# Anamorphic lens shootout?



## Greg_R

Has anyone done a real side-by-side shootout between various anamorphic lenses? I have only seen the lower end prism based units and am wondering if the high end options are really worth the added expense? What about comparing cylindrical lenses (Schneider vs ISCOIII, etc.).


----------



## scottyb

I think this has been asked before and it has not been done.

I think there ends up being two choices. Buy cheaper and save the $$ and deal with the issues or go above the $1500 mark or so and have most of the issues gone.

It just depends on your budget. If the more expensive lens is a stretch(pun intended) then just go with the more economical lens and put the $$ somewhere else in your theater.


It sound like the Aussie III may be a compromise but I have not seen one.


Scott


----------



## hdblu

I will post Pix if this start up


----------



## stanger89

I could have sworn Alan did one a while ago, but this is all I could find:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...light=pictures 


He's got one for the Prismasonic HT5000 too.


Ah, here it is, in the archives:
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...d.php?t=406915


----------



## zamboniman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16490024
> 
> 
> I could have sworn Alan did one a while ago, but this is all I could find:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...light=pictures
> 
> 
> He's got one for the Prismasonic HT5000 too.
> 
> 
> Ah, here it is, in the archives:
> http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...d.php?t=406915



Think it's time for this shootout to be refreshed and done again

Panamorph 480, Prismasonic 5000, ISCOIII, Schneider M(the new bigger one)


I have a feeling that gap has narrowed quite a bit.. almost to the point of picking lens based on aperature required and/or if you want the last 5% of performance..


but that's pure speculation on my part


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zamboniman* /forum/post/16490230
> 
> 
> Think it's time for this shootout to be refreshed and done again
> 
> Panamorph 480, Prismasonic 5000, ISCOIII, Schneider M(the new bigger one)
> 
> 
> I have a feeling that gap has narrowed quite a bit.. almost to the point of picking lens based on aperature required and/or if you want the last 5% of performance..
> 
> 
> but that's pure speculation on my part



Sounds good.

What parameters would you check in the designed shootout/trial?

Who is going to finance it?

Votes for AVS?

















Mike


----------



## pocoloco

This has not been done before. Cine4home mentioned doing one but never followed through. Maybe it's still in the works? Here are the test parameters I offered in that thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15061143 


I'd love to do a local shootout in chicago to test out different lens and zoom vs. lens.


Things we'd need for a quick and dirty test:


- 1 projector with large zoom range (preferably more than 2.0) and lens shift. I'm thinking a JVC RSXX/HDXX

- Panamorph 380/480 lens

- Isco 3 lens


With that we can probably test out different configurations, takes pics and report back. I'm over simplifying here but it'd be pretty cool to get some local folks together and do some kind of shoot out.


----------



## phansson

Just get Brainsturgeon to do one. He has a 480 and an ISCO III at the moment. I think he has a Marantz projector.


----------



## GetGray

If you are going to do a test, you need to use a PJ with razor sharp focus and higher quality optics. You want to start with high MTF. A top of the line single chip DLP would be my recommendation or similar. Not an LCOS. Nothing that can have any convergence issues to start with. Nothing that has any CA to start with.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16493567
> 
> 
> If you are going to do a test, you need to use a PJ with razor sharp focus and higher quality optics. You want to start with high MTF. A top of the line single chip DLP would be my recommendation or similar. Not an LCOS. Nothing that can have any convergence issues to start with. Nothing that has any CA to start with.



The Marantz 11s2 (which Brainsturgeon is currently using) meets all of your criteria, so he indeed is the best candidate to run a shootout


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/16493659
> 
> 
> The Marantz 11s2 (which Brainsturgeon is currently using) meets all of your criteria, so he indeed is the best candidate to run a shootout



I don't know where he lives, but I would almost fly to the shootout. His system is pretty solid. Wait until he get in his new Sim projector....


----------



## pocoloco

The 11s2 only has a 1.45x zoom lens. The reason I suggested the RSXX projectors is that it has a 2x zoom and it would be much more telling how lenses perform relative to throw distances. If someone has a single chip DLP with a large throw range, that'd be even better. But beggars can't be choosers... if someone offered to do these tests with ANY pj, I'd be happy.


----------



## GetGray

Not to go OT, but how did you adjust the lens yaw (left/right pointing angle) on the mount? Don't see any way to do it. I presume you just used what you had and just move the lens left-right without being able to point precisely.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/16492442
> 
> 
> This has not been done before. Cine4home mentioned doing one but never followed through. Maybe it's still in the works? Here are the test parameters I offered in that thread.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15061143
> 
> 
> I'd love to do a local shootout in chicago to test out different lens and zoom vs. lens.
> 
> 
> Things we'd need for a quick and dirty test:
> 
> 
> - 1 projector with large zoom range (preferably more than 2.0) and lens shift. I'm thinking a JVC RSXX/HDXX
> 
> - Panamorph 380/480 lens
> 
> - Isco 3 lens
> 
> 
> With that we can probably test out different configurations, takes pics and report back. I'm over simplifying here but it'd be pretty cool to get some local folks together and do some kind of shoot out.



Nice.









I would add Schneider and another prism based lens in for a more broad overview; however this would be helpful for people to look at a-lens in various "classes".


Thanks.


Mike


----------



## cal87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16495970
> 
> 
> Not to go OT, but how did you adjust the lens yaw (left/right pointing angle) on the mount? Don't see any way to do it. I presume you just used what you had and just move the lens left-right without being able to point precisely.



The attachment between the motorized transport and AK mounting plate allows a little amount of rotation to accomplish that.


----------



## brain sturgeon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cal87* /forum/post/16496536
> 
> 
> The attachment between the motorized transport and AK mounting plate allows a little amount of rotation to accomplish that.



Scott,


Cal beat me to it. The p380 mounting plate (now the AKX mounting plate) has a series of mounting holes on the plate for the m380 sled (now the ATH1) that allows yaw adjustment. Here is a pic of the plate:











The 5 "M" holes on the front of the plate is where the sled is mounted. The middle "M" hole is the pivot point for the center of the sled. The other 4 "M" holes are slotted to allow for the 15 degrees of yaw or so (just eyeballing). As close as I can get it, the PJ's light path should be orthogonal to the lens and screen.


----------



## sfm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brain sturgeon* /forum/post/16495781
> 
> 
> Hi guys-- I thought my ears were itching
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did recently swap out my Panamorph UH440 (procured in the UH380 trade-in program and identical in performance to the current UH480) for an ISCO III (Thanks to Scott aka GetGray for his assistance!). Here are a couple of comparison pics I posted on another site:
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> If you guys have some other ideas for comparisons, let me know and I'll see what I can do (time and setup permitting). I cannot change the throw ratio of the projector at this time given its mounting. I am expecting a Sim2 Lumis soon, so I might be able to play with throws a little bit when I take the 11s2 down to swap it out...
> 
> 
> Cheers!




Thanks for the comparison... was wondering one thing about your UH440 though:


I had my 380 upgraded to the 440 when that trade in program was offered... since obtaining a JVC RS20 I noticed quite a bit of ghosting/smearing when the lens was in place (e.g. a brightly lit face to one side of the screen would ghost/smear on the other side).


I contacted Panamorph about this and they said that they had made a production run change for the 480 lens to address this issue to angle the rear lens element a bit (quite a bit actually) and place some light absorbing material inside the lens to help reduce light scatter... I had this mod done last week to my 440 lens and it made a world of difference... no more ghosting/smearing and it appears as if the contrast is improved (although that might be due to the placebo affect).


I was wondering if your 440 lens has this mod or not (doesn't look like it from the picture)?


----------



## brain sturgeon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sfm* /forum/post/16497864
> 
> 
> Thanks for the comparison... was wondering one thing about your UH440 though:
> 
> 
> I had my 380 upgraded to the 440 when that trade in program was offered... since obtaining a JVC RS20 I noticed quite a bit of ghosting/smearing when the lens was in place (e.g. a brightly lit face to one side of the screen would ghost/smear on the other side).
> 
> 
> I contacted Panamorph about this and they said that they had made a production run change for the 480 lens to address this issue to angle the rear lens element a bit (quite a bit actually) and place some light absorbing material inside the lens to help reduce light scatter... I had this mod done last week to my 440 lens and it made a world of difference... no more ghosting/smearing and it appears as if the contrast is improved (although that might be due to the placebo affect).
> 
> 
> I was wondering if your 440 lens has this mod or not (doesn't look like it from the picture)?



I never saw any of the ghosting/smearing that you describe with the 11s2/UH440 duet. AFAIK, it is a "stock" UH440. Is the newly angled rear lens element you're referring to the first piece of glass on the rear of the anamorphic, or the first prism/lens within the housing?


Good to hear that the mod helped with the RS20.


FWIW, the ISCO has substantially less light scatter/leak and retroreflection than the Panamorph does (? different lens coatings, ? angle of the lens elements to the light path-- the ISCO's elements are all orthogonal whereas the Panamorph's prism/lens elements have surfaces at various angles to the light path.)


----------



## brain sturgeon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/16496364
> 
> 
> Great pics!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had some comparison tables/FAQ, then I think something like this would make a great sticky post/thread for people looking at a-lenses.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Mike



Thanks!


The table/FAQ sounds easy enough to do. What information of the two lenses would people be interested in?


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brain sturgeon* /forum/post/16515515
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> The table/FAQ sounds easy enough to do. What information of the two lenses would people be interested in?



???


Cost, weight, setup limitations, quality differences.

Will think about it some more.


Mike


----------



## tausifs

hi get grey,


I am very happy with the p752 vertical compression lens you sold me. It beats the acetate U85 easily. And as there is a big aperture, you can also zoom.


----------



## sfm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *brain sturgeon* /forum/post/16515506
> 
> 
> I never saw any of the ghosting/smearing that you describe with the 11s2/UH440 duet. AFAIK, it is a "stock" UH440. Is the newly angled rear lens element you're referring to the first piece of glass on the rear of the anamorphic, or the first prism/lens within the housing?
> 
> 
> Good to hear that the mod helped with the RS20.
> 
> 
> FWIW, the ISCO has substantially less light scatter/leak and retroreflection than the Panamorph does (? different lens coatings, ? angle of the lens elements to the light path-- the ISCO's elements are all orthogonal whereas the Panamorph's prism/lens elements have surfaces at various angles to the light path.)



It is the first piece of glass at the rear of the lens that they angled. They also added some light absorbent material to the inside of the lens housing. Panamorph claims the issues I observed are unique to the JVC projectors but I noticed the same issues (albeit to a lesser degree) when I was using a Sharp XV-Z20000 prior to the JVC. Regardless, the image with the lens in place is much improved with the mods and I can find little to complain about now.


----------



## tbase1

I have a prismasonic v1000 paired with a dvdo vp30 and love the fact that I don't have to move the lens for anything i watch. by the way....my screen is a DIY fashion gray 8' scope.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/16521268
> 
> 
> I have a panamorph v1000 paired with a dvdo vp30 and love the fact that I don't have to move the lens for anything i watch. by the way....my screen is a DIY fashion gray 8' scope.



Tbase,

How do you do this with the DVDO30. I'm thinking about going that route.


Thanks,

Scott


----------



## tbase1

It's been a whiile since i looked at my settings, but i'll post something tomorrrow at the latest. However, if memory serves me... I think I set the vp 30 for 2.35 AR and screen and set the lens for

16x9... but don't quote me on it....i'm going from a 50 year old memory bank. Scottyb....sorry but put the wrong company that made my lens.


----------



## scottyb

So it's just settings on the remote to go to 2:35 and 16:9?

That would be cool.


Thanks,

scott


----------



## tbase1

once I setup the screen, lens and scaler that was it.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sfm* /forum/post/16518439
> 
> 
> It is the first piece of glass at the rear of the lens that they angled. They also added some light absorbent material to the inside of the lens housing. Panamorph claims the issues I observed are unique to the JVC projectors but I noticed the same issues (albeit to a lesser degree) when I was using a Sharp XV-Z20000 prior to the JVC. Regardless, the image with the lens in place is much improved with the mods and I can find little to complain about now.



The PQ improvement from Panamorph UH440 to UH480 is notable based on my perception. The picture is brighter, higher contrast and sharper as well. I have noticed an overall improvement. This is not based on a side by side comparison - it is based on my memories of the picture which is generally a poor comparison method.


----------



## stanger89

I thought the 440 was optically identical to a 480, just in the 380 housing/packaging


----------



## sfm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16541168
> 
> 
> I thought the 440 was optically identical to a 480, just in the 380 housing/packaging



As I understand it they made this production change (angle the back piece of glass and add the light absorbent material) to the 480 after the 440 trade-in program had completed. A quote from an email I received from Panamorph when I queried about the ghosting/smearing issue I was having with the JVC RS20 and my 440:


"After we began production on the 480 we found that slightly offsetting the rear element directs any residual stray light away from the screen and eliminates the problem. We also started adding light absorbent material to the insides of the housing to further reduce light scatter within the lens and help improve contrast"


----------



## stanger89

Ah, I remember reading about that problem, but I'd forgotten when it happened, I was thinking that was the update to the 380, not the early 480/440s.


----------



## mlang46

I traded my 380 for a 480 and the coatings are much better. Optically it does not change the image resolution at all obviously it still introduces barrel distortion.


Compression ir better than exapansion


----------



## syncguy

I could indeed see a notable improvement from 440 to 480 from many aspects. Picture is clearer - pixel structure definition is better, brighter with higher contrast. All these are only my perceptions - not measured.


----------



## hlkc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/16486524
> 
> 
> Buy cheaper and save the $$ and deal with the *issues* or go above the $1500 mark or so and have most of the issues gone.



What *issues* do we need to deal with it?


----------



## stanger89

Chromatic Aberration, and astigmatism are probably the biggest issues that that the >$1500 lenses can overcome.


----------



## HogPilot

I think it is time to resurrect this thread rather than start a new one. Various debates here and my own curiosity have spurred me to get an ISCO III and UH480 and compare them myself. The UH480 arrived 2 days ago, and I missed the UPS truck with the ISCO III by about 20 minutes yesterday, so unfortunately I will have to wait until Monday to go pick it up from the depot. Once my RS35 gets in - I'm keeping my fingers crossed for sometime next week - I'll throw the lenses in front of it and do some comparisons. Ideally I'd like to post close-up screenshots as well as some numbers for comparison purposes. I was planning on also throwing the lenses in front of jonnyozero3's BenQ W20K to see how they do with a sharper 1-chip machine, but he's out of town for the next 2 months so the 1-chip evaluation might take a while. And to think that I just had my hands on an HT3000E which would have been perfect for this comparison! If anyone has any suggestions for measurements or observations they'd like to see, let me know. I know one of the requests will probably be ANSI contrast measurements with and without the lenses, which I would be happy to do but have zero experience with so help in that area would be appreciated.


----------



## coldmachine

No need to take ANSI measurements with and without the ISCOIII, it has no effect. Any difference you measure will be an installation, operation or test methodology issue. The actual effect is less than the repeatability error of ANSI testing, and thats with experts using SOTA equipment in a blackout tunnel. The accurate measuring of ANSI can be a very tricky issue and unless experienced, and well equipped, is almost guaranteed to be in error.


Regarding the differences between the lenses, that will depend greatly on your PJ. A high MTF machine will be needed show the real difference. With the majority of PJs, the ISCOIII more than is needed.


The ISCOIII will give 96% transmittance. Expert testing will show thats its actually slightly higher.


Hope this helps.


----------



## WilsonL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17662611
> 
> 
> I think it is time to resurrect this thread rather than start a new one. Various debates here and my own curiosity have spurred me to get an ISCO III and UH480 and compare them myself. The UH480 arrived 2 days ago, and I missed the UPS truck with the ISCO III by about 20 minutes yesterday, so unfortunately I will have to wait until Monday to go pick it up from the depot. Once my RS35 gets in - I'm keeping my fingers crossed for sometime next week - I'll throw the lenses in front of it and do some comparisons. Ideally I'd like to post close-up screenshots as well as some numbers for comparison purposes. I was planning on also throwing the lenses in front of jonnyozero3's BenQ W20K to see how they do with a sharper 1-chip machine, but he's out of town for the next 2 months so the 1-chip evaluation might take a while. And to think that I just had my hands on an HT3000E which would have been perfect for this comparison! If anyone has any suggestions for measurements or observations they'd like to see, let me know. I know one of the requests will probably be ANSI contrast measurements with and without the lenses, which I would be happy to do but have zero experience with so help in that area would be appreciated.



please keep us posted!


----------



## scottyb

I'd be interested in what ever lens you dispose of for dirt cheap.


Scott


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/17665373
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in what ever lens you dispose of for dirt cheap.
> 
> 
> Scott



So your hoping he ditches the ISCO III right?


----------



## HD in Ohio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17662611
> 
> 
> I think it is time to resurrect this thread rather than start a new one. Various debates here and my own curiosity have spurred me to get an ISCO III and UH480 and compare them myself.



I hope you are able to get your hands on a Prismasonic HD-5000 as well. It would be nice to see a shootout of the most common choices available.


Thanks for taking this on!


Brad


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/17665373
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in what ever lens you dispose of for dirt cheap.
> 
> 
> Scott



Thanks for the good laugh











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD in Ohio* /forum/post/17666371
> 
> 
> I hope you are able to get your hands on a Prismasonic HD-5000 as well. It would be nice to see a shootout of the most common choices available.
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking this on!
> 
> 
> Brad



Unfortunately, unless someone is willing to give their lens up for testing, I won't be able to include the HD-5000. Getting 2 anamorphic lenses at one time is a pretty big expense! My wife was less than thrilled when I told her how much I was spending to do this, and I love her more than I love my HT so buying a 3rd lens will be out of the question


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/17663009
> 
> 
> Regarding the differences between the lenses, that will depend greatly on your PJ. A high MTF machine will be needed show the real difference. With the majority of PJs, the ISCOIII more than is needed.



This is really at the heart of what I want to look at. Unfortunately, without the HT3000E that I had, I don't have immediate access to a high MTF projector. Maybe one of my local HT shops will oblige me. Ultimately I would like to know 1) how close does the UH480 come to the ISCO III, and 2) how much projector do you have to have to be able to notice a difference?


I'd like to attempt to answer these questions with pictures and numbers so those who can't see an anamorphic lens in person can have something of substance that they can use to make a more informed decision.


----------



## HD in Ohio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17666531
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, unless someone is willing to give their lens up for testing, I won't be able to include the HD-5000.



Maybe AVS could let you borrow one of their rebranded HD-5000's!


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD in Ohio* /forum/post/17666809
> 
> 
> Maybe AVS could let you borrow one of their rebranded HD-5000's!



I can ask the question. However I'm just joe schmoe, not a professional reviewer, so I doubt it would happen


----------



## Citation4444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17662611
> 
> 
> anyone has any suggestions for measurements or observations they'd like to see, let me know.



I would like to see you measure the shift in color with each lens. I know some of these lenses tend to reduce blue and present a warmer image with the lens in place. One of the differences in the UH480 versus the prior Panamorph lenses was an improvement in the lens coating to minimize this color shift. I wonder how the ISCO III fares in this regard.


I used a separate calibration in my Radiance for when the lens was in place when I had a UH380 and subsequently a UH440. The shift is smaller in the UH480 and I no longer feel the need for a separate calibration.


Bob


----------



## tbase1

I know screen shots is not the end all and be all, but would it help to post some? I compared my prismasonic to my 3L and though it's like comparing a winecooler to a fine bottle of wine, I wanted to see if it lived up to it's hype. However, what do I know I have a lowly 8' wide scope screen.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Citation4444* /forum/post/17666927
> 
> 
> I would like to see you measure the shift in color with each lens. I know some of these lenses tend to reduce blue and present a warmer image with the lens in place. One of the differences in the UH480 versus the prior Panamorph lenses was an improvement in the lens coating to minimize this color shift. I wonder how the ISCO III fares in this regard.
> 
> 
> I used a separate calibration in my Radiance for when the lens was in place when I had a UH380 and subsequently a UH440. The shift is smaller in the UH480 and I no longer feel the need for a separate calibration.
> 
> 
> Bob



Huh, that's interesting, I've never heard of that. I can certainly take some measurements with my i1Pro and CalMAN and see if I notice anything significant.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17666933
> 
> 
> I know screen shots is not the end all and be all, but would it help to post some? I compared my prismasonic to my 3L and though it's like comparing a winecooler to a fine bottle of wine, I wanted to see if it lived up to it's hype. However, what do I know I have a lowly 8' wide scope screen.



The screen shots that I'm interested in are close-ups of a 1-pixel wide grid in the center and each corner of the screen to look at CA and astigmatism. IMHO screen shots of the entire screen are useless for illustrating any PQ difference between projectors, let alone anamorphic lenses. The whole process introduces way too many variables, not to mention the original image is degraded by the camera optics and imaging chip, and then the cheap LCD screens that most of us have hooked up to our computers. These variables can be mitigated in closeups when looking for CA and focus, assuming you have decent glass on your camera.


----------



## tbase1

The screen shots that I'm interested in are close-ups of a 1-pixel wide grid in the center and each corner of the screen to look at CA and astigmatism. IMHO screen shots of the entire screen are useless for illustrating any PQ difference between projectors, let alone anamorphic lenses. The whole process introduces way too many variables, not to mention the original image is degraded by the camera optics and imaging chip, and then the cheap LCD screens that most of us have hooked up to our computers. These variables can be mitigated in closeups when looking for CA and focus, assuming you have decent glass on your camera.[/quote]



PRICELESS ANSWER! Thanks and I look forward to your review


----------



## elmalloc

I really would like to see who can see a minute 1 pixel offset CA in an actual movie picture?


Especially on a smaller screen, you should have minimal problems with CA.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17667149
> 
> 
> I really would like to see who can see a minute 1 pixel offset CA in an actual movie picture?
> 
> 
> Especially on a smaller screen, you should have minimal problems with CA.



Depending on your viewing distance/screen size, the composition of your viewing material, and how much CA is introduced, it can become quite visible in the form of perceived reduced sharpness or colored fringing on objects. 1 pixel offset is a lot, and I know I'm very capable of detecting it in my current setup (84" wide 16:9 screen, 8' viewing distance.)


----------



## elmalloc

Interesting, maybe I see it too - unknown. I have some CA fringing at max zoom, but I am still very happy with the resulting image. I do know none of my "viewers" see the difference because they don't know any different - lol.


----------



## tbase1

Most viewers are still amazed by the size, image, and wondering if they should get one. Not to mention the movie their watching. However, for those of us that enjoy the hobby and are fans of scope.....we want to know if we made the right purchase for the money. Which brings to mind these questions.....If the 3L does not justify it's price vs the UH480....would members sell there lens and giving some of the zoomers out there that's looking for red meat....how much would a person spend at the most before they zoom?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17667510
> 
> 
> Most viewers are still amazed by the size, image, and wondering if they should get one. Not to mention the movie their watching. However, for those of us that enjoy the hobby and are fans of scope.....we want to know if we made the right purchase for the money. Which brings this to mind these questions.....If the 3L does not justify it's price vs the UH480....would members sell there lens and giving some of the zoomers out there that's looking for red meat and how much would a person spend at the most before they zoom?



If someone has spent the money in an ISCO, selling it would only be a losing proposition both money- and PQ-wise. As others have pointed out, the fact that the ISCO may be too much lens for one's current PJ doesn't mean you won't own a PJ in the future that would be a better fit.


It might be different for people who don't own a lens but are looking to buy one.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17667731
> 
> 
> If someone has spent the money in an ISCO, selling it would only be a losing proposition both money- and PQ-wise. As others have pointed out, the fact that the ISCO may be too much lens for one's current PJ doesn't mean you won't own a PJ in the future that would be a better fit.
> 
> 
> It might be different for people who don't own a lens but are looking to buy one.



I don't think I'll sell my 3L......I'm having fun playing with it on a projector that's 25% of the cost of it







My friends think it's







looking as well.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17667966
> 
> 
> I don't think I'll sell my 3L......I'm having fun playing with it on a projector that's 25% of the cost of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friends think it's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looking as well.



I would definitely hold on to it if I were you







It will out live many a projector!


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17667731
> 
> 
> It might be different for people who don't own a lens but are looking to buy one.



Yes, it would be. Most people don't know what a lens is, and would not consider them at ISCO's MSRP. I bet Tbase wouldn't have thought twice either!


Most people also do not traverse AVS, though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17667966
> 
> 
> I don't think I'll sell my 3L......I'm having fun playing with it on a projector that's 25% of the cost of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friends think it's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looking as well.



You got a good deal though...that AE4K is not 25% of what you paid for that ISCO, LOL.


-ELmO


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17673873
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be. Most people don't know what a lens is, and would not consider them at ISCO's MSRP. I bet Tbase wouldn't have thought twice either!
> 
> 
> Most people also do not traverse AVS, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got a good deal though...that AE4K is not 25% of what you paid for that ISCO, LOL.
> 
> 
> -ELmO




yes.....but if I paid the full amount it would be, however, 50%.


----------



## tbase1




elmalloc said:


> Yes, it would be. Most people don't know what a lens is, and would not consider them at ISCO's MSRP. I bet Tbase wouldn't have thought twice either!
> 
> 
> Think twice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....I wouldn't be thinking about it at all if my friend did not talk me into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My lens cost more then my car...but I'm not into cars, so that's not saying much. Great lens for the money, but more then what I had. I guess I'm keeping it because it's one less thing to upgrade, and if you're like me...cutting back keeps the wife happy.


----------



## elmalloc

Definitely, do not get rid of that lens! You have the ferrari of lenses now. It should feel good to have something you won't need to upgrade in any foreseeable future and will not depreciate!


I have that feeling with my subwoofer right now, but everything else could be replaceable in the future...=(


----------



## HogPilot

Both the lenses are in - I forgot how huge the ISCO is in person! Now I'm just waiting for a projector (my RS35) and I can start doing some comparisons.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Hogpilot, I'm sooo jealous.







An RS35 and an Isco III, my HD350 and Isco II really pleases me, but that combo can only be better than mine.


Waiting to read your review(s).


----------



## elmalloc

Here's my sim2 ht380 with the panamorph uh480.


Recorded with an iphone and the video quality is very low, the actual video is not pixelated at all even from 1.5 ft away. I have about 1" of pincushion on the right. This video is just to show how much light output is transmitting with the HT380 through the uh480 on a 2 story white wall with windows all over the place @ 14.3 feet wide, *under 16ft throw.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6isTCYBaW0 


ELmO


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17683260
> 
> 
> 14.3 feet wide, *under 16ft throw.*



So your TR of about 1.49:1? Is that correct?


----------



## elmalloc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17683520
> 
> 
> So your TR of about 1.49:1? Is that correct?



Yes.


----------



## tbase1

WOW...... 14' wide screen with a 16' TR. I need to move my projector closer. I'm going to move my projector closer then 17' from a 8' screen tomorrow Now that I'm thinking about HE instead of VC. With that said where would be a good TR for a 8' wide scope with a 3L and a panasonic 4k?


Fit the screen height with a 16:9 movie with the projector set to 16:9 then install the lens? After that...put in a scope movie and go to zoom1 for scope on the panasonic 4k. Fix lens setup with a HE lens.


Elmo, You need to reach out to me man...you live about 15 from me. I'm off for the holidays from the 16th to the end of the year. brewski's if you do them....christmas ale man...great lakes best @ 8%V.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17683871
> 
> 
> WOW...... 14' wide screen with a 16' TR. I need to move my projector closer. I'm going to move my projector closer then 17' from a 8' screen tomorrow Now that I'm thinking about HE instead of VC. With that said where would be a good TR for a 8' wide scope with a 3L and a panasonic 4k?



With the ISCO III, you can run pretty much any TR you want. To answer the question, you probably should aim for 2.2:1 which is 8 x 0.75 x 2.2 = 13.2'.


----------



## elmalloc

Cool Tony, I should be off around that same time too. I need help mounting the PJ and lens to the wall, maybe you can help me do that - gotta find a suitable shelf first?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17682521
> 
> 
> Both the lenses are in - I forgot how huge the ISCO is in person! Now I'm just waiting for a projector (my RS35) and I can start doing some comparisons.



I think CM already touched on it and no offense, but I don't think a 3 chip LCOS is a very good device to be doing lens "shootouts" with. Already has high potential for low MTF, MC error, etc. which will impede proper analysis by an expert with the right equipment. I think you already proclaimed you don't fall into that category







.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/17685969
> 
> 
> I think CM already touched on it and no offense, but I don't think a 3 chip LCOS is a very good device to be doing lens "shootouts" with. Already has high potential for low MTF, MC error, etc. which will impede proper analysis by an expert with the right equipment. I think you already proclaimed you don't fall into that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



No offense taken from either of you - maybe my intent here is being misunderstood. I'm not looking to see which lens is "better" in terms of overall optical performance - that question has already been answered. What I am looking to do is to see where the difference in overall PQ between the two lenses becomes significant in the gray area between cheap budget projectors and ultra-high end ones.


Ideally I'd have a Planar 8150, Marantz 11S2, and Sim2 HT3000E to evaluate at what point the optics on the ISCO become "appropriate" as compared to the UH480. I don't have access to any of those projectors, but hopefully my buddy will let me use his BenQ W20K for a 1-chip comparison. I know that I'm very much on the fence with these lenses because I find myself falling into the aforementioned gray area. The UH480 is a great lens, the price is great compared to the ISCO, and I'd like to know whether it can offer up the same or similar PQ as the ISCO with some of the projectors that I'd use. The ISCO is the best of the best - granted, at a significant premium - but it's nice to know that I'm getting top-notch PQ and that I'll never have to buy another lens again. I have absolutely no idea which one I'll end up keeping as they both have strengths and weaknesses and I'm very interested to see how they compare and what I decide.


I've learned so much about CIH here, so I'd like to give a little bit back and help those who are starting from square one where I once did. Hopefully I arm the many self-sufficient HT and CIH enthusiasts that make up this wonderful community with information that they can use to make a more informed decision, whatever that decision that may be.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elmalloc* /forum/post/17685682
> 
> 
> Cool Tony, I should be off around that same time too. I need help mounting the PJ and lens to the wall, maybe you can help me do that - gotta find a suitable shelf first?




Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## tbase1




HogPilot said:


> What I am looking to do is to see where the difference in overall PQ between the two lenses becomes significant in the gray area between *cheap* budget projectors and ultra-high end ones.
> 
> 
> Don't want to sound offended and spoil the great thread, but I don't think price is a factor when it comes to PQ. I've seen a "highend" projector look like crap and as you put it "cheap" projector look great. I have a panasonic
> 
> 4k and I guess you could consider that cheap, but the PQ coming out of it with my 3L is better then what my sony ruby produced.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17714614
> 
> 
> Don't want to sound offended and spoil the great thread, but I don't think price is a factor when it comes to PQ. I've seen a "highend" projector look like crap and as you put it "cheap" projector look great. I have a panasonic 4k and I guess you could consider that cheap, but the PQ coming out of it with my 3L is better then what my sony ruby produced.



Actually I had projectors like the BenQ W1000, Mitsubishi HC3800, and Optoma HD20 in mind when I wrote the "cheap" part - so no slight intended against your Panny! I haven't seen a 4000 in action but it sounds like it is a great value for PQ per dollar.


You are right in that any PJ can be made to look like crap or milked for every bit of performance it's capable based on who set it up and the room in which it's been placed. However after having a chance to play with an HT3000E that I owned for a while, and I got to see first hand the improvements in PQ that can be offered by high-end optics, graded display chips, and first rate processing. The real question is not whether it's worth the money - which is a completely relative question - it's if you have the money to spend.


As soon as I have a projector I'm hopefully going to help people answer that question with respect to the aforementioned anamorphic lenses


----------



## GlenC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17714614
> 
> 
> Don't want to sound offended and spoil the great thread, but I don't think price is a factor when it comes to PQ. I've seen a "highend" projector look like crap and as you put it "cheap" projector look great. I have a panasonic 4k and I guess you could consider that cheap, but the PQ coming out of it with my 3L is better then what my sony ruby produced.



This is sort of the "garbage in, garbage out" scenario... When looking at a lens, screen, etc. ones needs to be certain it doesn't become "good in, garbage out"..... By this I mean, no anamorphic lens or screen will make a poor projector image good, while on the other hand, a lens or screen can make a good projector image poor.


For me, the resolution of the image through an anamorphic lens is more important than a little light loss.


----------



## tbase1

I don't see my panny 4k as cheap or poor, but I do see improvements in my PQ with my lens. I guess GI/GO is in the eyes of the beholder. Some think calibrating projectors are not worth it, but for me it's money well spent and it improves the PQ.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17716120
> 
> 
> Some think calibrating projectors are not worth it, but for me it's money well spent and it improves the PQ.



I agree tbase1, ISF calibrating is definitely the way to go, BTW screen is also important too


----------



## tbase1

I have a scope stewart videomatte 200. I think it's 1.8 gain.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> I don't see my panny 4k as cheap or poor



The issue with the Panny's is the softscreen technology which limits the actual resolution of the image. Not that it's a bad projector, but it will certainly not deliver the image details you would need to meaningfully compare anamorphic lenses. I never understood how someone could consider the image quality of the Patton BD as good, until I saw it on a Panny and realized that everything on a Panny looks mildly Pattonized.










Vern


----------



## GlenC

I wasn't targeting any display in reference to my GI/GO comment. Just that if the native image is poor out of the projector, a lens or screen generally won't make any improvements. A good image can be ruined by the improper lens or screen.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GlenC* /forum/post/17719569
> 
> 
> I wasn't targeting any display in reference to my GI/GO comment. Just that if the native image is poor out of the projector, a lens or screen generally won't make any improvements. A good image can be ruined by the improper lens or screen.



I agree and will add media, cables, and players to the mix also. Media being a major part of the GI/GO stream.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/17719526
> 
> 
> The issue with the Panny's is the softscreen technology which limits the actual resolution of the image. Not that it's a bad projector, but it will certainly not deliver the image details you would need to meaningfully compare anamorphic lenses. I never understood how someone could consider the image quality of the Patton BD as good, until I saw it on a Panny and realized that everything on a Panny looks mildly Pattonized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vern



From what I can see, smoothscreen has been improved on the panny 4k. I also think PQ is based on where someone is coming from. Most of my friends own poor calibrated RPTV's, so my PQ is day and night to them, but on the other hand....when I have guys over that have a better eye or have displays that look better they think my image does not look any better then theirs. As to my wife and kids.....they want me to just hit play.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17718082
> 
> 
> I have a scope stewart videomatte 200. I think it's 1.8 gain.



Nice tbase1


----------



## tbase1

I got the material out of a local theater that was going out of business. I also got 125 accoustic panels to do my room and three other friends room. I re-wraped the panels in my room color and built my screen frame out of 1x4 and wraped the frame in micro velvet. I'm a DIY kind of guy. Even if I had to loot to have someone build my room I still would try to DIY it. I like to go to highend AV stores to get ideas and homedepot to build them. My room is my stress management pill...along with microbrew.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17714873
> 
> 
> As soon as I have a projector I'm hopefully going to help people answer that question with respect to the aforementioned anamorphic lenses



Anything further on this?


----------



## WilsonL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17767442
> 
> 
> anything further on this?



+1


:d


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17767442
> 
> 
> Anything further on this?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilsonL* /forum/post/17803607
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> :d



Sorry, the lenses have been sitting in my basement in their boxes and I finally received my RS35 on Christmas Eve, but I haven't really had the opportunity to play with anything yet. Plus my SW4500 AT material isn't appropriate for this kind of comparison, so I will have to take everything over to jonnyozero3's place to set it up and take a look in his Carada BW screen. He's currently out of town, but hopefully I can get over there sometime after the new year. I apologize for the delay, it's been killing me to have everything sitting around untouched for this long.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17804729
> 
> 
> I apologize for the delay, it's been killing me to have everything sitting around untouched for this long.



If it were me, I would have had a make shift rig up on Christmas eve










Just for S&G, I did a quick shoot out between my MK3 and my MK4


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17805109
> 
> 
> If it were me, I would have had a make shift rig up on Christmas eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for S&G, I did a quick shoot out between my MK3 and my MK4



Well, post some screen shots and impressions







Maybe it will keep everyone at bay while I get my arse in gear to do my shootout!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17805441
> 
> 
> Well, post some screen shots and impressions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it will keep everyone at bay while I get my arse in gear to do my shootout!



I'll see what I can do







I am not sure what my camera will show though. Images alway seem to look better in person than on a PC monitor


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17804729
> 
> 
> Plus my SW4500 AT material isn't appropriate for this kind of comparison, so I will have to take everything over to jonnyozero3's place to set it up and take a look in his Carada BW screen.



Does the weave material lose fine detail benefit of the ISCO that's apparent on the solid screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17805585
> 
> 
> Does the weave material lose fine detail benefit of the ISCO that's apparent on the solid screen?



It could pending the size of the screen. As the screen size increases so does the pixel size and inter pixel gaps. At 14 feet, I am sure this is not a problem, however I would say that my 8 foot wide AT screen is about the smallest one would want to go for an AT screen.


Yes the image is sharper at my image size on a solid screen, however, it is the awesome sound to picture match that I am not prepared to trade for a slight degree of extra sharpness.


----------



## tbase1

I just change out my stewart videomatte 200 screen for my old draper m2500, and I like the results better with the draper. I got a brighter image, better color, no hotspotting, and better brightness across the screen. I was on the fence to build a DIY da-lite HP, but after research...the screen would not work with my setup. The draper works great with my A-lens as well, however, like Mark.....I have a 8' wide 2.37. 10' first row, 16' second row, and 22' to the middle chair of my bistro table.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

At 8' wide, are you height challenged? Your 16X9 pic is only 72" wide if my calculations are correct with a 96" scope screen. Are you using a 110" diagonal 16x9 screen? If not, why?


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17806210
> 
> 
> At 8' wide, are you height challenged? Your 16X9 pic is only 72" wide if my calculations are correct with a 96" scope screen. Are you using a 110" diagonal 16x9 screen? If not, why?



approximately 41"x96" is a 110" dia. scope screen...which is what I have.


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17806607
> 
> 
> approximately 41"x96" is a 110" dia. scope screen...which is what I have.



that is not a 110" diagonal.


i'm confused. 54" X 96" is a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen. A 41" X 96" scope screen has a diagonal of 104". In that scope screen, you can fit a 16X9 image of 41" X 72" for an 82" or 83" diagonal. Thus my question.... Why are you sacrificing your 16X9 image with such a small picture? Why not forget scope and just get a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Scope is meant to be the same height as 16:9, only wider. If you have a CIW set up (16:9 screen), you're sacrificing your scope presentations. If you have a CIH set up and sit at around 2.4 picture heights distance, 16:9 isn't sacrificed. If your 16:9 image is too small in a CIH set up, you're sitting too far back.


What's important is the field of view. Seating distance is an important factor which is often forgotten about when people have large projected images, they usually relate their seating distance to how close they sit to their tv (screen is much bigger but they're still sitting a long way back) and forget or don't realise just how close they may be sat in a commercial theatre.


The geometric centre of the seating area in a commercial theatre is around 50 degrees (1 x screen width distance for a scope screen in a CIH theatre). The back row may be just 1.5 x sw away (THX back row recommendation 3.68 x IH).


THX actually recommend a 40 degree viewing angle for 16:9 HDTV which is around 2.4 picture heights distance, and in a CIH set up, scope will be around 52 degrees viewing angle from the same seat, which coincides nicely.


Gary


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17806993
> 
> 
> that is not a 110" diagonal.
> 
> 
> i'm confused. 54" X 96" is a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen. A 41" X 96" scope screen has a diagonal of 104". In that scope screen, you can fit a 16X9 image of 41" X 72" for an 82" or 83" diagonal. Thus my question.... Why are you sacrificing your 16X9 image with such a small picture? Why not forget scope and just get a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen?




I can care less about diagonal......it's 8' wide to me.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

tbase1 - Did you understand my question?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/17805585
> 
> 
> Does the weave material lose fine detail benefit of the ISCO that's apparent on the solid screen?



Yes, at my 8' wide screen size the weave conceals most of the pixel structure up close that I want to examine. My buddy's solid screen will be much more suitable for looking at the difference between lenses.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17807381
> 
> 
> tbase1 - Did you understand my question?



Of course he did. On an 8' wide scope screen, the 16:9 scren is 6', however both the Scope and HDTV images are (as Gary explained) the same height and so from the same seating distance is totally satisfying.


I too have an 8' wide Scope screen. Yesterday I watched both a 1.85:1 film as well as Scope film and in no way did I feel the 1.85:1 film needed to be bigger. In fact in a dark scene, it felt the same as watching scope. In the bright scenes, it has side pillars.


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17808636
> 
> 
> Of course he did. On an 8' wide scope screen, the 16:9 scren is 6', however both the Scope and HDTV images are (as Gary explained) the same height and so from the same seating distance is totally satisfying.
> 
> 
> I too have an 8' wide Scope screen. Yesterday I watched both a 1.85:1 film as well as Scope film and in no way did I feel the 1.85:1 film needed to be bigger. In fact in a dark scene, it felt the same as watching scope. In the bright scenes, it has side pillars.



I am still not sure if he understood my question or merely chose not to answer. I understand what Gary was saying but the seating distances and viewing angles recomended from Gary's post are closer than what tbase1 uses. For example, a 2.4 SH distance for a 41" tall screen would be 8.2' while his closest seat is 10'.


I guess I just don't understand why anyone would intentionally gimp their 16X9 picture to make their 2.35:1 seem bigger in comparison when the viewing angles wouldn't dictate such. I say in comparison because the 2.35:1 is not any bigger than if he had a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen. It does not sound like his seating distance is so close that it is a consideration in his choice of screen size. On the contrary, with seating distance at 10', 16' and 22', his 82" diagonal 16X9 is small.


I personally have a 54"X96" 16X9 and use a lens to expand to 54"X130" so I'm very in tune with the benefits of CIH and the impact you get by going to a scope screen. However, if I only had 96" potential width, I would not go with a small 16X9 area to make the scope area bigger in comparison unless the 16X9 would be too big from my seating distance.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

Put another way, if you were already sitting over 2 SW away from the scope screen, and couldn't go wider or sit closer but could get a taller screen, would you still go CIH? What if you felt the scope screen was on the small side already?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809018
> 
> 
> I am still not sure if he understood my question or merely chose not to answer.



Then maybe he's decided not to answer. The guy has an ISCO III and wants CIH not CIW or CIA. Therefore given his room width restrictions, he has decided that Scope shall be the largest image.



> Quote:
> I understand what Gary was saying but the seating distances and viewing angles recomended from Gary's post are closer than what tbase1 uses. For example, a 2.4 SH distance for a 41" tall screen would be 8.2' while his closest seat is 10'.



I have the same size screen as Tbase1 and I sit mostly at 3 times the image height. I will at times sit as close as 2x. I don't bother with horizontal viewing angles as they are not constant for CIH.



> Quote:
> I guess I just don't understand why anyone would intentionally gimp their 16X9 picture to make their 2.35:1 seem bigger in comparison when the viewing angles wouldn't dictate such. I say in comparison because the 2.35:1 is not any bigger than if he had a 110" diagonal 16X9 screen. It does not sound like his seating distance is so close that it is a consideration in his choice of screen size. On the contrary, with seating distance at 10', 16' and 22', his 82" diagonal 16X9 is small.



Gimp out their 16:9 image? If you max out the screen width for Scope when runing a CIH system, something has to give. I wouldn't call it a compromise as it is proportional to the Scope image size.



> Quote:
> I personally have a 54"X96" 16X9 and use a lens to expand to 54"X130" so I'm very in tune with the benefits of CIH and the impact you get by going to a scope screen. However, if I only had 96" potential width, I would not go with a small 16X9 area to make the scope area bigger in comparison unless the 16X9 would be too big from my seating distance.



I am sure that if Tbase1 had a wider room, his Scope (and 16:9) images would be wider.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809047
> 
> 
> Put another way, if you were already sitting over 2 SW away from the scope screen, and couldn't go wider or sit closer but could get a taller screen, would you still go CIH? What if you felt the scope screen was on the small side already?



If he has built the screen to be wall to wall, then with the slight amount of ambient light that hits the sides walls will give the optical illusion that the screen is much larger anyway.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

Seems a bit far away for my tastes but to each his own.


3 X SH would translate to roughly 1.7 SW distance for 16X9 and 1.3 SW for 2.35:1. At that distance, you could probably use a 720p machine.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809194
> 
> 
> Seems a bit far away for my tastes but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 3 X SH would translate to roughly 1.7 SW distance for 16X9 and 1.3 SW for 2.35:1. At that distance, you could probably use a 720p machine.



Probably could. However I own a 1080 and I just like the veiwing angle for Scope from that distance. 16:9 looks great as well based on the fact that it is the same image height.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809047
> 
> 
> Put another way, if you were already sitting over 2 SW away from the scope screen, and couldn't go wider or sit closer but could get a taller screen, would you still go CIH? What if you felt the scope screen was on the small side already?



I would, at least for the theater. Scope is supposed to be wider (bigger) than 16:9. If you don't go CIH then the relative size of the ARs is not preserved and you end up with an underwhelming relative scope presentation.


----------



## tbase1

Sorry i did not reply back to your post (mrlittlejeans), but My setup works better with a scope screen then a 16.9. Cavx is right...if I could go with a larger screen(10') i would have, but From my bistro table I still get a great picture and can surf the net and get a bite. As to viewing a 16:9 movie on my 8' wide scope screen....As cavx said, I have a lens to fill the screen. row 1 is for those that like to get up close and personal with the movie, row 2 is for me, because it's close to my equipment and touch panel monitor, and last but not least, my bistro table is for eating, surfing, and playing cards if I like or when my kids want to watch movies and play with their legos. I will never own a 16:9 screen for my theater room regardless of room size. I think you missed the fact that have lens, so my 16:9 image is not 72", however, thanks for offering your advice.


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17809814
> 
> 
> I think you missed the fact that have lens, so my 16:9 image is not 72", however, thanks for offering your advice.



So this confuses me as well. Are you stretching your 16X9 image to fill the 2.35:1 screen? If not, how is your 16X9 not 72"?


Stanger and CAVX. Where I differ from your opinions, it is around the distance in SH's. If I would rather be a certain SH's away but I'm width challenged and I end up sitting more SH's away than I wish, with a 16X9 CIW set up, I would at least not be limited for 16X9. This is what I meant by gimping the 16X9. Most of my viewing is gaming/football so I would not want to compromise my 16X9 area, especially if I would rather have had a larger scope screen but couldn't. A 16X9 can easily be masked so you wouldn't even notice it was originally a 16X9.


I don't think the scope image would be underwhelming in this situation.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809903
> 
> 
> So this confuses me as well. Are you stretching your 16X9 image to fill the 2.35:1 screen? If not, how is your 16X9 not 72"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the scope image would be underwhelming in this situation.




You were the one making the point about a 72" 16:9 image on 8' wide screen, but missed the fact that I have a isco lens which completes my 8' wide image.







I'm done.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809903
> 
> 
> So this confuses me as well. Are you stretching your 16X9 image to fill the 2.35:1 screen? If not, how is your 16X9 not 72"?



Because he is using the lens to make his 16:9 image fill the screen as per his previous post, I think this must be the case as you suspect. Though even with an Isco III lens this must still make every one look short and fat unless the V-stretch is engaged and thus the top and bottom are cropped off when viewing true 16:9 content. I get the feeling that tbase1 might not feel like explaining any further, judging by his last post, but hopefully he will clarify which it is (or not as the case may be).


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17809903
> 
> 
> Stanger and CAVX. Where I differ from your opinions, it is around the distance in SH's. If I would rather be a certain SH's away but I'm width challenged and I end up sitting more SH's away than I wish, with a 16X9 CIW set up, I would at least not be limited for 16X9. This is what I meant by gimping the 16X9.



The difference is for CAVX and myself, going CIW is "gimping" the scope experience. The last thing we want (OK probably not the "last"







) is for when we pop in a big/epic/whatever (like lets say The Matrix, or Star Trek, etc) BD, you start it up in 16:9 mode and the trailers and eventually the menus fill "huge" 16:9 screen. Then the movie starts and you're suddenly "gimped" with a 25% smaller picture. That's just not cinematic IMO. I don't want the main feature to be the smallest thing I show in my HT.


I do TV watching and gaming (both 16x9) in my HT on my CIH setup, but I want the main feature, the movie, the film to be as grand as it's supposed to be. Epic scope films are supposed to be the biggest/widest images you see (save IMAX which I don't watch at home). CIH is the way you get that, regardless of seating distances/ratios, room size or screen size.


I could actually go CIW in my HT if I want, my screen is wall to wall (well close), 110" wide, but I could go full 16x9 height, but I wouldn't want to give up the relative presentation for a larger 16x9 image. Absolute size isn't the be all, end all IMO, the whole presentation is important. FWIW I think I'm about 2.5 screen heights back for my front row.



> Quote:
> Most of my viewing is gaming/football so I would not want to compromise my 16X9 area, especially if I would rather have had a larger scope screen but couldn't. A 16X9 can easily be masked so you wouldn't even notice it was originally a 16X9.



Only if you've never "unmasked" it. But that doesn't work if you want to run some games/TV/trailers before the movie. Unless you're going to shrink to fit the scope height, in which case you're actually doing CIH.



> Quote:
> I don't think the scope image would be underwhelming in this situation.



You don't think watching a scope movie on an HDTV is underwhelming after seeing full height 16x9 shows/commercials?


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17810090
> 
> 
> Because he is using the lens to make his 16:9 image fill the screen as per his previous post, I think this must be the case as you suspect. Though even with an Isco III lens this must still make every one look short and fat unless the V-stretch is engaged and thus the top and bottom are cropped off when viewing true 16:9 content. I get the feeling that tbase1 might not feel like explaining any further, judging by his last post, but hopefully he will clarify which it is (or not as the case may be).



Yes. I wasn't sure if he was being deliberately obtuse or not so am hesitant to egg him on but still don't understand how his 16X9 content is not 72" wide unless he forgoes some picture area or stretches it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/17810258
> 
> 
> The difference is for CAVX and myself, going CIW is "gimping" the scope experience. The last thing we want (OK probably not the "last"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) is for when we pop in a big/epic/whatever (like lets say The Matrix, or Star Trek, etc) BD, you start it up in 16:9 mode and the trailers and eventually the menus fill "huge" 16:9 screen. Then the movie starts and you're suddenly "gimped" with a 25% smaller picture. That's just not cinematic IMO. I don't want the main feature to be the smallest thing I show in my HT.
> 
> 
> I do TV watching and gaming (both 16x9) in my HT on my CIH setup, but I want the main feature, the movie, the film to be as grand as it's supposed to be. Epic scope films are supposed to be the biggest/widest images you see (save IMAX which I don't watch at home). CIH is the way you get that, regardless of seating distances/ratios, room size or screen size.
> 
> 
> I could actually go CIW in my HT if I want, my screen is wall to wall (well close), 110" wide, but I could go full 16x9 height, but I wouldn't want to give up the relative presentation for a larger 16x9 image. Absolute size isn't the be all, end all IMO, the whole presentation is important. FWIW I think I'm about 2.5 screen heights back for my front row.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you've never "unmasked" it. But that doesn't work if you want to run some games/TV/trailers before the movie. Unless you're going to shrink to fit the scope height, in which case you're actually doing CIH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think watching a scope movie on an HDTV is underwhelming after seeing full height 16x9 shows/commercials?




Whenever I go to watch a movie, I engage the lens and the vstretch before doing anything else so I never see the image as 16X9. Most trailers are in 2.35:1 anyway (at least the ones I actually watch) so it doesn't matter to me. I guess it would depend on how you started watching. I think if you started the movie with the masking in place, you would not be gimping the scope presentation.


I probably haven't been as clear as I could have been on this and am worried about taking this thread off topic but I guess I could summarize by saying that I would not want my scope width limitations to further limit my 16X9 area. I think I have said this and do understand the opinions of those who think that having a 16X9 area taller than the scope area compromises the scope even if I don't agree in all circumstances.


If we took a situation where you had an entertainment console that would only allow a picture 44" wide and there were 2.35:1 tvs readily available, would you purchase a 19" X 44" scope tv with an effective 19" X 33" 16X9 area rather than a 25" X 44" tv? In this case, I would go with the 25" X 44" tv. If the tv were 54" X 128" vs 72" x 128" however, I would (and have) gone with the 54" X 128" screen. I have done this because I don't consider either size limited while I would certainly find the 19" X 44" screen limited and would not want that to further limit my 16X9 screen. In the larger screen scenario, I would agree with views that scope should be wider than the 16X9 image while in the smaller, I would not. (I rounded all numbers to the nearest whole number in the above example)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17810393
> 
> 
> Yes. I wasn't sure if he was being deliberately obtuse or not so am hesitant to egg him on but still don't understand how his 16X9 content is not 72" wide unless he forgoes some picture area or stretches it.



Tbase1 leaves the ISCO III in place 100% of the time, so he scales the image for both Scope (VS) and 16:9 (HS). He is not (unless he desires so) cropping any height off the 16:9 presentation. He has an 8 foot wide Scope screen, so he has to have a 16:9 image that whist it fits the height, does not fit the width.


I do the same thing with my MK4 lens. It sits in the light path all the time and I switch between "Letterbox" for Scope and "4 x 3" for 16:9. The geometry is correct for both ARs and we leave the lens in place so that pixel density, light levels and calibration settings remain the same.


----------



## mrlittlejeans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17810764
> 
> 
> Tbase1 leaves the ISCO III in place 100% of the time, so he scales the image for both Scope (VS) and 16:9 (HS). He is not (unless he desires so) cropping any height off the 16:9 presentation. He has an 8 foot wide Scope screen, so he has to have a 16:9 image that whist it fits the height, does not fit the width.
> 
> 
> I do the same thing with my MK4 lens. It sits in the light path all the time and I switch between "Letterbox" for Scope and "4 x 3" for 16:9. The geometry is correct for both ARs and we leave the lens in place so that pixel density, light levels and calibration settings remain the same.



Which makes sense except that tbase1 says that



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17809814
> 
> 
> I think you missed the fact that have lens, so my 16:9 image is not 72", however, thanks for offering your advice.



which doesn't make sense unless he is using vstretch on 16x9 content or letting the lens stretch is so the geometry is wrong. If he is using Horizontal Squeeze to get back to a correct 16X9 geometry, his width would be 72", which he denies.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17810393
> 
> 
> I probably haven't been as clear as I could have been on this and am worried about taking this thread off topic but I guess I could summarize by saying that I would not want my scope width limitations to further limit my 16X9 area. I think I have said this and do understand the opinions of those who think that having a 16X9 area taller than the scope area compromises the scope even if I don't agree in all circumstances.



I don't think it applies in _all_ circumstances either, but IMO it applies in _most_ front projection cirumstances. But as you say, you mostly do stuff other than scope movies....



> Quote:
> If we took a situation where you had an entertainment console that would only allow a picture 44" wide and there were 2.35:1 tvs readily available, would you purchase a 19" X 44" scope tv with an effective 19" X 33" 16X9 area rather than a 25" X 44" tv? In this case, I would go with the 25" X 44" tv.



That's a tough one, the big problem is with a screen that size there's really no hope of ever getting a cinematic feel. IMO you just really can't do "Home theater" at that size so that there throws the concept of CIH largely out the window.


I mean I have a 44" wide (well techinically 40" or so screen width) LCD in my living room. I probably wouldn't have got a scope TV that width for up there either. But then again I never watch anything but TV there anyway.


That's sort of the issue here I think, this is essentially a Home Theater centric area of discussion, thus the assumption is made that we're talking about larger than "TV room" screen, front projection, and setups targetted toward movie watching (though obviously not exclusively thus). In that vein I'd always pick a scope screen for an HT I was building since it's the "right" way to present movies.


Ask me about a TV room, you'll get a different answer.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/17810849
> 
> 
> If he is using Horizontal Squeeze to get back to a correct 16X9 geometry, his width would be 72", which he denies.



Your maths are correct. What exactly Tbase1 does in his home theatre is his business and no-one elses.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

Lol. This is a bit surreal. I doubt he's performing abortions on his bistro table but whatever.


----------



## CAVX

Now your just being rude


----------



## Mike Butny

What are the PQ differences if I use my Iscan hd+ to output 2:35 compared to using a lens?


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike Butny* /forum/post/17822201
> 
> 
> What are the PQ differences if I use my Iscan hd+ to output 2:35 compared to using a lens?



Are you using the Iscan to stretch the image to fill a 16:9 screen, or using the 'shrink' method to fit a 16:9 image into a 2.35:1 pre zoomed?


If the first, then you will get correct geometry by using a lens. If the later, then you'll get increased pixel density through vertical stretch (akin to upscaling), no black bars projected above and below the screen and correct geometry. For 16:9 with the lens in place the resolution would be 1440 x 1080, for 16:9 'shrunk' onto a pre zoomed 2.35:1 screen the resolution would be approx 1440 x 800.


I've done both lens and shrink methods using a Lumagen HDQ for scaling. They are both equally convienient once setup, plus you always have the option to watch 16:9 without the lens/shrink and readjust the zoom, etc as required if you want maximum PQ for this AR.


I hope this helps without being too contentious regarding lens and zooming.


----------



## Mike Butny

I have a Benq 8700+ projector and a dalite cinema vision 92inch 16x9 screen, I was think of building a 2:35 screen, can I JUST use the Iscan HD+ to output a 2:35 image or do I have to buy a lense or do I use both.


----------



## BlazeMaster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike Butny* /forum/post/17831515
> 
> 
> I have a Benq 8700+ projector and a dalite cinema vision 92inch 16x9 screen, I was think of building a 2:35 screen, can I JUST use the Iscan HD+ to output a 2:35 image or do I have to buy a lense or do I use both.



Unless your projector has some type of "stretch" mode, your scaler or projector cannot display a 2:35 or 2:40 ratio image using ALL of its available resolution. I'm not familiar with your projector, but pretty sure that you would need a lens to display a 2:35 image. It sounds like you need to read the Constant Image Height FAQ first.

Most people will tell you that you'd get a better picture having the external scaler do the scaling, so you should be using both the scaler and the lens. Your video signal would go from your source--->scaler---->projector---->lens---->screen. You might have to add the audio receiver or pre amp in that path, depends on how your system is setup.


----------



## CAVX

HogPilot,


I got my prototype CAVX Corrector today and was able to do a quick light test. WOW does that change the clarity of the MK3!!! I didn't have the mount to properly set it up, however I was quite suprised just how sharp the image came. I used a JVC HD550 (not sure of the US model) and I could actually see pixel structure at just on 2 image heights. The MK4 resolves this, however where the MK4 [any cylindrical] holds its own is when you change the TR or the projection distance.


The MK4 being cylindrical still won this "shootout" however, it was close, so I look forward to seeing the results from your tests.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Sounds good for existing Mk3 owners Mark. The HD550 is equal to the RS15 if memory serves me well.


Two x image heights on my setup with Isco II (HD350, so pretty similar to the HD550) is about 96" but I can only just see pixel structure at that sort of distance (if I wear my new glasses







) on solid light colours. I have to go closer still at more like 1 IH to really see it clearly. Not sure what this means though...is my focus not as sharp in this case or just my eyes?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/17869374
> 
> 
> Sounds good for existing Mk3 owners Mark. The HD550 is equal to the RS15 if memory serves me well.



The screen I used today was a solid surface [EVO3D] from Oz Theatre Screens that is 3159mm [124.37"] x 1333mm [52.48"]. I made a point of rocking the focus before adding the MK3 so I could see what improvements the CAVX Corrector would make. In short, a HUGE difference


----------



## Kelvin1965S

One of the improvements of the HD550 over the HD350 is a smaller step when focusing, which I wish I had. I sometimes have to go right off and then back in one step at a time to 'catch' the sweet spot. One click too far and it's off a little bit, so I have to start over. I occasionally have to go through this if I watch a 16:9 or 4:3 film without the lens and slightly adjust the zoom to make up for that 5% size increase with the Isco II in place.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17869348
> 
> 
> HogPilot,
> 
> 
> I got my prototype CAVX Corrector today and was able to do a quick light test. WOW does that change the clarity of the MK3!!! I didn't have the mount to properly set it up, however I was quite suprised just how sharp the image came. I used a JVC HD550 (not sure of the US model) and I could actually see pixel structure at just on 2 image heights. The MK4 resolves this, however where the MK4 [any cylindrical] holds its own is when you change the TR or the projection distance.
> 
> 
> The MK4 being cylindrical still won this "shootout" however, it was close, so I look forward to seeing the results from your tests.



So is the corrector designed to correct the focus at only a single throw distance, or does it allow you to change your throw and you can just adjust the corrector?


I may have time this Saturday to attempt a comparison, however no guarantees - the weather around here has been ridiculous as we continue to get more and more snow. Plus, since jonnyozero3 has been gone since the beginning of Dec, I'd have to clear about 2 ft of snow from his driveway before getting into his house!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17869535
> 
> 
> So is the corrector designed to correct the focus at only a single throw distance, or does it allow you to change your throw and you can just adjust the corrector?
> 
> 
> I may have time this Saturday to attempt a comparison, however no guarantees - the weather around here has been ridiculous as we continue to get more and more snow. Plus, since jonnyozero3 has been gone since the beginning of Dec, I'd have to clear about 2 ft of snow from his driveway before getting into his house!



lucky! Snow is something we never see where I come from. Congrats mark on the corrector


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17869535
> 
> 
> So is the corrector designed to correct the focus at only a single throw distance, or does it allow you to change your throw and you can just adjust the corrector?



Like the other two prisms lenses on the market, this is a single glass element that is slightly different in design to the other offerings. It does not alter the height and seems to work both in front and behind the prisms. At this time, I have just one correction element (although I've designed 3) and it works a treat at around 5m or 16 feet. Whilst I am sure there will be a limited user range, it is very clear (especially fine text) at that distance and as I already mentioned, I could see SDE from 2 image heights.


I will need to conduct further testing to see if I actually need to produce correctors of different strengths for different distances. The Zemax simulation results are suggesting that I will not have to produce a new element for longer throws and that this element should work up to 10m or 32 feet. Actual light testing is the only way I will be able to say for sure if this is correct. However it is the shorter throws that I am concerned with as most HTs are with in the 4.5 to 5.5 meter range.


----------



## captainmaynard

So much to buy...so little to spend!


----------



## russelliht

Any word on the comparison? Is this happening?


----------



## HogPilot

Although I replied to russell's original PM, I'm sure he's not the only one wondering as to the status of this so I'll post here for everyone's edification. Long story short, I'm waiting for jonnyozero3 to get back in town so I can use his solid screen for the review. For the time being I'll have to be patient, and I apologize for any of you who are wanting to see my results. This has certainly taken me longer than I expected, and I know it's a lot longer than many of you wanted to wait. I promise I haven't forgotten about it though.


----------



## CAVX

I too have done testing between my cylindrical and prism lenses (both with and without the CAVX Corrector in place MK3) and the difference is quite amazing. I've not been able to capture images that show this difference at a level that reflects what I am seeing, however, know there is a real reason why you pay more for a cylindrical lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/17961832
> 
> 
> i too have done testing between my cylindrical and prism lenses (both with and without the cavx corrector in place mk3) and the difference is quite amazing. I've not been able to capture images that show this difference at a level that reflects what i am seeing, however, know there is a real reason why you pay more for a cylindrical lens.



+1


----------



## HogPilot

I finally had a chance to take the UH480 and ISCO III over to jonnyzero3's and have some fun with them. I have to say, the experience was enlightening and more than anything else it was fun to be able to play around with some cool HT gear.


We performed our viewing on a 96" wide (the 16:9 image filled 72" of that width) Carada Criterion BW screen. The projectors used were a BenQ W20000 and a JVC RS35 at a throw distance of 163" (13' 7"), which works out to a throw of 2.26. The convergence on the RS35 was excellent, within both 1/4 pixel vertically and horizontally at its worst points. The CA on the W20000 was negligible, however up at the screen it did become apparent on a white 1 pixel wide grid - it would become invisible outside of about 2 feet from the screen.


Unfortunately, we were unable to get any really useful pictures of the pixel grids because of our cameras' inability to focus on the grid. Even manual focus really didn't help because it was hit or miss as to whether we were actually capturing any pixel structure with our LCD viewfinders. After 30 minutes of trying we decided to just do some visual comparisons and see if we could discern any major differences initially with the RS35. We did all of our evaluations with the RS35 first, and then powered it down and put the W20000 in its place to repeat the observations.


The first thing we did was to line up each projector without a lens in place to make sure that the projector lens was square to and horizontally centered on the screen. After that, we put one lens in place and made sure it was orthogonal to the light beam (adjusting lens pitch as necessary) and that the image was as centered on the anamorphic lens as possible. Both the alignment of the projector to the screen and the alignment of the lens to the screen/projected beam are critical, because being off in either respect can generate larger and assymetrial amounts of pincushion and optical distortion than the minimum possible for the lens.


Amidst all the testing, what I found to be most noticeable - despite the small difference in physical measurement - were the amount of pincushion generated by each lens. The ISCO III generated just under 1/4" on the left/right sides and 3/8" on the top and bottom; the UH480 also generated 1/4" on either side, but 1/2" of pincushion on the top and bottom. If you mask the pincushion off this shouldn't be too big of a deal, but by using the black velvet border of the screen as a reference on all the sides (i.e. the corners of the picture were touching the velvet and the image bowed in on the white screen as you moved towards the horizontal/vertical center), the extra pincushion with the UH480 looked to be noticeably more for whatever reason. Again, if you're zooming the pincushion on to the border, it's more a less a non-issue.


With both the W20K and the RS35, obviously the ISCO III could be focused sharply in the center of the image to resolve the same pixel detail that was available without the lens in place on a single pixel grid. As you moved away towards the edges, the ISCO III didn't seem to exacerbate any of the CA or panel alignment issues present in either projector. However there was one instance where the lower left hand corner of the W20K's pixel grid became somewhat "fuzzy" with the ISCO III in place where it had exhibited relatively significant CA without the lens in place. The center pixels were still sharp and the lens appeared to be aligned correctly, so I can't account for why we both saw this. However my overall impression of the ISCO III was that it simply magnifies what you put through it, with very little - if any - change to the CA or focus of the image. When viewing the first 10 minutes or so of _I, Robot_ and the first 10 minutes of _Rome_ on an Oppo BDP-83 and the RS35 the image looked absolutely fantastic, and neither jonnyozero3 no I could detect any scaling or optical artifacts whatsoever.


The UH480 I would say performs at 90-95% of the ISCO III with both of these projectors. Pincushion aside, any performance differences between the two lenses were only noted within 2' of the screen with both the white test grid and real world material. Where does the UH480 lose that 5-10%? Anywhere towards the edges that the projector exhibited CA or panel misalignment, the UH480 tended to exaggerate that to the point where it was visible from inside of 2'. At that distance the difference was readily apparent. That being said, a better projector with better optics in the first place will have less misalignment/CA to exaggerate in the first place. However, the problem was again most noticeable in the same lower left hand corner of the W20K, where the white grid was almost strangely doubled in width and looked fuzzy overall, even though one could still make out what appeared to be visible pixels. On both lenses, neither of these artifacts seemed to exhibit themselves when normally viewing real-world material. Again with the UH480, both _I Robot_ and _Rome_ looked fantastic.


One thing that I did note - and I couldn't seem to make it go away - was that, with the UH480 in the light path, the image shifted up by approximately 1/2". If you're leaving the lens in place this isn't a big deal at all, but it's something to keep in mind if you'll be moving the lens in and out of the light path when switching between 2.35:1 and 16:9 material. Neither jonnyozero3 nor I could note an appreciable difference in light throughput between the two lenses.


So, where do I stand? With these two projectors, at this throw distance - someone would be VERY happy with either lens. As soon as you change the projectors, the throw distance, or the screen size, then the difference between the two lenses could become more (or less) readily apparent than what we observed. As is always mentioned, the ISCO III is relatively future-proof in that it will mate well with just about any projector in any price bracket. It may also have a slight edge in minimum allowable throw distance, but both lenses' apertures were so close in size that it would almost be a wash. That being said, I'd be interested to see how the ISCO III and UH480 compare both sighted and in a DBT (at normal viewing distances and real-world material) with some more expensive projectors that have superior optics to the ones that we used for our comparison.


For those of you looking for some hard-and-fast end result, sorry, I have none for you. In this particular situation, the UH480 came very close to the ISCO III; however the ISCO III had clear advantages when viewed up close that may or may not translate to a better picture on a larger screen with a higher-priced projector. Ultimately it comes down to the same old argument - if you're burning $45K on a projector, spending $7K vs $3K on a lens is a no-brainer; if your projector costs $2K, one could more easily argue that the less expensive lens will suit it just fine. Frankly I'll have a tough time deciding which lens to keep (if I keep either of them) for a future time when my theater is large enough for a 'scope setup. For now, I'm thankful that I had the opportunity to play with both lenses and see first-hand how well they both perform.


----------



## hlkc

Excellent sharing ~ thanks HogPilot!


----------



## CAVX

Cool and thank you to both HP and Johno for that.


As I said earlier...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17961832
> 
> 
> I too have done testing between my cylindrical and prism lenses (both with and without the CAVX Corrector in place MK3) and the difference is quite amazing. I've not been able to capture images that show this difference at a level that reflects what I am seeing, however, know there is a real reason why you pay more for a cylindrical lens.



And I did manage to capture some images that do show a difference. In the end, you do get what you pay for. Having said that, if these lenses were not my own products and I didn't already own the MK4, I'd happily go for the MK3 + Corrector.


The following is in no way meant to be scientific. Today I used the JVC HD550 (not sure what it is called in the US) and I did notice that it did have mis-converged panels in the vertical, so I appolgise in advance for that. Screen was Oz Theatre 135" (diagonal) with EVO3D fabric. The camera was set up in the centre at approx 3.5x the image height.


I used the same camera settings for all three shots. I did not have a great deal of time to do this, so if you open the images in different browsers, you may notice both geometrical and colour differences. And sorry that the camera is not level










So here we go.











Basically the Cylindrical Lens (MK4) is the pick of the group. It has better optics, better optic coatings and of course the lens can be focused.










The Prism Lens with the Correction Element (MK3+C) is quite amazing for the what it is. The difference is really noticeable in text.










The Prism Lens (MK3) does a reasonable job on its own however you do need to rock the focus slightly to get the best from it as prisms can not focus both H and V plains at the same time. I lived with the MK3 for over a year before I got my MK4 and it wow'd people at both CEDIA and SMPTE, so for what it is, does a good job. Who knows, maybe if I had developed the Corrector prior to the MK4, I might have stopped there and not made a true cylindrical lens.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/18058195
> 
> 
> I finally had a chance to take the UH480 and ISCO III over to jonnyzero3's and have some fun with them. I have to say, the experience was enlightening and more than anything else it was fun to be able to play around with some cool HT gear.
> 
> 
> We performed our viewing on a 96" wide (the 16:9 image filled 72" of that width) Carada Criterion BW screen. The projectors used were a BenQ W20000 and a JVC RS35 at a throw distance of 163" (13' 7"), which works out to a throw of 2.26. The convergence on the RS35 was excellent, within both 1/4 pixel vertically and horizontally at its worst points. The CA on the W20000 was negligible, however up at the screen it did become apparent on a white 1 pixel wide grid - it would become invisible outside of about 2 feet from the screen.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we were unable to get any really useful pictures of the pixel grids because of our cameras' inability to focus on the grid. Even manual focus really didn't help because it was hit or miss as to whether we were actually capturing any pixel structure with our LCD viewfinders. After 30 minutes of trying we decided to just do some visual comparisons and see if we could discern any major differences initially with the RS35. We did all of our evaluations with the RS35 first, and then powered it down and put the W20000 in its place to repeat the observations.
> 
> 
> The first thing we did was to line up each projector without a lens in place to make sure that the projector lens was square to and horizontally centered on the screen. After that, we put one lens in place and made sure it was orthogonal to the light beam (adjusting lens pitch as necessary) and that the image was as centered on the anamorphic lens as possible. Both the alignment of the projector to the screen and the alignment of the lens to the screen/projected beam are critical, because being off in either respect can generate larger and assymetrial amounts of pincushion and optical distortion than the minimum possible for the lens.
> 
> 
> Amidst all the testing, what I found to be most noticeable - despite the small difference in physical measurement - were the amount of pincushion generated by each lens. The ISCO III generated just under 1/4" on the left/right sides and 3/8" on the top and bottom; the UH480 also generated 1/4" on either side, but 1/2" of pincushion on the top and bottom. If you mask the pincushion off this shouldn't be too big of a deal, but by using the black velvet border of the screen as a reference on all the sides (i.e. the corners of the picture were touching the velvet and the image bowed in on the white screen as you moved towards the horizontal/vertical center), the extra pincushion with the UH480 looked to be noticeably more for whatever reason. Again, if you're zooming the pincushion on to the border, it's more a less a non-issue.
> 
> 
> With both the W20K and the RS35, obviously the ISCO III could be focused sharply in the center of the image to resolve the same pixel detail that was available without the lens in place on a single pixel grid. As you moved away towards the edges, the ISCO III didn't seem to exacerbate any of the CA or panel alignment issues present in either projector. However there was one instance where the lower left hand corner of the W20K's pixel grid became somewhat "fuzzy" with the ISCO III in place where it had exhibited relatively significant CA without the lens in place. The center pixels were still sharp and the lens appeared to be aligned correctly, so I can't account for why we both saw this. However my overall impression of the ISCO III was that it simply magnifies what you put through it, with very little - if any - change to the CA or focus of the image. When viewing the first 10 minutes or so of _I, Robot_ and the first 10 minutes of _Rome_ on an Oppo BDP-83 and the RS35 the image looked absolutely fantastic, and neither jonnyozero3 no I could detect any scaling or optical artifacts whatsoever.
> 
> 
> The UH480 I would say performs at 90-95% of the ISCO III with both of these projectors. Pincushion aside, any performance differences between the two lenses were only noted within 2' of the screen with both the white test grid and real world material. Where does the UH480 lose that 5-10%? Anywhere towards the edges that the projector exhibited CA or panel misalignment, the UH480 tended to exaggerate that to the point where it was visible from inside of 2'. At that distance the difference was readily apparent. That being said, a better projector with better optics in the first place will have less misalignment/CA to exaggerate in the first place. However, the problem was again most noticeable in the same lower left hand corner of the W20K, where the white grid was almost strangely doubled in width and looked fuzzy overall, even though one could still make out what appeared to be visible pixels. On both lenses, neither of these artifacts seemed to exhibit themselves when normally viewing real-world material. Again with the UH480, both _I Robot_ and _Rome_ looked fantastic.
> 
> 
> One thing that I did note - and I couldn't seem to make it go away - was that, with the UH480 in the light path, the image shifted up by approximately 1/2". If you're leaving the lens in place this isn't a big deal at all, but it's something to keep in mind if you'll be moving the lens in and out of the light path when switching between 2.35:1 and 16:9 material. Neither jonnyozero3 nor I could note an appreciable difference in light throughput between the two lenses.
> 
> 
> So, where do I stand? With these two projectors, at this throw distance - someone would be VERY happy with either lens. As soon as you change the projectors, the throw distance, or the screen size, then the difference between the two lenses could become more (or less) readily apparent than what we observed. As is always mentioned, the ISCO III is relatively future-proof in that it will mate well with just about any projector in any price bracket. It may also have a slight edge in minimum allowable throw distance, but both lenses' apertures were so close in size that it would almost be a wash. That being said, I'd be interested to see how the ISCO III and UH480 compare both sighted and in a DBT (at normal viewing distances and real-world material) with some more expensive projectors that have superior optics to the ones that we used for our comparison.
> 
> 
> For those of you looking for some hard-and-fast end result, sorry, I have none for you. In this particular situation, the UH480 came very close to the ISCO III; however the ISCO III had clear advantages when viewed up close that may or may not translate to a better picture on a larger screen with a higher-priced projector. Ultimately it comes down to the same old argument - if you're burning $45K on a projector, spending $7K vs $3K on a lens is a no-brainer; if your projector costs $2K, one could more easily argue that the less expensive lens will suit it just fine. Frankly I'll have a tough time deciding which lens to keep (if I keep either of them) for a future time when my theater is large enough for a 'scope setup. For now, I'm thankful that I had the opportunity to play with both lenses and see first-hand how well they both perform.



Thanks for that Hogpilot!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18058910
> 
> 
> Cool and thank you to both HP and Johno for that.
> 
> 
> As I said earlier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I did manage to capture some images that do show a difference. In the end, you do get what you pay for. Having said that, if these lenses were not my own products and I didn't already own the MK4, I'd happily go for the MK3 + Corrector.
> 
> 
> The following is in no way meant to be scientific. Today I used the JVC HD550 (not sure what it is called in the US) and I did notice that it did have mis-converged panels in the vertical, so I appolgise in advance for that. Screen was Oz Theatre 135" (diagonal) with EVO3D fabric. The camera was set up in the centre at approx 3.5x the image height.
> 
> 
> I used the same camera settings for all three shots. I did not have a great deal of time to do this, so if you open the images in different browsers, you may notice both geometrical and colour differences. And sorry that the camera is not level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the Cylindrical Lens (MK4) is the pick of the group. It has better optics, better optic coatings and of course the lens can be focused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Prism Lens with the Correction Element (MK3+C) is quite amazing for the what it is. The difference is really noticeable in text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Prism Lens (MK3) does a reasonable job on its own however you do need to rock the focus slightly to get the best from it as prisms can not focus both H and V plains at the same time. I lived with the MK3 for over a year before I got my MK4 and it wow'd people at both CEDIA and SMPTE, so for what it is, does a good job. Who knows, maybe if I had developed the Corrector prior to the MK4, I might have stopped there and not made a true cylindrical lens.



Mark is that colour difference due to the lens?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18059184
> 
> 
> Mark is that colour difference due to the lens?



I am not sure why the images from the prisms lenses appear "hotter" (more blue) as they certainly do not appear that way when looking at them on screen. I've also measured the colour temp when using the MK3 and there is no measurment difference with the colorimeter either.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18059289
> 
> 
> I am not sure why the images from the prisms lenses appear "hotter" (more blue) as they certainly do not appear that way when looking at them on screen. I've also measured the colour temp when using the MK3 and there is no measurment difference with the colorimeter either.



There certainly a difference between the three.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18059347
> 
> 
> There certainly a difference between the three.



I just hope people can focus (yes pun intended) on the sharpness and not be distracted by a colour temp difference. The point to the excercise was to demo (not as good as I would have liked) the fact that a cylindrcial lens is a better design than a prism lens.


----------



## elmalloc

I can notice the sharpness difference but the colour difference is "popping" out more. HEHEEH


----------



## WilsonL

Thanks for the test results!


----------



## ritual44

Caxv - the MK4 looks great! The stand still needs to slim down. (less bulk like the panamorph stand)


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ritual44* /forum/post/18071461
> 
> 
> Caxv - the MK4 looks great! The stand still needs to slim down. (less bulk like the panamorph stand)



Disagree, I'll take a machined stand over stamped sheet metal.


----------



## elmalloc

i dont lke my panamorph stand i have the automated sled too!


or maybe i dont like the fact my panamorph isnt cylindrical looking =( it look ugly next to my sim2. it make my sim2 look ugly. in turn, it make me feel ugly


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ritual44* /forum/post/18071461
> 
> 
> Caxv - the MK4 looks great! The stand still needs to slim down. (less bulk like the panamorph stand)












The design was based on keeping the look of the final product in line with the earlier MK models. The Stands on the MK1 and 2 were made of the same 16mm MDF the cases were made from, the MK3 stand is the same 10mm plastic as used on the sides of the case and I therefore decided to have the stand on the MK4 thicker to keep the look similar to the earlier products.


----------



## GetGray

Stand is plastic? I had presumed machined aluminum.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18077070
> 
> 
> Stand is plastic? I had presumed machined aluminum.



Mk3 case is laser cut plastic.


Mk4 is all anodized alloy.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18079563
> 
> 
> Mk4 is all anodized alloy.



Excellent, Good man.


----------



## CAVX

Yeah plastic just does not have the same 'feel' as machined alloy.


----------



## WilsonL

How much is that lens, Mark?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WilsonL* /forum/post/18110526
> 
> 
> How much is that lens, Mark?



Sorry, it is against forum rules to post pricing.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18111600
> 
> 
> Sorry, it is against forum rules to post pricing.



I believe you can post MSRP, correct?


Mike


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18111600
> 
> 
> Sorry, it is against forum rules to post pricing.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/18118742
> 
> 
> I believe you can post MSRP, correct?
> 
> 
> Mike



MSRP is still "pricing".


----------



## mike2060

I'm fairly sure you can talk about MSRP. Just not "I got this for $x from so and so so". I see MSRPs all the time around here.


----------



## 08-450dually

Hmmm, ...... If A=0, and B=1......... J=9, then you can spell out the price without using numbers. Whaaalaa! ;-)


----------



## CAVX

Have a read of THIS please


----------



## Mike_WI

Not to keep beating this, but in the Oppo thread(s) the price of the Oppo is discussed.

In the sealed SVS subwoofer thread the price of SVS vs. other subs is compared.

In the Ayre DX-5 BR player (and Theta, etc) the price of those BR players are discussed.


I think the AVS intent is not to fill a thread with "best price" posts.

There is a thread for "best deals" for people to post.


Just trying to help...










Mike

**EDIT**
*Sticky Link* - from Alan Gouger - 5-21-07

(bold added by me)

*Attention "No discussion of prices other than MSRP"*
"Please no price talk *other then MSRP!*


This rule applies for the entire forum but has been questioned here recently which is the purpose for this post.


The reason for this rule, we tried once to allow price talk and the forum turned into a marketing board over night.
Dealers spammed the entire forum. Reported posts became overwhelming. No way to determine who was a dealer from a legit post.

The only way to address this was a no price talk policy other then MSRP so please do your part regarding the rules. We appreciate it !!



Thank you!"

----------------------------------
@coolrda - 2 posts below - Thanks.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/18215515
> 
> 
> Not to keep beating this, but in the Oppo thread(s) the price of the Oppo is discussed.
> 
> In the sealed SVS subwoofer thread the price of SVS vs. other subs is compared.
> 
> In the Ayre DX-5 BR player (and Theta, etc) the price of those BR players are discussed.
> 
> 
> I think the AVS intent is not to fill a thread with "best price" posts.
> 
> There is a thread for "best deals" for people to post.
> 
> 
> Just trying to help...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike



Well that is nice, however I am CAVX and I manufacture two different anamorphic lenses known as the CAVX Aussiemorphic Lenses. I'm sure whoever posted the prices about the other products were not from either OPPO or SVS, so for me to post a price (RRP or otherwize) goes against the rules as I understand them.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/18215515
> 
> 
> Not to keep beating this, but in the Oppo thread(s) the price of the Oppo is discussed.
> 
> In the sealed SVS subwoofer thread the price of SVS vs. other subs is compared.
> 
> In the Ayre DX-5 BR player (and Theta, etc) the price of those BR players are discussed.
> 
> 
> I think the AVS intent is not to fill a thread with "best price" posts.
> 
> There is a thread for "best deals" for people to post.
> 
> 
> Just trying to help...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike



Mark is trying to be a man of integrity. There are some here that whore their goods, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is supposed to be a place of mutual forumizing. Having said that, I will give it up as I'm in no way affiliated with CAVX. $3K and $6K respectively, if I might be so bold.


----------



## moparfan

I have a really small room (yeah, I know..but can it work), projector lens to wall is about 9 feet. This would preclude an anamorphic lens? I know their sweet spot is further than that usually at somewhere around 15 feet or so.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moparfan* /forum/post/18330724
> 
> 
> I have a really small room (yeah, I know..but can it work), projector lens to wall is about 9 feet. This would preclude an anamorphic lens? I know their sweet spot is further than that usually at somewhere around 15 feet or so.



It depends on the lens. For a time I was unable to use my Curved Scope screen and was forced to use (or not have any HT) a much smaller screen which I was able to fill because I used a lens.


----------



## CAVX

Just thought I'd share. On May 7 (yes still a while away) I will get the chance to put my MK4 up against the ISCO IIIL. Shall be interesting.


----------



## Chris1971




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18409090
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd share. On May 7 (yes still a while away) I will get the chance to put my MK4 up against the ISCO IIIL. Shall be interesting.



Interesting indeed Mark, just don't drop my ISCOIII


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18409090
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd share. On May 7 (yes still a while away) I will get the chance to put my MK4 up against the ISCO IIIL. Shall be interesting.



Good Luck....I hope you can get close enough to make buyers look your way.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris1971* /forum/post/18409121
> 
> 
> Interesting indeed Mark, just don't drop my ISCOIII



It shall be handled as if it were my own


----------



## chipy2k

Im looking forward to this mark


----------



## BleedOrange

I'm in the market, so I'll be keeping a close eye on this as well.


----------



## fatjulio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18409090
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd share. On May 7 (yes still a while away) I will get the chance to put my MK4 up against the ISCO IIIL. Shall be interesting.



How did this go?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fatjulio* /forum/post/18604585
> 
> 
> How did this go?



What can I say apart from...









ITS A BEAST










I didn't actually get to do a "shoot out" between them, however I used the same pattern to set both the ISCO III and my MK4 up on different projectors and they both clearly resolved single lines at 1920 x 1080. I may get another chance next month for CEDIA if the ISCO III owner Chris1971 is prepared to bring it back.


The ISCO III is a marvelous piece of engineering - big and heavy. The astigmatism adjustment is quite firm to move and very precise. I would say a very large portion of the cost is for this level of machined excellence.


I was able to demo astigmatism adjustment for a the owner, and the other DTV Forum members so they could all see the way the vertical lines came in to the same focus as the horizontals. This was done using the JVC HD950 (RS35?).


My MK4 uses an Allan Key to adjust astigmatism, so the movement is not as smooth, however, it too can be set to the same level of clarity.


The are some slight differences to the design where the ISCO III's glass very slightly concave on the front and very slightly convex on the rear. Mine are plano (flat) on both front and rear. Where my front lens moves about 25mm, the ISCO moves some 50mm, yet both seem to be able to achieve the same level pixel level clarity.


----------



## tbase1

Even the Lens cover and case is metal. The 3L is heavier then some projectors out there....WOW.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/18607978
> 
> 
> Even the Lens cover and case is metal. The 3L is heavier then some projectors out there....WOW.



Not any more. Plastic case, and lens covers.


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18608067
> 
> 
> Not any more. Plastic case, and lens covers.



better those kind of things then what matters. I thought the case was a little on the over kill side.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/18607978
> 
> 
> Even the Lens cover and case is metal. The 3L is heavier then some projectors out there....WOW.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18608067
> 
> 
> Not any more. Plastic case, and lens covers.



The lens caps on this ISCO III were metal. And I liked the lockable box it all came in. The stand is simple, yet extremely well engineered. I must admit, I am impressed with more than PQ from this lens.


----------



## tbase1

I have the same box and mount. Enjoy the lens for as long as you have it...it's a work of art. Everytime I have HT friends over to try to talk me into zooming...the 3L talks them into a A-lens setup.


----------



## coolrda

For the last year I have contemplated the replacement of my P752. After auditioning a few I narrowed the list to a UH480 and a Schneider 1.33. I almost purchased a Schneider but was concerned do to the size of the entry glass. After talking to Scott at TechHT I decided on a Isco IIIs which is a little bigger on the entry side but still a concern. So I thought, after spending this much on a lens it didn't make sense to not go all the way. I ended up ordering the new Isco IIIL. Let me say to all comers, until you experience this level of performance for yourself on your own projection system, you haven't seen the best that a cinemascope system can be. In all fairness I gave zooming a shot and used that method for the last few months. Going back and forth between the 752 and zooming, I found each had their advantages. Zooming had the better color purity, uniform focus and ansi contrast. The 752 was a touch smoother due to pixel fill, brighter and I had easy aspect control. I thought about getting a AE4000 and decided against it. Then I thought about permanently zooming and buying an outboard scaler. In the end I ended up with the Isco. I could use a hundred superlatives to describe the performance of the lens. Best way to describe it is it disappears. I have replaced the 16x9 dlp chip in my Benq with a 2.37 chip. Its phenomenal to say the least. Needless to say I will be replacing my projector. But in the meantime I'll enjoy watching all my scope movies over again. The 2x6 is temporary.


----------



## stanger89

You're not helping your fellow P752 owners any







You're supposed to say it's no better










Thanks for the comparison though


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18728833
> 
> 
> You're not helping your fellow P752 owners any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're supposed to say it's no better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the comparison though



Please disregard my review. I was just kidding.


----------



## stanger89

Easier said than done


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18729972
> 
> 
> Easier said than done



One of these in front of your FP would be incredible. Just to add I watched an episode of Chuck and Stargate Universe and leaving the lens in during 16x9 content is truly a wash. I can't tell a difference. I'm even watching the commercials. Titles at the end of Stargate were perfect, sharp as a tack, white on black. Truly remarkable. Time to spin a couple BR's, then post some more details. Sorry about the toothpicks under the fingernails Stranger. GetGray, many thanks.


----------



## CAVX

Are you able to post a few screen caps?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18732797
> 
> 
> One of these in front of your FP would be incredible. Just to add I watched an episode of Chuck and Stargate Universe and leaving the lens in during 16x9 content is truly a wash. I can't tell a difference. I'm even watching the commercials. Titles at the end of Stargate were perfect, sharp as a tack, white on black. Truly remarkable. Time to spin a couple BR's, then post some more details. Sorry about the toothpicks under the fingernails Stranger. GetGray, many thanks.



You didn't take a look at the UH480, AVS1/5000HD, or Aussie Mk4 did you?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/18734365
> 
> 
> You didn't take a look at the UH480, AVS1/5000HD, or Aussie Mk4 did you?



You got me. Although, in my defense, I must say I've seen the UH480 with many different projector over the years with movie clips as the source. The picture has always been first rate. Clearly, however small the difference, the Isco IIIL is the best, with the MK4 apparently being its equal. I've been thinking about this for a year going back and forth. There's no second guessing or what-ifs with this lens. It belongs on a mantle as much as in front of a projector. I like the symmetry of it.


To add to my above comments about the performance of the lens, it really is transparent to the source. After watching for about seven hours last night the uniformity and edge to edge sharpness is remarkable. The picture leaves unscathed to the point that I'm back to watching tv instead of critiquing the image (well a little bit of that).


----------



## GetGray

All you need now is a good lens transport for 16x9 material







. One more board connected to the one there now will accomodate it nicely.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18733140
> 
> 
> Are you able to post a few screen caps?



There coming. Busy watching movies.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18736999
> 
> 
> There coming. Busy watdhling movies.



A very important part of owning such a sexy lens


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18733140
> 
> 
> Are you able to post a few screen caps?



Hi Mark. Will finally have some time to take some Caps and post. Will make an album with some closeups and macros. If there's anything in particular, you or anyone would like, let me know.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18861211
> 
> 
> Hi Mark. Will finally have some time to take some Caps and post. Will make an album with some closeups and macros. If there's anything in particular, you or anyone would like, let me know.



The more pics the better. Take some close ups of the lens please.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For the last year I have contemplated the replacement of my P752. After auditioning a few I narrowed the list to a UH480 and a Schneider 1.33. I almost purchased a Schneider but was concerned do to the size of the entry glass. After talking to Scott at TechHT I decided on a Isco IIIs which is a little bigger on the entry side but still a concern. So I thought, after spending this much on a lens it didn't make sense to not go all the way. I ended up ordering the new Isco IIIL. Let me say to all comers, until you experience this level of performance for yourself on your own projection system, you haven't seen the best that a cinemascope system can be. In all fairness I gave zooming a shot and used that method for the last few months. Going back and forth between the 752 and zooming, I found each had their advantages. Zooming had the better color purity, uniform focus and ansi contrast. The 752 was a touch smoother due to pixel fill, brighter and I had easy aspect control. I thought about getting a AE4000 and decided against it. Then I thought about permanently zooming and buying an outboard scaler. In the end I ended up with the Isco. I could use a hundred superlatives to describe the performance of the lens. Best way to describe it is it disappears. I have replaced the 16x9 dlp chip in my Benq with a 2.37 chip. Its phenomenal to say the least. Needless to say I will be replacing my projector. But in the meantime I'll enjoy watching all my scope movies over again. The 2x6 is temporary.



Congrats on your new lens coolrda


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18728529
> 
> 
> In the end I ended up with the Isco. I could use a hundred superlatives to describe the performance of the lens. Best way to describe it is it disappears. I have replaced the 16x9 dlp chip in my Benq with a 2.37 chip. Its phenomenal to say the least. Needless to say I will be replacing my projector. But in the meantime I'll enjoy watching all my scope movies over again. The 2x6 is temporary.



Im not sure if I understand this, if your using the Isco why do you have a 2.37 chip in the projector?


How do you replace a 16x9 chip to a 2.37 chip?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure if I understand this, if your using the Isco why do you have a 2.37 chip in the projector?
> 
> 
> How do you replace a 16x9 chip to a 2.37 chip?



So true. Didn't see that. Where can I get a 2:37:1 chip?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18867261
> 
> 
> So true. Didn't see that. Where can I get a 2:37:1 chip?



Better cancel my Schneider, lets get the DIY 2:37 chips!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18867267
> 
> 
> Better cancel my Schneider, lets get the DIY 2:37 chips!



yes I better sell my Schneider and sled!


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/18867221
> 
> 
> Im not sure if I understand this, if your using the Isco why do you have a 2.37 chip in the projector?
> 
> 
> How do you replace a 16x9 chip to a 2.37 chip?



Special type of surgery. Very delicate hands needed.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18866930
> 
> 
> Congrats on your new lens coolrda



Thank You.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18867417
> 
> 
> Special type of surgery. Very delicate hands needed.



Please tell us the secret how you replace a 16x9 chip to a 2.35 chip Im sure lots here would like to know?


Can you also explain how you use the Isco lens with a 2.35 chip?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Special type of surgery. Very delicate hands needed.



If you have the chip than you don't need the ISCO


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18867484
> 
> 
> If you have the chip than you don't need the ISCO



Exactly. Lost in translation. In essence or essentially the transparency of the Isco 3L is such that comparing the picture without the lens in the lite path to the picture with it in the lite path, it's like I changed the chip. The statement was meant as a description for comparison. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Lost in translation. In essence or essentially the transparency of the Isco 3L is such that comparing the picture without the lens in the lite path to the picture with it in the lite path, it's like I changed the chip. The statement was meant as a description for comparison. Sorry for the confusion.



Ah ok I get what you mean and I do agree with you there. Though at first I thought you were the first in the world to have actually a projector with a 2:37:1 chip : D


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18867760
> 
> 
> Exactly. Lost in translation. In essence or essentially the transparency of the Isco 3L is such that comparing the picture without the lens in the lite path to the picture with it in the lite path, it's like I changed the chip. The statement was meant as a description for comparison. Sorry for the confusion.



Oh well thank God I didnt cancel my Schneider order!


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well thank God I didnt cancel my Schneider order!



Hey RapalloAV you will love the Schneider







btw what mount are you getting?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18867829
> 
> 
> Hey RapalloAV you will love the Schneider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw what mount are you getting?



Fleximount heavy duty with Kino - Torsion


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Fleximount heavy duty with Kino - Torsion



Excellent!'


----------



## coolrda

Schneider/Isco is the best. I compared the Isco to the schneider 1.33L and the're identical. Only the body is different. I prefer the Isco. I've heard the Schneider is making the Isco an OEM only unit with Schneider available as a stand alone product.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18876214
> 
> 
> schneider/isco is the best. I compared the isco to the schneider 1.33l and the're identical. Only the body is different. I prefer the isco. I've heard the schneider is making the isco an oem only unit with schneider available as a stand alone product.



+1


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18876214
> 
> 
> Schneider/Isco is the best. I compared the Isco to the schneider 1.33L and the're identical. Only the body is different. I prefer the Isco. I've heard the Schneider is making the Isco an OEM only unit with Schneider available as a stand alone product.



The Relationship is as follows:


Schneider CineDigitar - No Isco equivalent.

Isco IIIS = Schneider "M"

Isco IIIL - Schnieder "L"


Same glass in the equivalent lenses. Different exterior case and mechanicals. I'm not allowed to say which one I think is better. Isco is now OEM only. AVS (and other CineSlide dealers) have access to the Isco brand via special channels


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18879456
> 
> 
> The Relationship is as follows:
> 
> 
> Schneider CineDigitar - No Isco equivalent.
> 
> Isco IIIS = Schneider "M"
> 
> Isco IIIL - Schnieder "L"
> 
> 
> Same glass in the equivalent lenses. Different exterior case and mechanicals. I'm not allowed to say which one I think is better. Isco is now OEM only. AVS (and other CineSlide dealers) have access to the Isco brand via special channels



Thanks Scott. I assume the OEM is translated>thousands of dollars more OEMer. I like the silky-smooth body of the Isco though performance wise their the same.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18879761
> 
> 
> Thanks Scott. I assume the OEM is translated>thousands of dollars more OEMer. I like the silky-smooth body of the Isco though performance wise their the same.



Personally, I also prefer the Isco body. Not sure I'm following the translation though.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18880172
> 
> 
> Personally, I also prefer the Isco body. Not sure I'm following the translation though.



Buying an Isco from Sim or Marantz is sure to cost more than the same purchase from AVS or TechHT.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Relationship is as follows:
> 
> 
> Schneider CineDigitar - No Isco equivalent.
> 
> Isco IIIS = Schneider "M"
> 
> Isco IIIL - Schnieder "L"
> 
> 
> Same glass in the equivalent lenses. Different exterior case and mechanicals. I'm not allowed to say which one I think is better. Isco is now OEM only. AVS (and other CineSlide dealers) have access to the Isco brand via special channels



What glass do they have in the cineDigitar? I'm sure it's not rubbish.


I cant speak for the other lenses but I know the cineDigitar isn't no slouch.


I was given a test pattern that I reckon is the best for lenses and the Schneider cineDigitar was perfect. You could no go any more perfect. I guess i don't know what you mean by no equivalent but all sides top bottom and corners were perfect.



Another thing to mention when I had my projector calibrated ( Avical ) first without the lens and than with the lens there was no change everything was the same. I guess that says everything about the lens.


I can't talk about the build quality, but I personally don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18880938
> 
> 
> What glass do they have in the cineDigitar? I'm sure it's not rubbish.
> 
> 
> I cant speak for the other lenses but I know the cineDigitar isn't no slouch.
> 
> 
> I was given a test pattern that I reckon is the best for lenses and the Schneider cineDigitar was perfect. You could no go any more perfect. I guess i don't know what you mean by no equivalent but all sides top bottom and corners were perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing to mention when I had my projector calibrated ( Avical ) first without the lens and than with the lens there was no change everything was the same. I guess that says everything about the lens.
> 
> 
> I can't talk about the build quality, but I personally don't see anything wrong with it.



This has been answered in the Cylindrical owners thread and here as well. The Schneider and Isco use the same glass.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> This has been answered in the Cylindrical owners thread and here as well. The Schneider and Isco use the same glass.



Unless I did not understand but Scott did say the glass on the cinedigitar is not equivalent


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/18881358
> 
> 
> Unless I did not understand but Scott did say the glass on the cinedigitar is not equivalent



To clarify in Scott's behalf, he meant there's no equivalent size wise. All Schneider's are called Cine-Digitar. The original Cine-Digitar has a 65mm opening. This is their original lens. Schneider owns Isco. So the other two newer lens from both companies are the same. He wasn't comparing quality, only size of lens. I believe the old Isco 2 was the same as the original cine-digitar 1.33x, though I've heard the Isco 2 wasn't a true cylindrical lens. Forgot why or if this was the case at all. Just what I remember hearing.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18881444
> 
> 
> I believe the old Isco 2 was the same as the original cine-digitar 1.33x, though I've heard the Isco 2 wasn't a true cylindrical lens. Forgot why or if this was the case at all. Just what I remember hearing.



The ISCO II does increase the height slightly, so must use either weak spherical or a very weak cylindrical lens that is turned 90 degrees.


The term "true cylindrical" used simple implied that the lenses used are cylindrical and not a combination of spherical and cylindrical or prisms and cylindrical lenses.


The magnification for an anamorphic lens used for CIH should be:

H = 1.33x

V = 0.0x


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify in Scott's behalf, he meant there's no equivalent size wise. All Schneider's are called Cine-Digitar. The original Cine-Digitar has a 65mm opening. This is their original lens. Schneider owns Isco. So the other two newer lens from both companies are the same. He wasn't comparing quality, only size of lens. I believe the old Isco 2 was the same as the original cine-digitar 1.33x, though I've heard the Isco 2 wasn't a true cylindrical lens. Forgot why or if this was the case at all. Just what I remember hearing.



My apologies to Scott then I interpreted it wrong. Thank you for clarifying coolrda.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18881444
> 
> 
> To clarify in Scott's behalf, he meant there's no equivalent size wise. All Schneider's are called Cine-Digitar. The original Cine-Digitar has a 65mm opening. This is their original lens. Schneider owns Isco. So the other two newer lens from both companies are the same. He wasn't comparing quality, only size of lens. I believe the old Isco 2 was the same as the original cine-digitar 1.33x, though I've heard the Isco 2 wasn't a true cylindrical lens. Forgot why or if this was the case at all. Just what I remember hearing.



Correct. Isco now makes the lenses for both Schneider branded and Isco branded lenses. At one point there could have been a difference in glass (per a comment from them in a trade magazine). That is reported to not be the case now and both get the identical glass, just different cases. Schneider proper used to make the smaller Cinedigitar lens like Franin has. It's a perfectly good lens for it's size, although before Isco was part of Schnieder they criticized it as compared to their lenses. Now Isco (a fully operating division of the very large Schneider group) is making all the anamorphics. I am not sure about the future of the smaller Cinedigitar lens, I expect it to go away to be superceeded by the M and XL.


Isco 2 was about the size of the IIIS or the Sch.M. It had 2 spherical and 2 cylindrical elements. It was originally designed to go from 4:3 to 16:9 full time, not for use in a CIH enviroment like we have today, particularly if the lens is moved. It's a good lens, but it does have the reduction in height artifact if moved into and out of the light path.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Isco now makes the lenses for both Schneider branded and Isco branded lenses. At one point there could have been a difference in glass (per a comment from them in a trade magazine). That is reported to not be the case now and both get the identical glass, just different cases. Schneider proper used to make the smaller Cinedigitar lens like Franin has. It's a perfectly good lens for it's size, although before Isco was part of Schnieder they criticized it as compared to their lenses. Now Isco (a fully operating division of the very large Schneider group) is making all the anamorphics. I am not sure about the future of the smaller Cinedigitar lens, I expect it to go away to be superceeded by the M and XL.
> 
> 
> Isco 2 was about the size of the IIIS or the Sch.M. It had 2 spherical and 2 cylindrical elements. It was originally designed to go from 4:3 to 16:9 full time, not for use in a CIH enviroment like we have today, particularly if the lens is moved. It's a good lens, but it does have the reduction in height artifact if moved into and out of the light path.



Thank you for the info Scott.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17686445
> 
> 
> No offense taken from either of you - maybe my intent here is being misunderstood. I'm not looking to see which lens is "better" in terms of overall optical performance - that question has already been answered.



And the answer is?


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have replaced the 16x9 dlp chip in my Benq with a 2.37 chip. Its phenomenal to say the least. .... The 2x6 is temporary.



One can replace a projector chip? Never heard of this befor. What's the tradeoff? Edit: I read a few of the most recent posts and understand that it now implies a virtual chip.

What's 2x6?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/18867760
> 
> 
> Exactly. Lost in translation. In essence or essentially the transparency of the Isco 3L is such that comparing the picture without the lens in the lite path to the picture with it in the lite path, it's like I changed the chip. The statement was meant as a description for comparison. Sorry for the confusion.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/20030098
> 
> 
> One can replace a projector chip? Never heard of this befor. What's the tradeoff? Edit: I read a few of the most recent posts and understand that it now implies a virtual chip.
> 
> What's 2x6?



The above is the whole post. He added an ISCO IIIL and says it was as if he'd replaced the imaging chip.


----------



## CAVX

Anyway, on the topic of anamorphic lens shoot out, I was able to capture images from the last three Aussiemorphic Lenses.


All three shots are taken using my FujiFilm FinePix S5600 camera set to S with a custom white balance (off the screen) and exposure set to 2 secs. I also used a tri-pod and timer.


The three anamorphic adapters I have used are the MK4, the MK3+C (MK3 with CAVX Correcter fitted) and the MK2 (Trophy Lens). To bring out the best of each, I did rock the focus before taking each shot, however the optics speak for themselves. The slight geometry shifts are due to the prisms where they may or may not be 100% correctly aligned. The point to this exercise is image detail.


With the MK4, the focus was rocked with the lens out of the light path as cylindrical lenses (once dialed in) won't change the focus. The Mk4 was also sled mounted where the other 2 were sat in a makeshift shelf.


MK4 (True Cylindrical Lens with fully corrected optics)









MK3+C (CA corrected Prism adapter with astigmatism correction)









MK2 (Trophy Lens, no correction)









Hopefully this also answers the other question as to why these lenses cost what they do.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Thanks Mark. There's a kind of haze and softness on the Mk2, with the Mk3 plus corrector removing the haze and looking sharper. The Mk4 really sharpens up the details though such as the tile 'grouting' and the cheese grater.


I had a guy round tonight who was buying my old VideoEQ CMS and I calibrated it for him using _his_ HD350. Afterwards I poped my Isco II in front and put on a bit of Casino Royale...I think he was impressed.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/20155126
> 
> 
> Thanks Mark. There's a kind of haze and softness on the Mk2, with the Mk3 plus corrector removing the haze and looking sharper. The Mk4 really sharpens up the details though such as the tile 'grouting' and the cheese grater.



As I said, no correction. I will go so far as to say that part of the reason the MK2 looks hazy (it would actually be ghosting) compared to the other two lenses is the fact that the surface finish is just not true optical grade and there is not proper coatings on the glass. Sure when I look through the prisms it looks "clear", but as I mentioned in the thread about why lens cost so much, surface finish plays a big part, yet one no-one seems to want to discuss that. Also, whist there is anti-reflective coatings applied to the prisms, they are not the same broad band coating true optics use, hence the ghosting.



> Quote:
> I had a guy round tonight who was buying my old VideoEQ CMS and I calibrated it for him using _his_ HD350. Afterwards I poped my Isco II in front and put on a bit of Casino Royale...I think he was impressed.



And why would he not be?


I just came back from a CIH install and yes, the guy was happy because prior to going Scope, he was watching a smaller than the news letterbox image. Today, I left him watching the same film 78% larger and 33% wider than than the news. He is using the MK3+C on a new AT screen. So not only did his visuals improve, so did his sound to picture matching.


----------



## Kenster48

Now there's a novel idea.


A "shootout" between three lenses from the same source "tested" by the guy that sells them. Hope you weren't standing in a circle.


The top one looks OK, but I suspect it's been sharpened. Not only is horizontal detail sharper, but so is vertical detail. Never heard of an anamorphic that can sharpen vertical detail - they've only got optical power in the horizontal direction.


As for the other two: soft and lots of stray light spilling onto the screen. So what's new? They're prisms.


No specifications provided (except for the camera), can't see any close up details, low resolution pictures...


Is this supposed to be a conclusive test, or is it just to kick-start a sleepy thread?


----------



## Widlarizer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18881547
> 
> 
> The ISCO II does increase the height slightly, so must use either weak spherical or a very weak cylindrical lens that is turned 90 degrees.



But it doesn't increase just the height slightly, it adds an amount of 4-12% of zoom (in both directions) in addition to the needeed horizontal 1.33x magnification.


I would say that this is a nice feature for shorter throws, because it avoids vignetting since you need a smaller amount of your pj's optical zoom.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Widlarizer* /forum/post/20162925
> 
> 
> But it doesn't increase just the height slightly, it adds an amount of 4-12% of zoom (in both directions) in addition to the needeed horizontal 1.33x magnification.
> 
> 
> I would say that this is a nice feature for shorter throws, because it avoids vignetting since you need a smaller amount of your pj's optical zoom.



It probably is if you intend to leave the lens in the light path all the time. It might become an issue when you move the lens for 16:9 or 4 x 3 program because technically, it is not a true CIH lens like the ISCO III is.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

It's the one thing that I'd like to change with my Isco II. Due to the 5% extra zoom, my image is slightly too big for my screen so I have to electronically crop the edges (preferable to overspill IMHO). Also as Mark says it isn't true CIH when I move it out of the way (which I do when it's a whole 1.85:1 film as I have a flat screen). I then have to zoom very slightly to fill the screen height if I don't want to see the slight black bars top and bottom.


One day I dream I'll find an Isco III for sale by someone who doesn't know how much it's worth (I think the 'III looks so much better than some of these new wannabes







).


----------



## GetGray

Better hurry. I have the Isco 4 in hand. Really.


----------



## CAVX

Cool. Can you share any details? How funny would it be if they added a big meniscus to the front


----------



## Kenster48




> Quote:
> Cool. Can you share any details? How funny would it be if they added a big meniscus to the front



This version's so heavy it comes with tank treads. They almost worked at Stalingrad.


Then we could have a REAL shootout. It got blown out of the water last time, I heard.


Those meniscuses can be pretty dangerous things, by all accounts.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kenster48* /forum/post/20172777
> 
> 
> This version's so heavy it comes with tank treads.



Many people actually like heavy. It gives them the satisfaction that they have received maximum value for their $$$, even if it is not practical.


----------



## Kenster48




> Quote:
> It gives them the satisfaction that they have received maximum value for their $$$, even if it is not practical.



It gives them the _illusion_ they have received value for their money.


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20173306
> 
> 
> Many people actually like heavy. It gives them the satisfaction that they have received maximum value for their $$$, even if it is not practical.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kenster48* /forum/post/20173553
> 
> 
> It gives them the _illusion_ they have received value for their money.



In my life time and experience, the best optics have never been light in weight or inexpensive.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b curry* /forum/post/20173697
> 
> 
> In my life time and experience, the best optics have never been light in weight or inexpensive.



+1 and nor will they ever be.


----------



## Kenster48




> Quote:
> In my life time and experience, the best optics have never been light in weight or inexpensive.



The heavy weight of Iscos and the like is simply a function of the thickness of glass, I suspect. You need a minimum thickness to make large diameter glass support its own weight during manufacture.


It is naive to equate weight with quality, although it is a mistake often made. Some people think red Ferraris goes faster than yellow ones too. The weight of these big lenses is simply in proportion to their size, not their quality.


Take the prism systems just above: the images from them are awful (as all seem to agree, including the manufacturer), but I bet the units themselves weigh a lot.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Kenster48* 
The heavy weight of Iscos and the like is simply a function of the thickness of glass, I suspect. You need a minimum thickness to make large diameter glass support its own weight during manufacture.


It is naive to equate weight with quality, although it is a mistake often made. Some people think red Ferraris goes faster than yellow ones too. The weight of these big lenses is simply in proportion to their size, not their quality.


Take the prism systems just above: the images from them are awful (as all seem to agree, including the manufacturer), but I bet the units themselves weigh a lot.
Welcome back Aussie bob


----------



## b curry

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Kenster48* 
The heavy weight of Iscos and the like is simply a function of the thickness of glass, I suspect. You need a minimum thickness to make large diameter glass support its own weight during manufacture.


It is naive to equate weight with quality, although it is a mistake often made. Some people think red Ferraris goes faster than yellow ones too. The weight of these big lenses is simply in proportion to their size, not their quality.


Take the prism systems just above: the images from them are awful (as all seem to agree, including the manufacturer), but I bet the units themselves weigh a lot.
And the earth does not need to spin to have gravity. You feel a need to read in more than I have said.


Regardless, high quality optics generally are heavy and are sold at a premium price.


One's naiveté would be in not being able to distinguish between quality optics and a boat anchor, regardless of weight and price.


----------



## sharok

Hello,

I've a novice question for you regarding anamorphic lens and aspect ratio.

dnp screen has an epic screen (with a masking system) that is 2.40:1.

When using an anamorphic lens, I need to set it up to enlarge the image either to 2.35:1 or to 2.40:1.

Is there any way to setup the lens so I get a full screen image automatically (no black bars) for both 2.35:1 AND 2.40:1?


Thank You


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharok* /forum/post/20218045
> 
> 
> Is there any way to setup the lens so I get a full screen image automatically (no black bars) for both 2.35:1 AND 2.40:1?



Generally no for a Plug-N-Play CIH systems as both 2.35 and 2.40 are technically CIW on the projectors chip. Scaling for CIH is fixed at 33.3%, so both get the same amount of VS. There will be small slivers on a 2.40:1 image on 2.35:1 screen. If you use a 2.40:1 screen, you may see over-scanned image from a 2.35:1 film. Given the amount of difference is less than 4%, I would not loose sleep over it.


----------



## sharok

Mark,


So do you set the lens for 2.35:1 images and you use the same setting for 2.40:1?


Am I correct or is it the other way around (set the lens for 2.40:1 and use it for both 2.35 and 2.40)?


Thank You


----------



## Bigus

Or set it for like 2.37:1 and accept a tiny amount of overscan for both (vertical for one, horizontal for the other)?


----------



## Bigus

edit - I guess that isn't possible is it. I would think overscan would be preferrable except that it would mean all 16:9 content also had overscan top/bottom. Doesn't seem like the most efficient use of limited lamp brightness!


----------



## sharok

Why isn't it possible to set the lens for 2.37:1?


Also, what is overscan?


Please forgive my ignorance. I'm new to the world of projector so I'm trying to learn.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bigus* /forum/post/20220798
> 
> 
> edit - I guess that isn't possible is it. I would think overscan would be preferrable except that it would mean all 16:9 content also had overscan top/bottom. Doesn't seem like the most efficient use of limited lamp brightness!



Whilst some prism lenses offer a degree of custom stretch, cylindrical lenses are fixed. The difference in final projected width will come as a result of TR where the shorter the throw, the wider it becomes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharok* /forum/post/20220820
> 
> 
> Why isn't it possible to set the lens for 2.37:1?
> 
> 
> Also, what is overscan?
> 
> 
> Please forgive my ignorance. I'm new to the world of projector so I'm trying to learn.



Over scan is simply projecting some image to the mask.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater

Everything else (especially projected image size) being equal, does a longer throw distance mean a dimmer image? If so, what is the light fall off formula? You'd think that edge to edge focus would be better with longer throw ratios and better for anamorphics


----------



## stanger89

Not from a physics standpoint. What makes the image dimmer with longer throws isn't the longer throw, it's the smaller aperture of the projection lens at smaller/longer zooms. Generally longer throw means less glass in the light path (smaller beam) and pretty much everything is better.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/20222074
> 
> 
> You'd think that edge to edge focus would be better with longer throw ratios and better for anamorphics



The beam angles are less, so yes, even on a simple prism lens, the edge to edge will be better. With a cylindrical, you adjust the air gap to suit the TR, so corner to corner will be as good at 1.3:1 as it will be at 2.2:1. The difference will be the amount of pincushion where the longer throw exhibits less.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> The beam angles are less, so yes, even on a simple prism lens, the edge to edge will be better. With a cylindrical, you adjust the air gap to suit the TR, so corner to corner will be as good at 1.3:1 as it will be at 2.2:1. The difference will be the amount of pincushion where the longer throw exhibits less.



Does an Anamorphic lens have the same edge to edge sharp focus regardless of throw ratios?

Does the projectors aperture become smaller at longer TRs? Photography lenses can maintain constant aperture at different zoom positions


----------



## HogPilot

Mark - on a totally unrelated subject, wasn't your old signature line "CinemaScope - You See It Without Glasses!"? Just a humorous observation that you're now regaling the joys of 3D Scope...for which you need glasses!


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/20223491
> 
> 
> Does an Anamorphic lens have the same edge to edge sharp focus regardless of throw ratios?



An adjustable cylindrical lens can yes, a fixed lens, like a prism lens (even the good ones) will have a specific throw where they are in optimal focus.



> Quote:
> Does the projectors aperture become smaller at longer TRs?



Yes, for any specific projector/projector lens.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/20223491
> 
> 
> Does the projectors aperture become smaller at longer TRs? Photography lenses can maintain constant aperture at different zoom positions



Depends on the specific projector. Sim2 C3X lines, JVC RSx, most mid-market and lower Projectors have variable aperture lenses. The wider the zoom angle (closer to the screen) the more light they put out, but that affects the contrast ratio in the worse direction, and vise versa. There are PJ's with constant aperture lenses though. Mine has one, it's a Digital Projection 3 Chip DLP. Like in camera lenses, those cost more so they are normally found on more expensive PJ's.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20223497
> 
> 
> Mark - on a totally unrelated subject, wasn't your old signature line "CinemaScope - You See It Without Glasses!"? Just a humorous observation that you're now regaling the joys of 3D Scope...for which you need glasses!



Full story about my 3D Scope experience HERE .


I actually like and want 3D and the Mitsubishi is looking like a good way to get there. I really don't understand all the negativity to 3D. Yes we all have to buy new gear, that is a given and regardless if it is a new video standard like 3D or a new audio standard like the 11.2 sound system or just a new HDMI spec. At some point we all have to upgrade our systems.


My first experience was with 3D was a Dolby 3D system for Monsters Vs Aliens and I was blown away. After that, the cinema changed out their Dolby 3D system for a REAL D system. Whilst I don't think REAL D is as good as DOLBY 3D, the system still delivers an amazing experience.


There have been some soundtracks to (to me anyway) seemed a slightly abuse the surrounds. In 3D, all is forgiven because you actually want and need extra surround usage to match the pop out visuals.


Sometimes I think the SMPTE pushed 3D out as a way of getting the world past the GFC - lets bring out new toys and a new TV standard and people will begin to spend again. And as a result, I do think 3D has been rushed a bit. It is here now and it is getting better. TRON Legacy was amazing in 3D.


The phrase "you see it without glasses" is funny to me because that seems to be the one single issue the masses have against 3D and given that I support anamorphic lenses, seemed to be good timing for marketing of the MK4. And I stand by my words that Scope in 3D is the ultimate. I wear corrected eye wear anyway, so wearing the shutter glasses over the top is a non issue for me. If anything, it make them more comfortable.


This is a card I found in a music store.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20227077
> 
> 
> I really don't understand all the negativity to 3D.



For me it's that I've been completely unimpressed with every 3D presentation I've seen.



> Quote:
> My first experience was with 3D was a Dolby 3D system for Monsters Vs Aliens and I was blown away. After that, the cinema changed out their Dolby 3D system for a REAL D system. Whilst I don't think REAL D is as good as DOLBY 3D, the system still delivers an amazing experience.



I just haven't seen it. This is at two theaters, both using RealD now, just didn't impress, and the color shift and discomfort from the RealD glasses outweighed any apparent depth benefit.



> Quote:
> TRON Legacy was amazing in 3D.



It was good, but the 3D was nothing special.



> Quote:
> I wear corrected eye wear anyway, so wearing the shutter glasses over the top is a non issue for me. If anything, it make them more comfortable.



Personally I think it's a bigger issue if you have to wear glasses already, the second pair just doesn't sit right no matter what you do.


I keep wanting to like it, I keep going thinking "maybe there was something wrong with the setup last time" but I've always walked out disappointed.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20227077
> 
> 
> I actually like and want 3D and the Mitsubishi is looking like a good way to get there.



Im thinking of going with the Mitsubishi HC9000 too Mark, its a great projector, plenty of lumens to fill my 140" dia. scope screen and the blacks are some of the best Ive ever seen.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20227233
> 
> 
> Personally I think it's a bigger issue if you have to wear glasses already, the second pair just doesn't sit right no matter what you do.



I did have some issues with the DOLBY 3D glasses over my glasses and found I was adjusting them a few times. The REAL D glasses do sit better over the top. Apparently I can have my clears circular polarized by the optometrist. Of course then they are only good for 3D at a cinema that uses REAL D.


3D is probably not for everyone and why everything is also 2D compatible.


One thing I've discovered is unless both eyes are equal strength, you don't see 3D properly and as a result, may even experience head aches and even nausea.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/20227484
> 
> 
> Im thinking of going with the Mitsubishi HC9000 too Mark, its a great projector, plenty of lumens to fill my 140" dia. scope screen and the blacks are some of the best Ive ever seen.



I was impressed out of the box. I just enjoyed it for what it was without calibration. I'd like to see how much better it could look after it was calibrated.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20226316
> 
> 
> There are PJ's with constant aperture lenses though. Mine has one, it's a Digital Projection 3 Chip DLP. Like in camera lenses, those cost more so they are normally found on more expensive PJ's.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Scott



So, zooming in/out or changing the throw ratio while keeping the screen size constant has no effect on image brightness using these constant aperture lenses?

Thank you


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DIYHomeTheater* /forum/post/20229499
> 
> 
> So, zooming in/out or changing the throw ratio while keeping the screen size constant has no effect on image brightness using these constant aperture lenses?
> 
> Thank you



Well... Since I am in the A-lens business, I don't do any "zooming"







(except for setup of course), but to answer your question, that is correct.


To be clear though, with a CA lens, regardless of the lens zoom position, the same number of lumens are produced by the projector. "brightness" (technically "illuminance") off the screen changes because you are spreading the same amount of lumens across different areas. With VA lenses, as you change the zoom position, the number of lumens produced by the projector changes.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20227233
> 
> 
> for me it's that i've been completely unimpressed with every 3d presentation i've seen.



+1


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20229643
> 
> 
> Well... Since I am in the A-lens business, I don't do any "zooming"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (except for setup of course), but to answer your question, that is correct.
> 
> 
> To be clear though, with a CA lens, regardless of the lens zoom position, the same number of lumens are produced by the projector. "brightness" (technically "illuminance") off the screen changes because you are spreading the same amount of lumens across different areas. With VA lenses, as you change the zoom position, the number of lumens produced by the projector changes.



So, for a lens that is specified as being 'F=2.48-2.81, f=24.1-36.1', (I am assuming that the upper case 'F' is the aperture, the light reduction at narrowest beam angle will be a factor of (2.48/2.81)^2 = 0.78 (i.e. a 22% reduction). That's quite substantial if you are trying to minimize A-lens pincushion.


----------



## GetGray

Yep.


And don't forget that the CR goes up at the narrower beams, too. So its a balancing act.


Factor in bulb brightness losses and one nneds to be very careful about placement, and screen size. I've got a special excel based calculator I developed to use when sizing my jobs with the JVC's in particular.


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20229926
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> And don't forget that the CR goes up at the narrower beams, too. So its a balancing act.
> 
> 
> Factor in bulb brightness losses and one nneds to be very careful about placement, and screen size. I've got a special excel based calculator I developed to use when sizing my jobs with the JVC's in particular.



Tricky, indeed. What's the minimum recommended brightness in a completely light controlled room for an ISCO III for a 16:9 image (i.e. before the A-lens is put in the light path)?


----------



## GetGray

The "normal" recommendation is 16ftL. That's based on what's done in commercial theaters ans SMTPE recommendations. Some are happy with less, I personally prefer more. My personal screen is a 56" tall curved Stewart Firehawk (about 1.1 gain) and I get 20ftL in 1.78 mode. In 2.37 mode I can set my bulb to normal and get the same, but I usually leave it as is for about 50% of my movie viewing. I find most 1.78 material (HDTV for me) is more enjoyable brighter, even though I can tweak to taste.


HTH

Scott


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20230222
> 
> 
> The "normal" recommendation is 16ftL. That's based on what's done in commercial theaters ans SMTPE recommendations. Some are happy with less, I personally prefer more. My personal screen is a 56" tall curved Stewart Firehawk (about 1.1 gain) and I get 20ftL in 1.78 mode. In 2.37 mode I can set my bulb to normal and get the same, but I usually leave it as is for about 50% of my movie viewing. I find most 1.78 material (HDTV for me) is more enjoyable brighter, even though I can tweak to taste.
> 
> 
> HTH
> 
> Scott



How do you 'get the same' in 2.40 vs. 1.78? You must be increasing the increasing the light output in the 'normal mode' when you put the A-lens and then reducing it for 1.78 material to 'get the same' on the screen.

Also, by what factor does the ISCO reduce light? To get 16 ftL, you would need to plan for slightly higher than that, right?


----------



## GetGray

Yes. On my PJ economy mode gives me 20ftL, it is about 20-25% less bright than normal mode. Isco costs just a little over 1%.


----------



## Bigus

Interesting... I assume then that you move the lens sled out of the way for 1.78 material? I had never thought about using economy/normal type modes to compensate for the ft lambert loss when stretching to a wider area. Is this automated in any way in your setup so that when sled moves it automatically drops to economy, or better yet aspect ratio is usually autodetected and this happens automatically, or is this a manual choice you make depending on content?


I have always thought the easiest and most consistent solution was to leave the lens in the path at all times so that brightness was constant, though you of course throw away pixels in doing so. I think that's from my aversion to moving the lens both in possible effects on fine calibration and the necessity of an expensive sled to minimize such problems. I'll give more thought to your method.


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Bigus* 
Interesting... I assume then that you move the lens sled out of the way for 1.78 material?
Of course I do, see caption under user name, google CineSlide.
Quote:

I had never thought about using economy/normal type modes to compensate for the ft lambert loss when stretching to a wider area. Is this automated in any way in your setup so that when sled moves it automatically drops to economy, or better yet aspect ratio is usually autodetected and this happens automatically, or is this a manual choice you make depending on content?
I'm an engineer, so I prefer granularity by nature, but it's easy to automate via RS232 which I have as an option. Although, as I said, I find that with a few exceptions I prefer my 1.78 material brighter so I don't usually turn up the light on the 2.37 material

Quote:

I have always thought the easiest and most consistent solution was to leave the lens in the path at all times so that brightness was constant, though you of course throw away pixels in doing so. I think that's from my aversion to moving the lens both in possible effects on fine calibration and the necessity of an expensive sled to minimize such problems. I'll give more thought to your method.








Well, when I started all of this, back before CIH and with an old liquid filled Panamorph P752, we were all jumping through hoops to use every pixel of the display device. We needed tosave every photon. Now, there are those (well about 4 of them







) who will argue that leaving the lens in place is their preference, as you are "only" throwing away horizontal resolution. But some of those same people will get on a stump and preach the virtues of saving every possible vertical line (vs zooming). It's a weak argument IMO. My take on it is it depends on how much 1.78 material you watch. I watch a lot of 1.78 material, movies and HDTV, and I'm not about to spend $30k on a PJ, $7-8k on a Isco lens, etc., have this high end setup for maximizing image quality, and get less than 720p horizontal resolution by (DOWN) scaling and mucking with the image that was perfectly unaltered otherwise. All in the name of keeping the maximum illuminance at the same level. What you are throwing away does not balance with any gains, which, IMO aren't there anyway. Get a decent HD drawer slide before you leave it in place. You don't have to have the convenience of a automated transport. When I demo, I never turn the brightness (luminance) up on my PJ and have people say that looks bad, turn it back down.


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GetGray* 
and get less than 720p horizontal resolution by (DOWN) scaling and mucking with the image that was perfectly unaltered otherwise.
Given that I am one of the "4", I would like to respond to the above comment. A 720P is 1280 x 720. When scaling back 1920, you get 1440 which is more than 720's horizontal rez of 1280. Now the key point being pixel size. for every 1000mm, the pixels of a 720P will be 1.388mm. On the SAME size screen, a 1080P will have 0.926mm pixels, so even when the H rez is magnified by the A-Lens, the pixels are still smaller than a 720P and of course, we are maintaining the full the 1080 rez.


----------



## Bigus

And there are other considerations that I just don't have enough practical experience with yet. Such as curved screens... do you use one to reduce pincusion? If so, do you see significant barrel when moving the lens out of the path?


Maybe we just need native 2.4:1 chips that have greater than 1920 horizontal resolution so that anamorphic is upscaled and when using part of the chip for 1.78 we still get full HD resolution. Where can I buy one of those?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bigus* /forum/post/20233171
> 
> 
> Where can I buy one of those?



Here ya go:
http://www.avielo.com/product-optix-superwide235.html


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Resolution: 2538 x 1080 pixels.



Why would they change the 2560 x 1080 standard Phillips introduced for their Cinema 21:9?


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GetGray*
Of course I do, see caption under user name, google CineSlide.

I'm an engineer, so I prefer granularity by nature, but it's easy to automate via RS232 which I have as an option. Although, as I said, I find that with a few exceptions I prefer my 1.78 material brighter so I don't usually turn up the light on the 2.37 material


Well, when I started all of this, back before CIH and with an old liquid filled Panamorph P752, we were all jumping through hoops to use every pixel of the display device. We needed tosave every photon. Now, there are those (well about 4 of them







) who will argue that leaving the lens in place is their preference, as you are "only" throwing away horizontal resolution. But some of those same people will get on a stump and preach the virtues of saving every possible vertical line (vs zooming). It's a weak argument IMO. My take on it is it depends on how much 1.78 material you watch. I watch a lot of 1.78 material, movies and HDTV, and I'm not about to spend $30k on a PJ, $7-8k on a Isco lens, etc., have this high end setup for maximizing image quality, and get less than 720p horizontal resolution by (DOWN) scaling and mucking with the image that was perfectly unaltered otherwise. All in the name of keeping the maximum illuminance at the same level. What you are throwing away does not balance with any gains, which, IMO aren't there anyway. Get a decent HD drawer slide before you leave it in place. You don't have to have the convenience of a automated transport. When I demo, I never turn the brightness (luminance) up on my PJ and have people say that looks bad, turn it back down.









I agree with Scott I watch plenty of 1:78:1 material ( and there is quite a bit ) and I move the lens out. Watch it at it's optimum.


----------



## goneten

Just a question. If someone has a budget projector (like an Optoma HD20) but wants a 2:35 experience can one of these anamorphic lenses (not the ones mentioned here, but inexpensive ones) do the job reasonably well ? Just wondering. Or is it just a lost cause altogether ?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/20264090
> 
> 
> Just a question. If someone has a budget projector (like an Optoma HD20) but wants a 2:35 experience can one of these anamorphic lenses (not the ones mentioned here, but inexpensive ones) do the job reasonably well ? Just wondering. Or is it just a lost cause altogether ?



As long as you are not expecting an image to match that of one of the expensive lenses.


----------



## goneten

Could you recommend one or two decent inexpensive options (assuming they exist) ? I mean, if I use an HD20 projector and I use of these lenses, will the quality of image be worse ?


----------



## DIYHomeTheater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Could you recommend one or two decent inexpensive options (assuming they exist) ? I mean, if I use an HD20 projector and I use of these lenses, will the quality of image be worse ?



All lenses affect original image quality somewhat (sharpness, brightness, contrast). With good optics like the better cylindrical lenses these effects will be minimal. With prism-based ones, more so. A friend uses a prism based Panamorph and he says that it noticeably makes the picture a little soft. However, he seems pleased with the overall results. Some folks notice it right away. Another way to think about this is that you will probably go through many projectors in your lifetime, but only through one A-lens. In that case it would make sense to buy a good lens. That's what I plan to do.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/20264090
> 
> 
> Just a question. If someone has a budget projector (like an Optoma HD20) but wants a 2:35 experience can one of these anamorphic lenses (not the ones mentioned here, but inexpensive ones) do the job reasonably well ? Just wondering. Or is it just a lost cause altogether ?



Having used an "inexpensive" lens (a Panamorph P752) for quite a while with a few DLPs, I'll say yes, it's worth it. Especially if you consider that it's the only really practical way to do CIH with a zoom-limited DLP.


----------



## goneten

As a matter of interest, what does the Panamorph P752 cost ?


----------



## stanger89

I paid $500 for mine a few years ago used, but they haven't been made for a while.


----------



## goneten

And how was the quality of that lens ? What projector did you use ? See, I'm thinking of those with Optoma HD20/Panasonic AX200 type projectors in mind. Mainly because *I* can only afford that level of projector. I understand there will be compromises because it's simply unavoidable.


But for me, I would LOVE to watch movies in a 2:35 ratio. I just can't fork out the $$$ (or Rands, as the case may be







) for a JVC projector with anamorphic lens or Panasonic AE4000 with 2:35 support. I know it's silly, just need to know what my options are and if it's possible to get a decent HT experience with a external anamorphic lens on a budget.


----------



## CAVX

I've tested this lens and for 720P, I thought it was quite good. I've seen both versions of the VC (liquid and solid prisms versions). The two VCs did not have CA correction. I would say that because the the CA runs horizontal with VCs, not vertical as it does with HEs, it tends not to be as visible anyway. Also because of the vertical compression, edge to edge is clean horizontally, hence their claim of "astigmatism corrected".


----------



## goneten

Okay, you tested it for 720p and think it looked good. But what about 1080p testing ? I'm thinking of buying an Optoma HD20 which is native 1080p. If I had to use one of these Panamorph lenses (as per above) would the results be significantly worse than if the projector did not use the lens or would it minor ? Any ideas..?


Thing is, I don't think there are many people out there with budget projectors buying anamorphic lenses, no doubt because they assume that it's a waste of time. But...well, I'm hoping that I could get a decent experience with one. I just don't know what the performance will be like since I can't demo this lens. It's a case of buying blind and hoping for the best. If anyone has ever tested one of these inexpensive lenses with a budget projector, like the Optoma HD20, please let me know.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/20274950
> 
> 
> Okay, you tested it for 720p and think it looked good. But what about 1080p testing ? I'm thinking of buying an Optoma HD20 which is native 1080p. If I had to use one of these Panamorph lenses (as per above) would the results be significantly worse than if the projector did not use the lens or would it minor ? Any ideas..?



Given that I have never seen it in front of a 1080P, I can not comment. In front of a 720P, it looked about the same as a pair of trophies arranged in a VC configuration. I therefore suggest that a pair of trophies will be your most cost effective alternative to achieve a VC lens. If it does not work out for you, you have not lost that much.


----------



## goneten




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In front of a 720P, it looked about the same as a pair of trophies arranged in a VC configuration.



What does that mean ? Sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/20279600
> 
> 
> What does that mean ? Sorry, I don't understand.



The DIY community has been making 2 prism anamorphic lenses using trophies since about 2006. Most of the projects were HE which would often show CA and astigmatism. I am suggesting that you could use a pair of these to make a VC lens and you would get a better result.


2 things:


1. No optic coatings.

2. No spec on the surface finish. This why I said that for 720, it was OK. It may not be so good for 1080.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20279907
> 
> 
> The DIY community has been making 2 prism anamorphic lenses using trophies since about 2006. Most of the projects were HE which would often show CA and astigmatism. I am suggesting that you could use a pair of these to make a VC lens and you would get a better result.
> 
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> 
> 1. No optic coatings.
> 
> 2. No spec on the surface finish. This why I said that for 720, it was OK. It may not be so good for 1080.



Speaking of DIY, do you have something new in the works geared toward the DIY'er? I ran across something but was too lazy read everything and figure out what was being talked about, it sparked my interest.


-Sean


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* 
Speaking of DIY, do you have something new in the works geared toward the DIY'er?
Yes I do. Images should be on my blog by the end of the week.


----------



## Steve Scherrer

Cavx - nice to see you still active around here. It has been a while since I have played at the CIH game, since I got my system set up a few years ago. Sounds like your doing quite well. Good to see...


Never made it out to Brisbane, but if I do, I will try to track you down.


----------



## CAVX

Yeah I'm still here, pleasing some, annoying others


----------



## Peter M

Fixed ...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20297240
> 
> 
> Yeah I'm still here, pleasing many, annoying a few



And Mark ... I think you still owe me an answer to my last email !


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peter M* /forum/post/20302001
> 
> 
> Fixed ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Mark ... I think you still owe me an answer to my last email !



Hi Peter, sorry for not replying sooner. I have returned your email tonight.


----------



## Peter M

No worries Mark ... thanks for your help !


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20282180
> 
> 
> Yes I do. Images should be on my blog by the end of the week.



Mark, would you be able to start a thread about the new lens or would that not be allowed? I am very interested in it and curious about an eta as I have been ready to upgrade my lens for over 6 months now. Thanks!


-Sean


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20319703
> 
> 
> Mark, would you be able to start a thread about the new lens or would that not be allowed? I am very interested in it and curious about an eta as I have been ready to upgrade my lens for over 6 months now. Thanks!
> 
> 
> -Sean



Unfortunately it is against the forum rules for me to start the thread.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20282180
> 
> 
> Yes I do. Images should be on my blog by the end of the week.



Well done Mark!


----------



## Ranger

Mark, looking forward to your MKV's.


----------



## dsardenga

What do you mean by anamorphic . A 2X squeeze with adjustment for distance asteg otherwise panavission super panavission cinemascope


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsardenga* /forum/post/20333078
> 
> 
> What do you mean by anamorphic . A 2X squeeze with adjustment for distance asteg otherwise panavission super panavission cinemascope



An anamorphic lens is one that magnifies in just one direction - typically for video we use a 1.33x Horizontally Expanding lens.


----------



## dsardenga

Ok I may not quite understand and perhaps its beyond the scope (no pun intended) of this setting. A prime lens with FL based on size of sheet and distance plus an anamorphic attachment to reverse the squeeze for 2.35:1 ? 1:33.1 is not anamorphic as a ratio I would not think. I defer the higher UPS for clarity if I misspoke


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dsardenga* /forum/post/20334595
> 
> 
> plus an anamorphic attachment to reverse the squeeze for 2.35:1 ?



That is what a HE lens does. Cinema uses 2x and HT uses 1.33x.



> Quote:
> 1:33.1 is not anamorphic as a ratio I would not think. I defer the higher UPS for clarity if I misspoke



Not sure if I am understanding your question.


1.33:1 is certainly an important part of Constant Image Height projection.


----------



## dsardenga

We might be talking two different things. I do not mean to sound gruff. I will look into the lingo used regarding the digital cinema projectors and servers so I can pose the question accurately. Thank you for taking the time.


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dsardenga* 
We might be talking two different things. I do not mean to sound gruff. I will look into the lingo used regarding the digital cinema projectors and servers so I can pose the question accurately. Thank you for taking the time.
All of the D-Cinema projectors I've seen do not use the A-Lens (ISCO 1.25x).


----------



## GlenC

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dsardenga* 
Ok I may not quite understand and perhaps its beyond the scope (no pun intended) of this setting. A prime lens with FL based on size of sheet and distance plus an anamorphic attachment to reverse the squeeze for 2.35:1 ? 1:33.1 is not anamorphic as a ratio I would not think. I defer the higher UPS for clarity if I misspoke
Here is how it works, we have 16:9 format, multiply 16 x 1.33 = 21.28 now divide 21.28 / 9 = 2.364 This is how the 1.33 horizontal stretch works. Another approach 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.367 (16:9 = 1.78:1)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GlenC* /forum/post/20339083
> 
> 
> Here is how it works, we have 16:9 format, multiply 16 x 1.33 = 21.28 now divide 21.28 / 9 = 2.364 This is how the 1.33 horizontal stretch works. Another approach 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.367 (16:9 = 1.78:1)


----------



## goneten

Hi guys,


Just wanted to ask (since I asked some questions earlier concerning lenses) do you think this lens would work on the Optoma HD20 http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_h850m.shtml 


I have no idea, just need some advice...


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *goneten* 
Hi guys,


Just wanted to ask (since I asked some questions earlier concerning lenses) do you think this lens would work on the Optoma HD20 http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_h850m.shtml 


I have no idea, just need some advice...
If the throw is long enough, yes it should be fine.


----------



## dsardenga

I follow. Thank you for the outstanding details. I find myself quite handicapped with a film background as the transition to the 2k DLP's happens at a pretty good click. Operating and even installing this stuff is easy but thats where it ends. I look forward to visiting this forum again.


----------

