I did well then


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> These lens prices are totally absurd, but no doubt their cost is the result of the microscopic market for them. Certainly nobody with any modicum of financial responsibility is going to pay this amount to get CIH, when zooming can acheive essentially the same thing at zero cost. No, the market for Isco A-lenses is now reduced to a miniscule number of extremely wealthy people, period. So clearly, if that is the market, you can pretty well name your price!



When you said "acheive essentially the same thing" what exactly did you mean?


----------



## Franin

Thanks for that youtube video coldmachine, take 6 weeks to make one lens and the work that's involved is just amazing. Which company was that? I was watching it through my iPhone and did not see anything or hear which company.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17524686
> 
> 
> When you said "acheive essentially the same thing" what exactly did you mean?



He meant zooming can acheive exactly the same thing. Which then leads back to the zoom vs lens debate or go back to post #1 of this thread where Art asks if given one for free will you take it.


----------



## tbase1

I don't see where a plastic lens projector zooming can come anywhere close to acheiving the optic levels of a glass lens. Besides is not zooming spreading the beam. Is not Zero zooming or very limited zooming with a lens acheiving a sharper beam spot?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/17520327
> 
> 
> These lens prices are totally absurd,...Certainly nobody with any modicum of financial responsibility is going to pay this amount to get CIH, when zooming can acheive essentially the same thing at zero cost.



Zooming does not acieve the same thing (well _essentially_ may be in the eye of the zoomer). The financial responsibility is valid only if one is taking food from the table ,so to speak, to buy the ISCO III. If one has the discretionary income , it is no more irresponsible than any other high end purchase that provides real performance advantages.


Art


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17524843
> 
> 
> I don't see where a plastic lens projector zooming can come anywhere close to acheiving the optic levels of a glass lens. Besides is not zooming spreading the beam. Is not Zero zooming or very limited zooming with a lens acheiving a sharper beam spot?



What should be compared is the plastic lens zoomed out vs plastic lens + ISCO. Adding an ISCO in front of the projector doesn't improve the optical quality of the entire system, it just minimizes (perhaps eliminate) any further degradation.


In a zoom lens, the optical "sweet spot" is usually smack dab in the middle of the zoom range.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17524985
> 
> 
> What should be compared is the plastic lens zoomed out vs plastic lens + ISCO. Adding an ISCO in front of the projector doesn't improve the optical quality of the entire system, it just minimizes (perhaps eliminate) any further degradation.
> 
> 
> In a zoom lens, the optical "sweet spot" is usually smack dab in the middle of the zoom range.



Go back to the drawing board sport.....you need to do a little more home work regarding beam spot.







Are you trying to tell us that spreading the beam is better then throwing a image with zero to no zoom and a lens?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17525069
> 
> 
> Go back to the drawing board sport.....you need to do a little more home work regarding beam spot.



Ok.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17525069
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that spreading the beam is better then throwing a image with zero to no zoom and a lens?



Check out this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page3.asp 


This is a lens review of a typical consumer grade wide-to-mid-telephoto zoom lens (variable aperture). Set aperture to 5.6 and focal length to 85mm. MTF fall-off from center to corner is about 1125 to ~840. Set focal length to 50mm now. MTF is flat at 1125 from center to corner. Brightness uniformity is also better at 50mm vs 85.


So when I say that the telephoto end of the zoom range doesn't deliver the best optical quality, it's based on empirical data rather than optical theory (of which I have very little experience).


Based on general design principles, I would guess that the lens designer would want to have fairly flat performance across the zoom range; the customer needs to have a usable image at any point in the zoom range. Optimize for the telephoto end, and the wide end may look really bad, or vice versa. Better to optimize the center and suffer some small degradation at the end points.


----------



## tbase1

good post...I'm without words but not without lens.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17524452
> 
> 
> Schneider owns ISCO now, is this not correct?
> 
> 
> Food for thought then - I wonder then, what Schneider thinks of their XL vs the ISCO3L - from various readings in AVS they seem to be similar in performance -- but for some reason not priced nearly the same.



Isco makes glass for both. They are identical in (glass) size. They do have slightly different cases/bodies. They mount in the same adapter ring. Isco was quoted in a HT magazine as giving the nod to the Isco line as that line is reserved for their high end OEM customers like Runco, Sim2, DPI, CineSlide Manufacturer, etc. The Schneider line is available direct to the "dealer channel". To get an Isco, dealers need to go through an OEM like those above. I expect ther performance to be identical or slightly better on the Isco glass reserved for their bread and butter (OEM) customers.


AVS is a good source for competitive pricing on Isco. As with many high end products handled by AVS, I'd not let the MSRP's run anyone off.


----------



## tbase1

Do you have a another method of setting the 3L up besides what's on your companies site? The setup is not hard to follow, but I though you might have a easier setup.







One reason why is...some of the members that have this lens and the 2L could use some options to play with in our effort to setup our lenses correctly.








Also...I'm in a bind as to if I want to bother with a buyer for my sony ruby and move up/down to a ae4000 or just back out an setup my 3L on my sony.







Please advise....If you feel that you will offen the members by posting your answer, please PM me.










p.s it's killing me to not have my lens setup given what I've seen this lens do.










Thanks in advance tbase1


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17534690
> 
> 
> The setup is not hard to follow, but I though you might have a easier setup.



Yes, I put the hard way on the website and keep the easy way a secret.










Seriously, it is not that hard.


----------



## tbase1

GetGray/CAVX


What model isco lens is this and is it worth playing with?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17535705
> 
> 
> GetGray/CAVX
> 
> 
> What model isco lens is this and is it worth playing with?



Tbase1,


Might be an ISCO II.


----------



## tbase1

Is there a such thing as a isco 1?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17535929
> 
> 
> Is there a such thing as a isco 1?



Yes there is, however I've not seen an image to date. I do believe that it is a VC prism based lens.


----------



## tbase1

It looks like the isco 1 is a 4:3 to 16x9 lens. I wonder if that's the limit for this lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17534753
> 
> 
> Yes, I put the hard way on the website and keep the easy way a secret.










lol I like that!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17536591
> 
> 
> It looks like the isco 1 is a 4:3 to 16x9 lens. I wonder if that's the limit for this lens.



Actually, all 1.33x stretch anamorphic lenses are, including the ISCO III.


The only limit is the fact that it is 1.33x, so when using such a lens, 4 x 3 becomes 16:9 and 16:9 becomes what we know as Scope.


1.33 x 1.33 = 1.78

1.78 x 1.33 = 2.37


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17535705
> 
> 
> GetGray/CAVX
> 
> 
> What model isco lens is this and is it worth playing with?



That doesn't look at all like my Isco II, though I don't know what it is.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17536591
> 
> 
> It looks like the isco 1 is a 4:3 to 16x9 lens. I wonder if that's the limit for this lens.



That is the same 1.33 x increase so you can also use such a lens to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1. I know of users that had 4:3 projectors that used an Isco II to go to 16:9 same as I'm using mine to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17536934
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol I like that!



I liked that comment too.....it's not that it's hard, just take your time and go through each step a couple of times if neccesary. My more careful attempt on Friday seems to have optimised my lens setup, using the Cineslide information.....apart from me adding a bit of downward lens shift in my HD350 and then adjusting the Isco to compensate: This cured some 'ghosting/halo' effect I had on a bright 80 IRE window test pattern, though this could be unique to the Isco II/HD350 combo, it's worth looking for.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've just dug out a picture of my ISCO II when it was attached to my Optoma H78. It looks very similar to the ISCO I image you have there, except it doesn't have the mount. The thread on the rear is for screwing it into a mount - GetGrey has a myriad of those if you ask him nicely.










This is the second ISCO 'I' I've seen now and neither had a mount in the sale. I'm not sure what the difference between a I and II is but they look optically very similar judging by the pics, although the I appears to have less in the way of internals. If you can get it at a good price it might be worth playing with unless someone can dig out some definitive info.


Just found this:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=29070 



> Quote:
> I owned two ISCO and a Panamorph fluid lens. The ISCO I lens looked sharp, but it was not a perfect 1.33:1 proportion, the ISCO II lens that I had was the best one and it looked great. The Panamorph fluid lens was cool(I still have it) but it was a 2.35:1 lens, and when I moved to a native 16:9 projector I couldn't use it any more.



Not definitive but perhaps the ISCO I wasn't a perfect 1.33 lens (I seem to remember seeing a different ratio attributed to the I in the past - maybe 1.25) and the II is?


Gary


----------



## tbase1

Do you see this as a cost effective route in for a newbie to scope?


----------



## DaveUpton

That would depend on your budget and your definition of cost effective. The lens route is considered to be the "no hold barred" approach rather than the budget one generally.


----------



## tbase1

This is not for me...i have a lens. I'm just looking out for guys that want to go the lens route that might be very interested if these were doable. I paid 500 for my first lens, so I would guess around that range would be cost effective, however, one mans cost effective is anothers high end.


----------



## elmalloc

i wonder how that 500 lens performs


----------



## tbase1

It performed well for me...however, so does my 1998 Volvo wagon.


----------



## tbase1

WOW Ed.....That was fast...what went wrong with the lens?


----------



## tbase1

I just got finish setting up my 4k, vp50, and isco 3L. I wanted a fix lens setup and the below is how I have it setup now, so please give me your thought what I need to change for the given AR. Some say I should just dump the lens and use the auto AR of the projector and be done with it, but 4k auto AR is is zoom for the most part.


16x9 up5000 24fps > AVR > VP50 1080p 24fps AR 1.78 > 4k >3L in place (17' to 8' scope screen) VC

2.35 up5000 24fps > AVR > VP50 1080p 24fps AR 4.3 > 4k >3L in place (17' to 8' scope screen) VS


----------



## elmalloc

i wonder if after all these questions you will actually sit and watch movies on it or be here thinking about the next upgrade - lol


----------



## tbase1

Well wonder no more...... I'll never stop until I want to, and as far as watching movies concern..... I always watch movies. After all this is a tech. forum not a blog, so we will always ask questions and answer them to help our setup and help others with theirs.


----------



## elmalloc

it's meant as a joke, because I don't think I'm alone that I've probably spent more time in this forum than watching movies on my setup. well I was inactive on this forum for probably a year or so though once my theater was setup, but now that I reworked it I'm back too - HAHA!


I know one guy who is not into the electronics much at all though but watches 6 hours a day on his projector.


There is no end in sight for us unlike him.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I'm with you on this Elmalloc....I spend probably 20-30 hours plus a week on this and other AVforums and maybe 4 hours a week watching my PJ. If I wasn't so fussy about putting up my 'Tent' each time I watch I'd probably use it during the week, but my room is a light colour and no chance of painting it darker. I can't stand watching it looking all washed out without the tent, etc. I 'got away' with 7.1 speakers (including quite a big subwoofer that looks like an Oak table), building screen 'pelmet' (soffit) and painting the screen wall dark brown...anymore would be overstepping the mark in our living room I think.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> Some say I should use dump the lens



People who never had a personal encounter with an Isco III, obviously....










Vern


----------



## edfowler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17587323
> 
> 
> WOW Ed.....That was fast...what went wrong with the lens?



nothing wrong with the lens at all Tony. I think I just lost the fire for setting stuff up and tweaking it for the ultimate picture. the lens makes a beautiful picture. But I don't have the time or inclination to set everything up like it should be.


I'm just tired. I feel thin...sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.


Now that I've got the vc anamorphic lens I've always wanted I don't have the energy to use it.


It is an excellent lens though.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/17589149
> 
> 
> People who never had a personal encounter with an Isco III, obviously....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vern



Sorry about the fat finger, but I meant to say "people say i should just dump the IIIL." However, you're right....they never saw a IIIL in action...it's something to behold.


----------



## tbase1

which one of you guys bought the isco IIIL off videogon?


----------



## elmalloc

when was there an isco3 on vgon? HAR!


----------



## mlang46




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17472497
> 
> 
> Imagine having the ability to focus your image across the whole screen and top and bottom. Also the optics used are from the highest quality which also counts when it comes to pq, that's the beauty of a cylindrical. When I move from prism to cylindrical the difference was night and day.



I own the 480 and it does not degrade the image at all , so I do not see the advantage of a cylindrical system over the 480 except for size and weight


Still I agree with Greg Rogers if you can zoom to fill the screen zoom.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlang46* /forum/post/17602805
> 
> 
> I own the 480 and it does not degrade the image at all , so I do not see the advantage of a cylindrical system over the 480 except for size and weight
> 
> 
> Still I agree with Greg Rogers if you can zoom to fill the screen zoom.



I guess what ever makes you happy. If you prefer zoom than zoom.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17589963
> 
> 
> Sorry about the fat finger, but I meant to say "people say i should just dump the IIIL." However, you're right....they never saw a IIIL in action...it's something to behold.



Yeah they say dump it so they can pick it up for a good price.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlang46* /forum/post/17602805
> 
> 
> I own the 480 and it does not degrade the image at all , so I do not see the advantage of a cylindrical system over the 480 except for size and weight



Size and weight? The ISCO III is 6" and about 20 pounds











> Quote:
> Still I agree with Greg Rogers if you can zoom to fill the screen zoom.



And there it right there for prism Vs cylindrical. If you agree with someone that says zooming is best, then I think you need to see a cylindrcial in action. Only a cylindrical lens will deliver a truely 'transparent' image so that if there was an issue with PQ, the only issue might be a scaling scaling artifact (scaler pending). Once dialed in, it won't be an optical issue.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17610147
> 
> 
> size and weight? The isco iii is 6" and about 20 pounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it right there for prism vs cylindrical. If you agree with someone that says zooming is best, then i think you need to see a cylindrcial in action. Only a cylindrical lens will deliver a truely 'transparent' image so that if there was an issue with pq, the only issue might be a scaling scaling artifact (scaler pending). Once dialed in, it won't be an optical issue.



+1


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17610147
> 
> 
> And there it right there for prism Vs cylindrical. If you agree with someone that says zooming is best, then I think you need to see a cylindrcial in action. Only a cylindrical lens will deliver a truely 'transparent' image so that if there was an issue with PQ, the only issue might be a scaling scaling artifact (scaler pending). Once dialed in, it won't be an optical issue.



Is this only valid for the ISCO III or also the Schneider and ISCO II lenses? (Besides a bit larger distortion (pincushion) due to the lenses being smaller)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/17610281
> 
> 
> Is this only valid for the ISCO III or also the Schneider and ISCO II lenses? (Besides a bit larger distortion (pincushion) due to the lenses being smaller)



That 6" refers the ISCO III's diameter, so it is actually way bigger than most lenses on the market.


The pincushion only increases as the TR decreases. Pincushion is a biproduct of anamorphic horizontal expansion lenses, therefore a prism lens and a cylindrical lens of the same expansion that are both used on the same screen at the same TR will exhibit the same amount of pincushion.


The advantage of a cylindrical lens over a prisms lens is that the elements of the cylindrical lens are true lenses. They have focal lengths. Prisms do not.


The mechanics of all cylindrical lenses allow the anamorphic lens to have adjustable astigmatism correction. This is where you are able to reduce or expand the air gap between the lenses. Therefore it is possible to focus the cylindrcial lens to be razor sharp from corner to corner at any throw in the lenses' opperating range. Prisms lenses tend to focus only in one plain at one time.


As mentioned, prisms lenses don't have focus lengths because the prisms themselves have flat surfaces. Additional elements are needed to correct for astigmatism, grid distortion etc. The limit with the current multi element prism designs is that these corrective elements are single. There is no point in making them moveable as there is no corrosponding lens to interact with.


Therefore they have an optimum 'sweet' spot and whilst they work outside that point, they will never be as sharp.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/17610281
> 
> 
> Is this only valid for the ISCO III or also the Schneider and ISCO II lenses? (Besides a bit larger distortion (pincushion) due to the lenses being smaller)



The Schneider will also deliver a truly 'transparent' image and as Mark said if there was an issue with PQ, the only issue will be a scaling artifact (Which I bought a DVDO DUO for. I wasn't happy with the VS mode in the JVC). Again I agree with Mark once dialed in, its definitely not an optical issue especially with the Schneider and the ISCO.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17610431
> 
> 
> That 6" refers the ISCO III's diameter, so it is actually way bigger than most lenses on the market.



I was referring to the ISCO II and Schneider being smaller than the ISCO III.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17610431
> 
> 
> The pincushion only increases as the TR decreases. Pincushion is a biproduct of anamorphic horizontal expansion lenses, therefore a prism lens and a cylindrical lens of the same expansion that are both used on the same screen at the same TR will exhibit the same amount of pincushion.



I think I'm getting confused by contradicting information. What do you say of the following?










"_The difference between these is that the ISCO 3 is larger, giving it a larger aperture and therefore meaning it suffers less from pincushion_"

http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/browse.a...ufacturer=ISCO 


This is an old comment by Alan Gouger:


"_Pincushion from the Isco 3 measure less then 1" on an 8 foot wide image.

I think Dennis Erskine can back me up on this as well as Jim Burns from Runco.

The Isco 2 has noticeable pincushion_."

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...d.php?t=530423 

post #12


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/17610597
> 
> 
> I was referring to the ISCO II and Schneider being smaller than the ISCO III.



Which Schnieder? Have you seen their XL? It is some 8" in dia. I'm guessig your referring to the CineDigitar which is a commonly used lens.

The ISCO II is not the same as the ISCO III as the II will change the height of the image when the lens is moved in or out of the light path.



> Quote:
> I think I'm getting confused by contradicting information. What do you say of the following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_The difference between these is that the ISCO 3 is larger, giving it a larger aperture and therefore meaning it suffers less from pincushion_"
> 
> www.stoneaudio.co.uk/browse.asp?manufacturer=ISCO



The II's lenses are sperical/cylindrical where the III is a true cylindrical. The III is also much larger and therefore your beam is more centred than it is with the smaller lenses. This could contribute to having less pincushion.




> Quote:
> This is an old comment by Alan Gouger:
> 
> 
> "_Pincushion from the Isco 3 measure less then 1" on an 8 foot wide image.
> 
> I think Dennis Erskine can back me up on this as well as Jim Burns from Runco.
> 
> The Isco 2 has noticeable pincushion_."
> 
> http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...d.php?t=530423
> 
> post #12



Again, pending the TR. If one lens is used at 1.3 and the other at 2.5, the the longer throw will have less pincusion on the same screen. If the III does have less pincusion at the same TR as the II, then I would base that on the grounds that the III has true cylindrial optics and not hybrid.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17610692
> 
> 
> Which Schnieder? Have you seen their XL? It is some 8" in dia. I'm guessig your referring to the CineDigitar which is a commonly used lens.
> 
> 
> The ISCO II is not the same as the ISCO III as the II will change the height of the image when the lens is moved in or out of the light path.



Yea, I was referring to the Cinedigitar. Mind you I haven't seen one in reality.


I'm on the way of acquiring an ISCO II and am just wondering what I can expect. I assume that I need a long throw to accommodate the beam in the smaller aperture, say >2.0. A bit smaller depth of focus and larger pincushion might also be expected compared to the III, or? Should be solvable with a curved screen if it's too noticeable.


The slight vertical zoom doesn't bother me much as I plan to keep the lens in place also in 16:9 mode. At least most of the time. If I watch a soccer game and it's clearly sharper without the lens I could decide to move it out of the way and re-zoom/focus for the big games.


Do you know any other differences? More CA, less light, less sharp? Would there be a very noticeable difference in video material assuming a 1-chip DLP?


I can just add that the III is WAY out of my budget. My maximum stretch would be a Panamorph UH480. Do you have any idea how it would compare to the ISCO II?


Thanks!


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Hi Drexler, I use my Isco II at a throw of 2.7 and only have slight pincushion onto a flat 112" wide 2.35:1 screen. Being able to dial in the astigmatism has given me an image that seems just as sharp from seating position as without the lens (only going right up to the screen shows very slight 'fringing' on the sides when I project a white squares test pattern from my HD350's service menu).


If you can 'only' afford an Isco II, then I'd still say give it a try if your throw is around 2.0, they seem quite well sought after secondhand so you'll not be likely to lose money if you do sell it on.


Just to add to the scaler comments above, I've tried my HD350's V-stretch (which is a bit of a faff getting into the various menus anyway) using test patterns and my Lumagen HDQ seems to do a better job anyway. It is a one button AR change (if I leave the lens in place for squeezed 16:9) so that suits my lazy viewing mode.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17611300
> 
> 
> Hi Drexler, I use my Isco II at a throw of 2.7 and only have slight pincushion onto a flat 112" wide 2.35:1 screen. Being able to dial in the astigmatism has given me an image that seems just as sharp from seating position as without the lens (only going right up to the screen shows very slight 'fringing' on the sides when I project a white squares test pattern from my HD350's service menu).



Wow, that's a long throw. I'm without projector at the moment but I'm aiming for a DLP (Infocus SP8602/Planar PD8150/or the like). However, DLPs usually don't offer longer throws than 2.2. Besides, it isn't likely I would have the space for that kind of throw anyway. I don't know for sure what I could accommodate as I'm looking for a new apartment as well.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17611300
> 
> 
> If you can 'only' afford an Isco II, then I'd still say give it a try if your throw is around 2.0, they seem quite well sought after secondhand so you'll not be likely to lose money if you do sell it on.



That's what I was thinking. I'm getting it at a good price and they are quite rare so I thought I'll better take the opportunity even though I can't use it at the moment. And as you say, if I'm not able to use it I'll probably be able to get the money back if I sell it.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/17610814
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know any other differences? More CA, less light, less sharp? Would there be a very noticeable difference in video material assuming a 1-chip DLP?



One thing I did learn through experience is that a properly dialed in cylindrical lens will show the limtations of the projector. My anamorphic lens just stretches all light by 1.33x and this includes the CA of the projectors lens. I have a BenQ W5000 and whilst I think that projector represented good value for money, I really can not wait for an upgrade now.





> Quote:
> I can just add that the III is WAY out of my budget. My maximum stretch would be a Panamorph UH480. Do you have any idea how it would compare to the ISCO II?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



The ISCO II may change the height, however if your leaving it in place, that won't matter and it has continiously adjustable astigmatism correction allowing you to bring both H and V lines into focus at the same time.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17610147
> 
> 
> Size and weight? The ISCO III is 6" and about 20 pounds



Weight is right at 11lbs. 13 with lens mount.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17610163
> 
> 
> +1



+2


Just got back from my mother in-laws for thanksgiving...WOW







I can't remember the last time I went somewhere without internet service. However, tomorrow i'm going to do a total redo of the vp50, 4k, and 3L.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17587789
> 
> 
> Well wonder no more...... I'll never stop until I want to, and as far as watching movies concern..... I always watch movies. After all this is a tech. forum not a blog, so we will always ask questions and answer them to help our setup and help others with theirs.



I watch a movie a night.I'm done upgrading for the time being.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17620659
> 
> 
> I watch a movie a night.I'm done upgrading for the time being.



I'm finish for the time being as well, however, I'm tweaking my current setup to dial as much out of it as i canand make it easy for the family when I'm traveling. Do you move the lens for scope or do you go to to 4:3 and keep the lens in place? The below is my choices if anyone wants to add value.

FIXED LENS SETUP


1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)


2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)


3. UP5000> AVR> VP50(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)


4. UP5000> AVR> VP50(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)


LENS SLED SETUP


5. Same as #1


6. UP5000> AVR> 4K(16X9)> SLED> scope screen (scope content)


7. Same as #3


8. UP5000> AVR> VP50(16X9)> SLED> scope screen (scope content)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17622110
> 
> FIXED LENS SETUP
> 
> 
> 1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)
> 
> 
> 2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> 3. UP5000> AVR> VP50(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)
> 
> 
> 4. UP5000> AVR> VP50(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)



Tbase1,


Should line 1 not read:


1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(Zoom1)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)


and line 2 read:


2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (16:9 content)



And why would you need lines 3 and 4?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17623487
> 
> 
> And why would you need lines 3 and 4?



To compare scaling in the projector vs the VP50's scaling?


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17623487
> 
> 
> Tbase1,
> 
> 
> Should line 1 not read:
> 
> 
> 1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(Zoom1)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> and line 2 read:
> 
> 
> 2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (16:9 content)
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you need lines 3 and 4?



Line 1 is none zoom. The 3L handles the 16x9 contant with the projector set to S16x9.


HogPilot answered why I need lines 3 and 4. I own the vp50 , so it's no big deal if I keep it or sale. I just wanted to ask guys that have one if they think it' worth keeping or not.... Giving how far projector scalers have come.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17623487
> 
> 
> Tbase1,
> 
> 
> Should line 1 not read:
> 
> 
> 1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(Zoom1)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> and line 2 read:
> 
> 
> 2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (16:9 content)
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you need lines 3 and 4?



Line 1 is none zoom. The 3L handles the 16x9 contant with the projector set to S16x9.


HogPilot answered why I need lines 3 and 4. I own the vp50 , so it's no big deal if I keep it or sale it. I just wanted to ask guys that have one if they think it' worth keeping or not.... Giving how far projector scalers have come.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17623487
> 
> 
> Tbase1,
> 
> 
> Should line 1 not read:
> 
> 
> 1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(Zoom1)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> and line 2 read:
> 
> 
> 2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (16:9 content)
> 
> 
> 
> And why would you need lines 3 and 4?



Line 1 is none zoom. The 3L handles the 16x9 contant with the projector set to S16x9.


HogPilot answered why I need lines 3 and 4. I own the vp50 , so it's no big deal if I keep it or sale it. I just wanted to ask guys that have one if they think it's worth keeping or not giving how far projector scalers have come.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17623968
> 
> 
> Line 1 is none zoom. The 3L handles the 16x9 contant with the projector set to S16x9.
> 
> 
> HogPilot answered why I need lines 3 and 4. I own the vp50 , so it's no big deal if I keep it or sale it. I just wanted to ask guys that have one if they think it's worth keeping or not giving how far projector scalers have come.



Seems you have an echo Tbase1. Sorry, don't know how I missed the VP50 part










Isn't S16:9 simply the small zoom? If you used that with the lens and no VP, would the image not be over stretched?


----------



## tbase1

I use S6:9 instead of touch up zooming.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17625754
> 
> 
> I use S6:9 instead of touch up zooming.



Tbase, so could you set the16:9 and 16:9s to cover the small (4%) difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1? Or if your not that "C Type", then use 16:9 to fill in the odd ball ARs like 2.20:1?


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17625783
> 
> 
> Tbase, so could you set the16:9 and 16:9s to cover the small (4%) difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1? Or if your not that "C Type", then use 16:9 to fill in the odd ball ARs like 2.20:1?



yes....the way I use the two is to handle the difference for the most part. I'm also looking to program the auto AR so that I can handle a fix lens setup without moving the lens. This is something that I've always done with my prismasonic V1000/V500 lens. If the setup works like I want with the PQ of a scaler...I'll get rid of my VP50, which is the reason why I posted my setup on my post yesterday and asked for comments or thoughts.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17622110
> 
> 
> I'm finish for the time being as well, however, I'm tweaking my current setup to dial as much out of it as i canand make it easy for the family when I'm traveling. Do you move the lens for scope or do you go to to 4:3 and keep the lens in place? The below is my choices if anyone wants to add value.
> 
> FIXED LENS SETUP
> 
> 
> 1. UP5000> AVR> 4K(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)
> 
> 
> 2. UP5000> AVR> 4K(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> 3. UP5000> AVR> VP50(16x9)> 3L> scope screen (16x9 content)
> 
> 
> 4. UP5000> AVR> VP50(4:3)> 3L> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> LENS SLED SETUP
> 
> 
> 5. Same as #1
> 
> 
> 6. UP5000> AVR> 4K(16X9)> SLED> scope screen (scope content)
> 
> 
> 7. Same as #3
> 
> 
> 8. UP5000> AVR> VP50(16X9)> SLED> scope screen (scope content)



I move it for 16x9 content, I prefer to watch it without having to scale it to 4:3.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17632033
> 
> 
> I move it for 16x9 content, I prefer to watch it without having to scale it to 4:3.



It's with scope movies that i need to use the lens and 4:3AR.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17632461
> 
> 
> It's with scope movies that i need to use the lens and 4:3AR.



Im aware of the scope films for the lens but if you can ever get a slide, like the cineslide you wont have to change AR to 4:3.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17632494
> 
> 
> Im aware of the scope films for the lens but if you can ever get a slide, like the cineslide you wont have to change AR to 4:3.



your right...i have a DIY manual slide, but wanted to get out of moving the lens if I could....that's why I go to 4:3 for scope movies.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17633019
> 
> 
> your right...i have a DIY manual slide, but wanted to get out of moving the lens if I could....that's why I go to 4:3 for scope movies.



You mean 4:3 for 16x9 movies. Have you ever looked at getting an automated one?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17634061
> 
> 
> You mean 4:3 for 16x9 movies. Have you ever looked at getting an automated one?



He is in the process of correcting that right Tbase1?


----------



## GetGray

I'll fix him up. No sense having a Ferrari and not getting good tires for it.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17692662
> 
> 
> I'll fix him up. No sense having a Ferrari and not getting good tires for it.


----------



## tbase1

I know it's sad to have a ferrari and only go 50mph on a 65mph road.









Well.... here is to start of the fix.


1. move the projector to a 14'TR

2. move front row to 9' VD

3. move second row to 16' VD

4. move bistro table and chair behind second row


I know 13.2' was the ideal location, but I needed the additional foot to get the projector and lens out of the way of traffic. I also have a low ceiling so that's a bigger reason..in addition to the flatform. With my room being 14' x 25' i could have a third row instead of the bistro table, but I like to eat and watch a movie, but I could always build a sofa table behind the third row.







FYI.....8' is it for me on screen size due to my heating duct suffit.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17693650
> 
> 
> I like to eat and watch a movie



Get yourself a few "stable tables". They are great and I use them all the time whilst eating and watching


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17697006
> 
> 
> "stable tables"



???


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17697072
> 
> 
> ???



They must be another cool aussie invention then










A Stable Table is like a tray that has a small bean bag attached to the bottom. You sit with the stable table on your lap and the beans in the bag mold to the shape of your legs and the whole device becomes stable.


----------



## tbase1





































: WHAT DO YOU KNOW......YOU GUYS ARE THE MEN!










After starting all over again like you guys said and throwing a 16:9 image

(hd-dvd visions of the sea), on the scope screen, with projectors lens only, in 16:9 mode, with the image centered, with even bars on the sides, then moving the lens in front..holly cow. After I re-setup the lens according to getgrays instructions....my image brightness and image is killer.







Then I changed the movie to the 5th. element, and I change the AR in the panasonic 4k to V-FIT and oh my god







I need to check my shorts, because the movie looks like I put on 3-d glasses. Now here's the golden part of the install for me. I not have a 10' VD to the 1st. row and a 15' VD to the 2nd. and a 18' VD to my dinner plate.







But all is not without a question. I hear the best way to setup the lenses is to get as close to the projector lens as you can. I was about 1/2" away before, but because of the angle irons I brought to mount my lens sled is smooth only on one side, I had to mount the lens about 3" away. I'm going to pick up different angle irons tomorrow to get closer, but my question is should I?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17698124
> 
> 
> I'm going to pick up different angle irons tomorrow to get closer, but my question is should I?



"My Angle Iron isn't smooth"??!!














Angle Iron!!??? Near an Isco??? tsk tsk. Move up man. Pimp that Isco. It's hurting me. We've got to get you on a B stock transport anyway...


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17697466
> 
> 
> They must be another cool aussie invention then



yep. I found... http://www.stabletable.co.uk/ ... which, I was having a hard time figuring out how you ate off of







You did say "get a few" so I was wondering ...


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17698211
> 
> 
> "My Angle Iron isn't smooth"??!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angle Iron!!??? Near an Isco??? tsk tsk. Move up man. Pimp that Isco. It's hurting me. We've got to get you on a B stock transport anyway...



Okay... I'll come clean..it's shelf brackets that's turned around to be able to mount them to my joist.







I went with hub caps instead of rims on my ferrari







They spin, shine, and most of all.... I can change them out when I want a new look.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17698352
> 
> 
> Okay... I'll come clean..it's shelf brackets that's turned around to be able to mount them to my joist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went with hub caps instead of rims on my ferrari
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They spin, shine, and most of all.... I can change them out when I want a new look.



what remote would you be using Tbase to automate your slide?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17698124
> 
> 
> I hear the best way to setup the lenses is to get as close to the projector lens as you can. I was about 1/2" away before, but because of the angle irons I brought to mount my lens sled is smooth only on one side, I had to mount the lens about 3" away. I'm going to pick up different angle irons tomorrow to get closer, but my question is should I?



Glad to hear this is all working for you, so your welcome










I would mount the lens closer if possible.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/17698846
> 
> 
> what remote would you be using Tbase to automate your slide?



I built a manual sled out of draw rails, but I'm now setup 100% in place.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17704179
> 
> 
> I built a manual sled out of draw rails, but I'm now setup 100% in place.



That's great news!


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17698999
> 
> 
> Glad to hear this is all working for you, so your welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would mount the lens closer if possible.



I'm truly happy with my setup now.... I moved the lens within 1/2" of the projectors lens and all i can say is THANK YOU GUYS AGAIN. I don't know why I was stuck on the VC lens setup, but thanks to you and the team the lights came on and the rest is history. Anyone that think that zooming is better........reaaaaaly need to see one of these lens setup right. Truly a work of art.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17704684
> 
> 
> Anyone that think that zooming is better........reaaaaaly need to see one of these lens setup right. Truly a work of art.



Too true.


----------



## tbase1

The one thing I notice about the 3L is if you setup your projector with zero or very little zoom and fit the lens as close as you can to the projectors lens and make sure you center the projectors lens in the middle of the 3L, the image is spot on. Sometimes you might have to tilt the 3L a little, but that's common.


----------



## Franin

Wishing you all a merry Christmas


----------



## tbase1

All I told my wife I wanted for christmas is " piece and happiness" Give me a piece and I'll be happy.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17777901
> 
> 
> All I told my wife I wanted for christmas is " piece and happiness" Give *he* a piece and I'll be happy.



Is *he* a nice guy?


Nice to see gay marriages being celebrated on AVS.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17777928
> 
> 
> Is *Me* a nice guy?
> 
> 
> Nice to see gay marriages being celebrated on AVS.




My bad...ME


----------



## CAVX

Merry Christmas all you CIH'ers (including the zoomers







) and have a happy New Year.


----------



## zamboniman

May lenses be in all your stockings!


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17780601
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas all you CIH'ers (including the zoomers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and have a happy New Year.



It must be Christmas if you include the zoomers







(I've been both sides this year and in this thread anyway







) Congrats on the Mk4 too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zamboniman* /forum/post/17782657
> 
> 
> May lenses be in all your stockings!



I'm still waiting to receive my Isco III and sled from Art....I've bought my own Isco II for while I'm waiting for it to arrive.










Mery Christmas to you all.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17782687
> 
> 
> It must be Christmas if you include the zoomers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I've been both sides this year and in this thread anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) Congrats on the Mk4 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to receive my Isco III and sled from Art....I've bought my own Isco II for while I'm waiting for it to arrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mery Christmas to you all.



I hope you get your 3L...you have been one of it's bigger backers. I have a line on one, so what do you think the best asking price for one would be? I have one, so it's not for me.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17786452
> 
> 
> I hope you get your 3L...you have been one of it's bigger backers. I have a line on one, so what do you think the best asking price for one would be? I have one, so it's not for me.



Thanks tbase1.....santa didn't bring a 'III but I think I can live with my 'II for a long while yet. I'm getting the very best out of it in my setup so I can't complain.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17782687
> 
> 
> Congrats on the Mk4 too.



Thank you








I'm loving it


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17782687
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to receive my Isco III and sled from Art....



Sorry ,the name of the thread was not "when Art gives you his ISCO III and sled".










Art


----------



## tbase1

A man is not old until regrets start taking the place of dreams...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17789111
> 
> 
> Sorry ,the name of the thread was not "when Art gives you his ISCO III and sled".



What do they call that? Chinese whispers?


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/17789111
> 
> 
> Sorry ,the name of the thread was not "when Art gives you his ISCO III and sled".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



I'm sure I've been tricked in some way, just like the small print on a warranty I had once.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17792882
> 
> 
> I'm sure I've been tricked in some way, just like the small print on a warranty I had once.



Art has played no tricks here. I have found the replies to the intitial post intersting to say the least.


----------

