# The official Panamorph UH380 thread.



## HogPilot

Shawn notified me right before Thanksgiving that my UH380 lens had shipped - it should be here tomorrow. Once it gets in I'll review it - does anyone else already have theirs? I'd love to hear first impressions of anyone that does. Until then, I guess I'll just have to sit patiently and hope I get off work soon enough to get the hardware to mount mine on my H79 tomorrow night.


----------



## richh

I have one on order but have not been notified yet. Which is ok, since my HT still is a few weeks from being complete







. How do you plan on mounting the lens and how big is your screen? I have an H78 so I am definitely interested in your comments and setup.


----------



## usualsuspects

My UH380 lens and sled are on order, and I was told it would be shipping this week. I am still struggling with how to mount it. My Pearl lens is about 30 inches from the ceiling on a Chief mount. Not sure yet of the best way to drop the lens/sled 30 inches. I can shorten up the mount pole somewhat on the projector, I have enough zoom and offset range. The mount needs to be stiff, but I would prefer something that is not too massive - perhaps a lattice box? Not sure...


----------



## Kemet

The UH380 arrived yesterday, unfortunately I do not have the set-up to test it properly.


It is a very large, solid, and heavy piece that seems well constructed and looks quite nice. As for performance, since I just had time during the day in a non-light controlled bright room on a 16:9 screen, not many comments or comparisions since I am a novice. Seemed to pair fine with my Sony 12HT at 1.67 TR, but I think I will have some pincushion/barrel. It should not be an issue once I have a proper 2.35 screen and can mask it.


I can't wait until my theatre room is ready to use it properly.


----------



## CAVX

Please post some photos guys...


Mark


----------



## chipvideo

I haven't recieved a reply yet either. I have both the lens and mount on order. My TR will be 2.0 so I hope things work great. Not going to have any masking. Will decide on that later next year. Will be using a panny900u and a carada BW 128" 2.35 diag screen.


----------



## wcaughey

My first uh380 arrived in the mail about 30 minutes ago. I'll be setting it up likely tomorrow and will link to some pictures.


I have prior experience with my sanyo z3 and a h600m diy lens, this one will be paired with a z4.


----------



## richh

Just got an email asking to confirm my address. Sounds like they will be shipping a bunch in the next few days. Even though the theater is not complete I'll be giving it a go as soon as I get it. What's the saying about not hanging the projector until you're done with construction?


----------



## HogPilot

I just took the lens out of its package and I have to echo that it has a very heavy, solid feel to it and it also looks very nice. As soon as I get it mounted on my pj I'll post some pictures. Having held it in place in front of the pj, I have to say I'm really impressed with the image from my normal viewing position - there was no visible CA or pincushion (obviously this is just a first impression, I'll give a more thorough review later). I've got my H79 set at max TR (2.16x I believe) on a 136" Carada Brilliant White 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## Allen

Got my lens today, and agree with HogPilot's assessment. Am still in construction so can't test it's performance for a couple of weeks or so.


Allen


----------



## rlhjr34

OK the curiosity is killing me. Mine is due to ship soon, got the email to confirm my address so I expect it any day now. I'm anxious to at least see what it looks like. I Hope someone posts a picture soon.


----------



## richh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rlhjr34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK the curiosity is killing me. Mine is due to ship soon, got the email to confirm my address so I expect it any day now. I'm anxious to at least see what it looks like. I Hope someone posts a picture soon.



yeah, someone post a pic... pretty please...


----------



## Steve Carr

I received my UH380 Lens today. I don't have it mounted yet, but I placed it in front of my pj and I just have to give "Shawn Kelly" TWO THUMBS UP. I already have a CIH set up with my (VP30 Scaler), (Optoma EP758 PJ) and I'm fine with what I have. I don't mind the black bars up top and bottom of the screen. I can use the scaler to lose the bars. The UH380 lens makes my CIH WIDER than before. (SWEET)...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> II don't mind the black bars up top and bottom of the screen. I can use the scaler to lose the bars. The UH380 lens makes my CIH WIDER than before. (SWEET)...



What is your geometry like










Mark


----------



## tvted

When you folks post, can you please include info such as screen height and throw?


ted


----------



## Citation4444

Those of you who have received your lens/mount, did you receive tracking information or did it just show up on your doorstep?


----------



## richh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Citation4444* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Those of you who have received your lens/mount, did you receive tracking information or did it just show up on your doorstep?



I received an email from Shawn with a tracking number, actually just a few hours ago. UPS site says mine will be here tomorrow, though we're supposed to get 6 or so inches of snow tonight.


and i _will_ post pics ...


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *richh* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I received an email from Shawn with a tracking number, actually just a few hours ago. UPS site says mine will be here tomorrow, though we're supposed to get 6 or so inches of snow tonight.
> 
> 
> and i _will_ post pics ...



Exact same situation for me, except no snow is forecast







I have a crappy camera, just a cheap thing I bought to keep track of what was in each wall during construction so don't expect great photos. No word on the sled shipment yet. I shortened up my Pearl mount pole, the center of the lens of the projector is now 21 inches from the ceiling.


----------



## rlhjr34

I just got my tracking number. It shows mine will be here on the 5th and that it was delayed due to weather yesterday. It does show that it left late last night (3 AM) so i'd imagine those scheduled for delivery tomorrow should still be on que.


----------



## pcarey

I got mine today and it does look good. Very solid construction. I won't have a chance to try it for a couple of weeks but I need to figure out how I am going to mount it. My PJ (HD81) will be about 6" below the ceiling and the mount bracket of the UH380 gives you 2-3" at most between it and the top of the lens. At first I thought the only thing missing from the box was an instruction manual but thinking about it, apart from which way round to put it there 'aint much to it!!


----------



## pcarey

Here are a couple of pictures


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What is your geometry like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark




My room size is 20'x20'. Screen height is 54 1/2" and Throw distance is 18ft. I will adjust my screen size down some when I mount the lens. I did receive a tracking number by email.


----------



## Jeff Regan

Shawn told me on Monday that my UH380 would ship in a couple of days. I haven't received any shipping info yet and my installer is hanging my HD81 and 2:35 Stewart 100" ST130 on the 5th. It sure would be nice to hang the lens and transport.


Speaking of the M380 transport, has anybody received this yet? Or is it just the lens shipping currently? I guess if there's no M380, then installation on the 5th would be a

moot point.


Jeff Regan


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My room size is 20'x20'. Screen height is 54 1/2" and Throw distance is 18ft. I will adjust my screen size down some when I mount the lens. I did receive a tracking number by email.



The reason I asked was you mentioned about black bars top and bottom of the image. This suggests to me that there is a scaling issue here as you should not see any black bars top or bottom for any AR - hence the name Constant Image Height.


That lens looks almost sexy...


Mark


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The reason I asked was you mentioned about black bars top and bottom of the image. This suggests to me that there is a scaling issue here as you should not see any black bars top or bottom for any AR - hence the name Constant Image Height.
> 
> 
> That lens looks almost sexy...
> 
> 
> Mark




I see what you are talking about. My pj is an (XGA 1024x768). I will be upgrading soon to either a 720p or the new HD81 pj. I know I need a True (16x9) pj to get that superwide look..


----------



## CAVX

1024 x 768 is 4 x 3, but the Panamorph lens can turn that (optically) into a 16:9, so you will have black bars for 235 films, but at least you can use the full rez for 16:9. These devices will have a "16:9" mode that then becomes 1024 x 576 and this mode will allow you to do the scaling as well, but it not the same or as good as a true 16:9 + lens...


Mark


----------



## pcarey

Jeff - I would give Shawn a call. If they haven't already shipped it they might be able to ship it overnight or on a 2 day to get to you in time. I have found Panamorph to be helpful and efficient! It would be great to see pictures of your set up. I have a very similar combination but will be a few weeks behind you.


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pcarey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jeff - I would give Shawn a call. If they haven't already shipped it they might be able to ship it overnight or on a 2 day to get to you in time. I have found Panamorph to be helpful and efficient! It would be great to see pictures of your set up. I have a very similar combination but will be a few weeks behind you.



Yes, you're right about Panamorph and Shawn, very good communication. Shawn

sent me a PM because he had problems reaching me by phone and email. The

lens and sled will arrive today--all is good with the world!


I am looking forward to seeing this setup in action so much after hearing about

Optoma's comparison of the UH380 vs. Schneider, and ISCO II and III. Panamorph looks like they've got a real winner on their hands and Shawn and crew are really having to put in the hours to satisfy demand, I would guess!


I will post pictures of my setup as soon as I can. I will be at minimum throw, 12'

for a 100" by 43.5" screen, so I am expecting to see some slight distortion on the

sides. We shall see.


Jeff Regan


----------



## Citation4444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Regan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing this setup in action so much after hearing about Optoma's comparison of the UH380 vs. Schneider, and ISCO II and III.



Where can I read about this comparison?


----------



## McCall

Yes where can we read that?


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Citation4444* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where can I read about this comparison?



This was from a source at Optoma relating directly to me. He said that the UH380 compared very well to the Schneider. Schneider was slightly sharper, Panamorph had less CA. UH380 was sharper and had less CA than ISCO II. ISCO III and UH380 were similar in sharpness, Panamorph had less CA.


I received my UH380 this morning and have roughed it in, although I'm shooting off the sides of my 80" wide screen, I am very happy with what I'm seeing so far. It's still sharp, including the sides(best I can tell from looking at a wall), no CA whatsoever, no real obvious distortions--and this is at minimum throw. I did zoom

in the projector so the image fits in my screen and I'm still not seeing CA or softness on the edges. If anything, I feel like the HD81 with UH380 looks even more "filmic" than before, maybe it's just the aspect ratio, but I think it looks very natural. It's

early days, but I'm happy! Great job Shawn and Panamorph!!


Jeff Regan


----------



## McCall

Jeff are you getting a larger screen?


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jeff are you getting a larger screen?



Yes, I have a 100" wide Stewart ST130 2:35:1 screen that will be installed along

with HD81 and Panamorph next Tuesday.


Jeff Regan


----------



## CAVX

I don't think it has been done yet








as these UH380's have only just started shipping...


Mark


----------



## richh

Well 6" of snow didn't keep UPS from delivering my lens. Here's a few more pics...


Packaging...











Out of the box...











One more...











Like some others in the thread, I am not able to give a full review as my dedicated basement HT is still under construction. I do have a temporary set up in another room in the house and after doing ther requiste "hold the lens up in the air in front of the projector while standing on a chair" test, I think I will be making a temporary mount so I can play with it some more.


----------



## gorkitek

I have now installed my U380 with a simple custom manual ball race slide in conjunction with a custom table mount (note step to accomodate lens geometry) Marantz S1 1080p projector. The screen is a 128ins. diagonal Carada Criterion; 1.3g approx.

Throw distance is around 13 feet and TR 1.6+. This projector has built in vertical stretch so that the transition between all aspect ratios is a few seconds at constant height. Focus is constant between all ratio selections.


The geometry/CA/focus is good-excellent with very minor pincushion on the top edge. (Using DVE reference). (for perfectionists, pc could be eliminated with increased table height).


An image of the lens mount is attached.


Uniformly excellent service and support from both David Giles and Shawn Kelly. Thank you both for that - much appreciated from this distance.


Gorkitek (Location UK)


----------



## ca1ore

Got mine yesterday - up and running today. I am using the 380 with a Sony Ruby projector onto a high-power screen 92" wide. Initial reaction is that I am VERY impressed. Used both DVD and HDDVD material and I see neither CA nor any loss of resolution. There is a bit of barrelling on all four edges, but this is rendered invisible by expanding the picture slightly over the black velvet borders of the screen.


I do not have personal expericnce with any other anamorphic lens/prisms, however, absent direct comparisons with the more expensive lenses, I would be hard pressed to see how they could be much better.


Simon


----------



## astroboy

What the size limit on jpgs posted here? The faq says there's a limit, but doesn't specify what it is. My U380 is due to be delivered Monday, and if I can jury-rig it, I may try to take some screenshots at various throw ratios and what not and post them Tuesday, if no one beats me to it.


Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## KariV

Astroboy,


which projector do you use with UH380? If you are taking screenshots, could you take couple very close-up shots of horizontal and vertical single-pixel white lines on a black background so that the individual pixels can be seen in the photos. Thank you in advance.


Kari


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *astroboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What the size limit on jpgs posted here? The faq says there's a limit, but doesn't specify what it is. My U380 is due to be delivered Monday, and if I can jury-rig it, I may try to take some screenshots at various throw ratios and what not and post them Tuesday, if no one beats me to it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff



Your best to either attach your images in the text using the insert image icon which gives the html code







or provide a link to another site as the photos can only be 50K max...


Mark


----------



## A/Vspec

Mine should be arriving Wednesday. Here is a shot of the screen I am using which I just installed Saturday. I hope to have it all up and running by next weekend and will take some more pictures of the lense, the Sony Pearl and of course some Hi-Def 2.35:1 screen shots.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here is a shot of the screen I am using which I just installed Saturday.



Cool! What size is your screen?


----------



## A/Vspec

My bad.... I guess I did forget to mention that...


It is a 120" by 51" Cine-W Curved StudioTek 130.......


yep 10 feet of screen on a 14 foot wide wall... totally light controlled room of course....


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gorkitek* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have now installed my U380 with a simple custom manual ball race slide in conjunction with a custom table mount (note step to accomodate lens geometry) Marantz S1 1080p projector. The screen is a 128ins. diagonal Carada Criterion; 1.3g approx.
> 
> Throw distance is around 13 feet and TR 1.6+. This projector has built in vertical stretch so that the transition between all aspect ratios is a few seconds at constant height. Focus is constant between all ratio selections.
> 
> 
> The geometry/CA/focus is good-excellent with very minor pincushion on the top edge. (Using DVE reference). (for perfectionists, pc could be eliminated with increased table height).
> 
> 
> An image of the lens mount is attached.
> 
> 
> Uniformly excellent service and support from both David Giles and Shawn Kelly. Thank you both for that - much appreciated from this distance.
> 
> 
> Gorkitek (Location UK)



I think I used almost the exact same slides for my UH380, except my setup is ceiling mounted so I have 2 L-brackets coming out of the ceiling mount to attach the slides to. I've been gone most of the weekend (I barely had time to assemble the lens mount) and I'll be going out of town starting Tuesday, so hopefully I can get some quick pictures of my setup before I go.


I've watched a couple movies with the lens, and WOW...great lens. At 136" on the 2.35:1 screen, I have to say this is probably approaching the limits of DVD (for my tastes, anyways) and I'm eagerly awaiting my HD-A2's arrival to see how this works with a nice 'scope HD source.


----------



## gmanhdtv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mine should be arriving Wednesday. Here is a shot of the screen I am using which I just installed Saturday. I hope to have it all up and running by next weekend and will take some more pictures of the lense, the Sony Pearl and of course some Hi-Def 2.35:1 screen shots.



May I ask why dual center speakers, side by side? Are you going to leave them on the floor? Just curious as I have never seen that particular configuration. Awesome looking screen!


----------



## Jeff Regan

The Panamorph M380 motorized sled is a nice piece. It has two speeds via remote control

to slide the lens in and out, can be triggered by a projector or processor. It even has a

backlit Panamorph logo that can be turned on and off remotely. Seem well built and very

quiet in operation. That motor has a heavy lens to move.


The lens is fun to watch even using non-scope material, I enjoyed "Battlestar Galactica" on

UHD tonight, and while the headroom is chopped, most titles were not cutoff on the bottom, nor people's chins on closeups. Maybe the director of photography is protecting for 2:35:1!


Jeff Regan


----------



## astroboy

Kari:


It's a 7205, which has a built-in grid pattern of white lines on black (or at least, dark). I don't know if the lines are only a single pixel wide, but I am planning to at least try to photograph the grid, both full screen and zoomed in on a corner.


CAVX:


Gmanhdtv's photo of his screen is 99k. Are you sure about that 50k limit?


Jeff


----------



## Alan Gouger

Nice to see everyone getting their lens so you can enjoy your scope setups to the fullest.


I do want to comment, there is no prism based lens that does anything better then the Isco lens other then price of course. You have to see and use the Isco first hand to experience the difference. There is 0 CA from it. Anyone saying it adds some *has lost their credibility.*


Glad we have alternatives that give us 90% of the performance of the Isco. Only those who have to have the best will justify the cost of the Isco 3 for the performance difference.


Glad to see progress still being made with new models coming to market. I remember when digital 16x9 projectors started shipping we thought the interest in add ons was all but dead

but its great how that same 1.33 stretch added to a 4x3 to give us 16x9 wide screen now works with a native 16x9 projector to give us full panel scope. The life cycle starts all over again but this time its even more exciting.


Enjoy your scope setups


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *astroboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> CAVX:
> 
> 
> Gmanhdtv's photo of his screen is 99k. Are you sure about that 50k limit?
> 
> 
> Jeff



When you attach them using "Insert Image" like he has, you can have quite large files (sometimes over 100k), but when you use the other method (Manage Attachments) to attach a thumbnail, you'll find you can only attach 3 images and they must be smaller then 50k ea...


Mark


----------



## HogPilot

 UH380 Parked 1 

UH380 Parked 2 

UH380 In Place 1 

UH380 In Place 2 


I think the titles are relatively explanatory. After a little aligning (tilting the lens up and down), I had only very minor pincushioning on the sides, and some very minor barrel on the bottom (nothing that you'd notice while watching a movie). Right now I need to re-center the picture (left to right) when switching between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 by about 3-4 inches on the screen. I'm not sure if this is due to a problem with my setup or just inherent to the lens. Either way it's not a big deal, as the picture with the lens in place is absolutely spectacular - I have not noticed any chromatic abberation or glare issues, and of coupled with the DC3 chip and great optics in my H79 I have yet to see any screen door at a seating distance of 1.4. I had a couple buddies over here after an extended stint at the bar on Friday night, and we were watching Return of the Jedi, and they were in total awe. The one other "videophile" (jonnyozero3, who posts here), also saw it the next morning while not intoxicated and was still wowed










The only (very minor) complaint I do have with using a lens - and this would apply to any anamorphic lens - is that subtitles (like Jabba the Hutt speaking in Return of the Jedi) are cut off since they're usually down in the black bars. Anyone have any work-arounds for this?


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I do want to comment, there is no prism based lens that does anything better then the Isco lens other then price of course. You have to see and use the Isco first hand to experience the difference. There is 0 CA from it. Anyone saying it adds some *has lost their credibility.*
> 
> 
> Glad we have alternatives that give us 90% of the performance of the Isco. Only those who have to have the best will justify the cost of the Isco 3 for the performance difference.



Hi Alan,


Have you had a chance to see the Panamorph UH380? According to my source

at Optoma, and I was there today in their demo room where they had the UH380,

Schneider and ISCO II and III--the UH380 was "a draw" with the ISCO III. The

Schneider was slightly sharper. I looked at a cross hatch pattern with the UH380

and can find no CA worth the name. Light loss on the UH380 is about 3%, so it's

pretty efficient. If the UH380 is 90% of an ISCO III, at worst case, it's a pretty

strong value.


Jeff Regan


----------



## Jeff Regan

Future firmware upgrades for the Optoma HD81 will include a feature called "AutoScope", which, if you tell the processor that you are using an anamorphic lens, as well as fixed or

moveable, it will enable the AutoScope feature which automatically senses 2:35 sources

and goes into anamorphic mode. Using the trigger on the HD81 processor, a motorized

lens transport such as the Panamorph M380, will slide into place automatically as well.


I saw it demoed today at Optoma and I am beta testing the firmware in my HT currently,

and it works well.


Jeff Regan


----------



## sstephen

Introduction


Late last year to take the plunge into front projector ownership when I started to read about the Sony Ruby and then some of the newer 1080P projectors. Eventually for timing and price, I decided on the Optoma HD81. At the same time I started to give a lot of thought to a CH setup and when Panamorph offered the UH380 at the introductory price, I jumped.

I thought some of you might be interested in my thoughts on the Panamorph UH380 and Optoma HD81 combination, and since this is both my first projector and my first anamorphic lens, so you can temper my opinions accordingly.

Since this is my first projector/anamorphic lens, almost nothing is permanent. The ceiling mount is temporary, the mount for the UH380 is temporary, and my screen is a sheet of white cloth my mother picked up at a local fundraiser for her seniors centre that I stretched over a 2x4 frame I made out of scrap.


Basics


First off, my screen is nominally 50 inches high with and 89 inches wide with no UH380 in place. First row of seats has eyes roughly 130 inches from the screen. That's pretty close to the screen. From that range, without the UH380, I can discern individual pixels when my HTPC is projecting text for example, but when watching a movie, all I see is smooth. I have not yet viewed enough 2.35 material to tell you if that is too close with the UH380 in place. It may be. It's closer than I had planned for, so I have room to move back, and relative to the screen width, it is closer than I normally like in a theater.

The projector itself is at maximum throw, about 204 inches from the screen. With the 50 inch width this gives a throw ratio just under 2.3. The projector lens is roughly 4 inches from the ceiling and the top of the screen is roughly 16 ¼ inches from the ceiling, making the offset roughly 25%. That is much less than the offset of 36% stated by Optoma, and I am not using any keystoning, I double checked. This might be a good time to talk about measurement error. After all, my goal here was really to compare the image with and without the UH380 in the path. My measurement technique (if we can grace it with that term) revolved around that. So, for example my measurements of height and width are probably accurate within +/- 1/8 in. My measurement of lens to screen is going to be, at best, +/- 1 inch. Another thing to consider that might affect my offset calculation would include how level the floor or ceiling are. Anyway, with my current setup the image is about the same width at the top as it is at the bottom, the image is about the same height on the left as it is on the right, the lens is in the centre of the screen horizontally. I was prepared to have the image a good 6 or 7 inches lower on the wall. Either my HD81 is slightly off spec wrt offset, or changing the screen height by a few inches doesn't have much effect.


These measurements and tests were done feeding the HD81 a 1080p signal from my HTPC over DVI cable (with HDMI adapter on the HD81 end).


Focus


The HD81 (without the UH380) seems to have pretty good focus. If I walk up to the screen I can clearly resolve individual pixels and they are obviously square. The gap between pixels is also quite clear. Good job Optoma. Can't ask for much more than square well focused individual pixels when standing 2 ft. from the screen. When the UH380 is in place I can make the same claim, except that the pixels are rectangular. I have noticed that one side (left hand side for me) has better focus than the right hand side. Although I can still make out individual pixels on the right hand side, the gap between pixels is less well defined. I must note that this is completely invisible from the seated position. From the seated position, focus looks dead on across the entire screen. I can probably improve on this by adjusting the position of the UH380, but haven't felt the need for it yet. I'd have to say both the HD81 and UH380 have superb focus. I don't know how much more I could expect. In fact I was almost ready to forget about trying an anamorphic lens when I read about how mediocre their focus was. It sounded like the ISCO III was the only thing that would be able to do justice to 1080. After reading Shawn's reassurances I was prepared to give this a try, but was still holding my breath. Thankfully they did a good job here.


Chromatic Aberration


My HD81 has some chromatic aberration which I find disappointing. There is a slight purple fringe around the entire image (without the UH380). At the top and bottom of the screen this is well under 1 pixels worth, maybe 1/2. To the left and right of the image, the CA is about 1 pixels worth. With the UH380 in place, the CA is still about 1 pixels worth at the left and right, so the UH380 doesn't appear to be adding any CA of its own.


Pincushion


I took some measurements prior to sliding the UH380 into place as a baseline. Measurements are relative to the walls, floor and ceiling. Ceiling is 92 inches from the floor, and the walls are 152 inches apart.



1st row, Top of screen from ceiling measured at: left (L) centre (C) right (R) of screen

2nd row, Bottom of screen from floor measured at: left (L) centre (C) right (R) of screen

3rd row, Height: left (L) centre (C) right (R)
........ L ...|.. C....|.. R

Top .. 16 1/4 | 16 1/8 | 16

Bottom 25 7/8 | 25 3/4 | 25 3/4

Height 49 7/8 | 50 1/8 | 50 1/4

4th row, Left edge of screen from wall measured at: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B) of screen

5th row, Right edge of screen from wall measured at: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B) of screen

6th row, Width: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B)

....... T ...|.. M ...|.. B

Left. 31 1/2 | 31 1/2 | 31 5/8

Right 31 5/8 | 31 1/2 | 31 5/8

Width 88 7/8 | 89 ... | 88 3/4


As you can see, while not perfect, the image is pretty rectangular.


When I added the UH380 I horizontally centered it to the HD81 lens. Once in place, I tilted the lens backward and forward until I had a fairly rectangular image. As it sits now, the top of the image is pretty flat, the sides are roughly parallel. There is some pincushion evident.


1st row, Top of screen from ceiling: left (L) centre (C) right (R)

2nd row, Bottom of screen from floor: left (L) centre (C) right (R)

3rd row, Height: left (L) centre (C) right (R)
........ L ...|.. C....|.. R

Top .. 16 1/8 | 16 1/8 | 15 3/4

Bottom 25 3/4 | 26 1/8 | 25 3/4

Height 50 1/8 | 49 3/4 | 50 1/2

4th row Left edge of screen from wall: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B)

5th row Right edge of screen from wall: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B)

6th row, Width: top (T) middle (M) bottom (B)

........ T ...|... M ...|... B

Left . 16 5/8 |. 16 7/8 |. 16 3/4

Right. 17 1/2 |. 17 3/4 |. 17 7/8

Width 117 7/8 | 117 3/8 | 117 3/8

From those numbers you can see that the top and bottom of image in the centre both bow in about 1/4 inch, the left part, in the centre of the image bows in about ¼ inch, and the right bows in about the same. Overall, I'm very happy with that. I was expecting about ½ inch all around.


Geometric distortion


I think this is probably the part that the fewest people know about, and I think all the anamorphic lenses suffer from it to one degree or another (except maybe the ISCO III, perhaps the new Schneider), and that is that, with HE lenses, the centre is compressed relative to the left and right. With VC lenses the middle is expanded relative to the top and bottom (I think, since I've never actually seen one). So, how bad is it? I ran some test patterns to find out, but I can say, even looking at the test patterns from my viewing area, it was hard to see. First test pattern I ran is pattern frame0039.yuv which you can download from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/docs/...tpatterns.html 

The file is G90 pattern, MPEG-DCTest-G90.zip

That pattern is 5 pixel wide horizontal bars. Without the UH380, I measured 20 gray bars in 10 inches. The same measurement at the left, centre, and right of the image. With the UH380 I measured 16 in the center and 14.5 at both the left and right edges.


I also made measurements using one of the AVIA test patterns. If you have the disk, you can find it under Video Test Patterns-> Widescreen Enhanced->Crosshatch 100ire. This pattern is a field 16 squares wide by 9 squares tall, white lines on a black background. By the way, looking at this test pattern was the first time I have seen dlp rainbows. I've never seen them during a movie, and I don't get headaches, even after 4-5 hrs. straight so I'm not one of those bothered by them (thank God, because I really didn't know). Anyway, back to the test pattern. Without the UH380, each square measured 5 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches, everywhere on the screen. With the UH380, "squares" measured 5 1/2 inches vertically everywhere, but horizontally at the left and right edges of the screen the "squares" were about 7 5/8 inches and in the center they measured about 7 1/8 inches. They should measure about 7 5/16 inches. These measurements might look significant as numbers, but watch a movie and you would really have to be looking for it, or have very astute vision to pick it out. When I just look at the test pattern, I can see that the centre rectangles are a little smaller than the rectangles to the far left or far right, but it certainly isn't obvious.


Astigmatism


I don't know how to measure this. It should manifest itself as different horizontal vs. vertical focus, if I understand correctly. If you were focusing on a dot, and were close to the correct focus, then the dot would change from a horizontal to vertical oblong blob as you adjusted the focus in and out (is that correct??). Perhaps it is really astigmatism that I'm seeing on the right side of the screen that causes the slight problem I mentioned under focus. In any case, Panamorph claims to adjust for astigmatism in their optics. I certainly find no problem with the focus, so I'd have to agree.


Brightness


This section is rather subjective, and may be geared more towards those thinking of buying the Optoma HD81 with some anamorphic lens. You have my numbers for size, roughly 50" high, 118" wide. My current screen obviously has a gain no better than 1.0, probably less due to light leaking through. I have around 100 hrs on the bulb. I have run this in eco mode for all but 5 min. of its life, and have the iris set to 11 out of 16. At this point, watching the 2.35 material with the UH380 in place the Optoma is plenty bright, even in eco mode.


Conclusion


I am very happy with this lens. It performs as well as I had hoped and better than I expected. I was prepared to see worse pincushion and was expecting to see a much softer focus, and probably some CA. I expected some geometrical distortion, but really didn't know how much to expect. I thought it might be much worse. After all, take a ruler and look at the difference between 7" and 7 1/4", and imagine something that wide on the screen. It isn't that significant, at least not to me.


If you are thinking of buying one for yourself, keep in mind that my throw ratio is probably higher than most, and that shorter throw ratios would show more pincushion and more of the geometrical distortion that I mentioned. I doubt very much other prism based HE lenses would do a better job on any aspect of horizontal expansion, and I doubt you could get a spherical lens based system in the same price range that would do as well. The ISCO III and Schneider retail for substantially more than this lens, and I don't know what faults they might have.


So, would I buy it again? Yes. Would I recommend it to someone else who was in the market? Yes.


Good job Panamorph. I think this is a winner.


And I'm not ready to give up the HD81 either.


----------



## sstephen

One other thing.

I didn't spend a lot of time setting this up. So this should reflect the worst you will see if you take some time and effort.


----------



## Alan Gouger

To keep things organized in one location we will make this the official Panamorph UH380 thread. Please post all user reports and all info to this thread.


Thank you.


----------



## gorkitek

Alan,


I note that earlier in this thread, you say that you are glad that we now have lenses that give 90% of the performance of the Isco. On what basis are you making this comparison?


Given this is now the official Panamorph U380 thread perhaps you would explain which of this particular lens' parameters are inferior to the Isco?



G


----------



## Alan Gouger

G


First I am not picking on just this lens. I have yet to see any lens match the Isco 3. Nothing.

I would be thrilled if one did. I am going to order this lens in hopes it has no CA at all and has the same contrast and clarity of the Isco. There is a clarity from the Isco that no other lens that I have tried matches. My praise of the Isco 3 will remain until I see something first hand that beats it and I will be the first to brag what ever lens it may be. I will order the UH380 tomorrow. If I cannot get one in a timely matter someone offered to send me his to compare. I like to keep one of every lens in my collection so this lens will be a welcome addition. I still have my Panamorph U752 and I will not part with it.

As much as I am praising the Isco 3 I am using a Prism based lens and feel they are 80 to 85% of the Isco 3. For the price difference many will pass on the Isco 3 unless you want perfection.

Because I am in the biz I am always trying different projectors with different throws and different offsets. Some lens work better with different projector then others so I am always anxious to try a new lens.

I should not say the 380 does not match the Isco 3 until I try it for myself. While I have my doubts I hope I am wrong. In this case I would love to be wrong


----------



## gorkitek

Thanks Alan, I will look forward to your comments when you have evaluated the U380.


For myself, I have not so far detected this lens visibly degrading the image from the Marantz S1 (1080p) in terms of CA; focus; or uniformity and there is the usual improvement from the increase in pixel utilisation.


The very slight pin cushion that I experience, I so far put down to the simple geometry that would affect any lens having to operate off the (physical) optical centre of the image. With hindsight I should perhaps have bought the long throw lens and mounted the projector in a dedicated projection booth when the physical and optical centres would have coincided.


G


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gorkitek* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> from the Marantz S1 (1080p)



Double congrats is in order. One for the lens and one for the Projector













By the way its important to me that everyone know when I made my comment comparing the Isco 3 to other lens I was not singling out the 380. It was meant to include *All* lens. I am an enthusiast and like to speak my thoughts but being in business sometimes its better I do not say anything and in this case I in no means meant to offend anyone who bought the 380. Especially when I have yet to see one in action. Knowing Shawn's history I am sure it is a solid performer with excellent service after the sale.


I am truly excited for the 380 and think Shawn has a hit on his hands. We finally have a US made lens with something everyone has been asking for for years, Large aperture. Thanks Shawn










Everyone, keep posting them pictures and reviews as your lens arrive.


Most important, Im glad to see the 235:1 community growing. If it were not for you guys we may not have a H lens from Shawn. We've been encouraging Shawn to come up with an H lens for a while and he came back with a solid performer. Not just a H lens but one with a large aperture so he was listening









Maybe in time manufactures will see the interest here and give us anamorphic 235:1 HD DVDs.


Thank you.


----------



## astroboy

Well, I set up the lens and tried it out last night. Took a bunch of screenshots, too. Unfortunately, the site I uploaded two of them too scaled them way down, so much so as to make them useless as evaluative tools. I could crunch them down myself and therefore have some control over the process, but that will take me a while to do. Does anyone know of a site that allows ~1 MB uploads of still images?


Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## Nedtsc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> UH380 Parked 1
> 
> UH380 Parked 2
> 
> UH380 In Place 1
> 
> UH380 In Place 2
> 
> 
> I think the titles are relatively explanatory. After a little aligning (tilting the lens up and down), I had only very minor pincushioning on the sides, and some very minor barrel on the bottom (nothing that you'd notice while watching a movie). Right now I need to re-center the picture (left to right) when switching between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 by about 3-4 inches on the screen. I'm not sure if this is due to a problem with my setup or just inherent to the lens. Either way it's not a big deal, as the picture with the lens in place is absolutely spectacular - I have not noticed any chromatic abberation or glare issues, and of coupled with the DC3 chip and great optics in my H79 I have yet to see any screen door at a seating distance of 1.4. I had a couple buddies over here after an extended stint at the bar on Friday night, and we were watching Return of the Jedi, and they were in total awe. The one other "videophile" (jonnyozero3, who posts here), also saw it the next morning while not intoxicated and was still wowed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only (very minor) complaint I do have with using a lens - and this would apply to any anamorphic lens - is that subtitles (like Jabba the Hutt speaking in Return of the Jedi) are cut off since they're usually down in the black bars. Anyone have any work-arounds for this?



I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?




I have the H77 which is almost the same projector as well. the size screen that can be accomodated would depend on your room, how much light control you have, what the gain of your screen is, the throw distance you had in mind etc.


Are you asking how large you can Zoom a picture with it? or are you asking how large a 2.35:1 screen you can do, again have to answer the same questions first.


My screen is a SMX 1.16 gain AT screen at 15 ft throw it is 120W X 51H I could also have done 127 wide with no problem but it is in a total light control dedicated theater setting.


----------



## A/Vspec

Arrived a day early... go figure...



















































Must have been shipped from Italy as it was marked Fragile....


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've the same PJ. What's the maximum width of screen with zoom this setup can accomodate?



I'm not totally sure what you're asking by "maximum width of screen with zoom" so you'll have to supply some more specifics. As McCall stated, the answer to your question depends on the ambient light control in your room, what gain screen material you're using, and of course your personal preferences on how bright is "bright enough."


In my setup, I have a 136" 2.35:1 screen with 1.4 gain material, and with the UH380 in place I find the picture to be plenty bright. I would say that this is definitely my personal limit for what I find to be acceptable and wouldn't try to go any bigger on the screen. As for the zoom, the H79 has a 1.35 zoom range, so it does have enough do to a "poor man's" 2.35:1 by mounting the projector as far away from the screen as possible while still filling the entire height with a 16:9 image, and then zooming out to fill a 'scope screen with an appropriately formatted movie. I did it while I was waiting for my lens and the picture wasn't half bad, but after having seen it with the lens I would never go back.


Sorry if I didn't answer your question, I'm just not sure what you were asking.


----------



## ca1ore

Can anyone report on how this lens performs as the projection point is mvoed further from the screen. I have set mine up to project from a throw ratio of 1.6, but I noticed yesterday that in the instructions for the lens it also says no closer than 12 feet. Since my screen is a bit small, at a TR of 1.6 I am closer than 12 feet. Since it will be a pain to move the PJ, just wanted to get a bit of advise.


I am very happy with the lens, but would like to be able to reduce the pincushionning effect on the sides.


----------



## Jeff Regan

My HD81/UH380/M380/Stewart 100" ST130 are installed and the transformation of what I thought was a decent home theater previously is beyond belief. My dedicated home theater now truly feels like a theater, the effect of a fixed 2:35 screen and anamorphic lens should not be underestimated. It makes watching a scope movie more of an event.


Watching my HD81 automatically go into vertical expansion mode when it senses 2:35 materialand seeing the Panamorph slide into position is pretty cool. Then the best part, an amazingly film like experience with this very bright, high contrast projector and sharp

anamorphic lens.


When I first heard of anamorphic lenses for home theater, I thought it was a bit of a gimmick. I'm now a believer, I could never go back to watching scope movies within

a 16:9 frame.


What a wonderful experience I had tonight!


Jeff Regan


----------



## CAVX

All the shots I have ever posted are re-sized using a Jasc Photoshop Program and I resize them to 800 x 600 pixels which seems to shrink them nicely to around 100k...


Mark


----------



## Pultzar

I'm comparing the U380 to my Prismasonic 1200R. They are very comparable and I'm not sure if I could tell them apart. However, the prismasonic gives me almost the perfect dimensions while the U380 overscans by about 2" on each side of the screen (14' wide screen). If I change the zoom to get rid of the overscan, then the height is too short.


Any ideas?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pultzar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm comparing the U380 to my Prismasonic 1200R. They are very comparable and I'm not sure if I could tell them apart. However, the prismasonic gives me almost the perfect dimensions while the U380 overscans by about 2" on each side of the screen (14' wide screen). If I change the zoom to get rid of the overscan, then the height is too short.
> 
> 
> Any ideas?



Yes, this happens because the screen AR for *scope video is 2.37:1 not 2.35:1* which is why you have 2" overscan on each side with the Panamorph which is a fixed prisms lens Vs the Prismasonic which is a variable prism lens. What is actually happening with the Prismasonic is that your not stretching the image quite far enough because you have used the screen to set the stretch...


Run that THX circle test through both and see if it is truly "round" with the Prismasonic and the current settings...


Mark


----------



## Pultzar

Thanks Mark. So I'm assuming everybody will have some overscan since a 2.37:1 screen doesn't make much sense (given that there isn't any source material in that ratio).


----------



## CAVX

Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...


It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...


Mark


----------



## T.Wells




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...
> 
> 
> It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...
> 
> 
> Mark



Mark,


Great post. Since I am building my own screen for the UH380 (and M380), it appears that I should build it out to 2.37:1. Correct? I was planning on building a 120" x 51". Based on your post, I should build it out at 121" x 51".


Just checking ...


Thanks,

T.Wells


----------



## MCBRacer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Screen manufactures should have been making 2.37:1 screens, not 2.35:1 screens. Oz Theatre Screens do...
> 
> 
> It is not the AR of a film, but simply the shape of the light beam after horizontal expansion and or vertical compression based on a native 16:9 and 33% lens, so yes, all those with a 2.35:1 screen should experience some overscan with this lens if it is set up correctly...
> 
> 
> Mark



Stewart do any format you want, you just have to ask!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *T.Wells* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> Great post. Since I am building my own screen for the UH380 (and M380), it appears that I should build it out to 2.37:1. Correct? I was planning on building a 120" x 51". Based on your post, I should build it out at 121" x 51".
> 
> 
> Just checking ...
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> T.Wells



Thanks T.Wells







Yes I would build it to that size as that appears to be 2.37:1...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MCBRacer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Stewart do any format you want, you just have to ask!



Maybe they should be a little more forthcoming, as it appears that not too people are aware of the fact that 16:9 x 1.33 = 2.37, not 2.35...


Mark


----------



## Pultzar

I'm a bit confused. What is the point of having a 2.37:1 screen if all of your source material is 2.35:1 (I know that some out there is 2.40:1). You will just end up with thin black bars on the sides if everything is done correctly.


If I have a 2.35:1 source and a 2.35:1 screen, it seems obvious that I would want to stretch the image to fit the screen wouldn't it?


Or is 2.35:1 source material not really 2.35:1?


Scott


----------



## A/Vspec

I'm with Scott... why was this not mentioned BEFORE I bought my new screen 3 weeks ago???










And also if that is the case... why is this forum 2.35:1 and not 2.37:1?????


----------



## Allen

I think what he is saying is that the lens will spread the 16:9 image out to 2.37 regardless of the ar of the picture within the image. If you use a 2.35 screen, the streched image will overhang the screen.


Allen


----------



## usualsuspects

This has been discussed before - 2.35 vs 2.37 vs 2.39 vs 2.40. With a 51 inch high image the difference between 2.35 and 2.37 is about 1 inch - or 1/2 inch per side. Many (most?) people prefer to zoom out the image a little anyway to hide the pincushion or barrel distortion in the edges. Whats .02 between friends?


----------



## A/Vspec

Oh... so it is only .5 inch now... first it is 2" ... I sure wish women looked at my... but I digress....










Since I have a 5" border it will not matter.


----------



## Pultzar

Yes... but with a 72" high screen the overscan is about 2.5". It is doable but a close fit.


----------



## Allen

A 72" h screen would be aprox. 170" wide. That's a good size screen.


Allen


----------



## Pultzar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Allen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A 72" h screen would be aprox. 170" wide. That's a good size screen.
> 
> 
> Allen



Right you are! I love it.


----------



## A/Vspec

Were are the pics!?!?!?


----------



## astroboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Were are the pics!?!?!?



Um, if you mean me, a variety of factors has held them up, not the least of which is trying to get them into a form that's most useful. I was hoping to have side-by-side comparision with/without the lens, at different TRs, in one jpg, but it's too big, so tomorrow (hopefully) I'll post individual images of each case, of both an image and a test pattern. One thing I have done is stack them all up in Photoshop. Hiding and unhiding the layers makes for a very useful tool, and it's a real eye opener. More on that tomorrow.


Jeff


----------



## usualsuspects

Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02







) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.



usual,

What's your throw?


ted


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing...we have a winner! Just got my UH380 + Sled mounted in front of the Pearl throwing a 51 x 120 ( +/- .02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) image onto SMX material. There has been some questioning of the value of 1080P + lens, it is not of question to me. Well worth it! Saw the same type of image quality jump on 1080p + lens that I saw on 720P + lens.



Great news!! That is about the same setup as mine except I do not have the sled and I have the ST130 material.


Any pics?


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvted* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What's your throw?



17 feet



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any pics?



FYI: this is just a quick setup - I need to clean up the ceiling, add some more anchors to the top plate, add middle supports to the slide (the hex head bolts I got did not fit the middle support holes), add some more washers, terminate the two cat5's and wire them for IR emitters on the Pearl and Sled, walk the dog, take out the trash, etc....


attached projector/lens/sled pics - no screen shots yet.


----------



## chipvideo

So what should I do then. I haven't order a screen yet, but I am planning on the carada 2.35 128" screen. I am not goign to be using any masking as I plan to watch 90% movies in the 2.35 format. I am getting the screen that has 3 inch boarders with the black hole trim. Is that good enough to hide the overscan if I want it to fill top to bottom by zooming out enough? Or should I tell them to make me a 2.37 screen?


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: this is just a quick setup - I need to clean up the ceiling, add some more anchors to the top plate, add middle supports to the slide (the hex head bolts I got did not fit the middle support holes), add some more washers, terminate the two cat5's and wire them for IR emitters on the Pearl and Sled, walk the dog, take out the trash, etc....



Sounds like me!!!!!! I am still trying to paint around the cutout in the wall were my UH380 will be living so I can mount it and then I still have to mount the Pearl.


You must have very high ceilings to have the Pearl mounted on such a long ceiling mount.


Looks good thus far. Have you fired up anything on it yet?


I think I will just go and let the dog lose of his runner so I can get more painting done.... Oh and I have to stay away from the PC for a bit....


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sounds like me!!!!!! I am still trying to paint around the cutout in the wall were my UH380 will be living so I can mount it and then I still have to mount the Pearl.
> 
> 
> You must have very high ceilings to have the Pearl mounted on such a long ceiling mount.
> 
> 
> Looks good thus far. Have you fired up anything on it yet?
> 
> 
> I think I will just go and let the dog lose of his runner so I can get more painting done.... Oh and I have to stay away from the PC for a bit....



9 foot ceilings - the center of the Pearl lens is 21 inches from the ceiling. Room is 32 feet long and 14.5 feet wide. You can't tell much from these photos, but the front half of the side walls are matte black, the carpet is black with a diamond earth tone pattern, and the front 12 feet of the ceiling is matte black ending in a 14 inch high soffit that blocks ceiling reflections. I've been reading a thread on the 3.5k+ projector forum about Improving ANSI contrast, and now I think I might try to do a "Spinal Tap Black" project soon, because I can see some light reflections in the matte black.


I took a quick look at King Kong HD-DVD - my reference disk for image quality, and it was deja vue all over again with the lens in place - the same effect I saw with 720p + lens - the image has much more density, presence, and brightness on scope vs zoomed to same image height. The lens and mount needs some fine tuning - there was some uneven geometry last night, that is just a matter of tweaking the roll, pitch, and yaw of the lens - been there, done that. The sled is very cool, and I was happy to see that the remote behaved as it should - when the lens is already in the IN position, and you press the IN button, nothing happens (same with OUT). This means my plan for how to do macros on my remote will work correctly, and I will have one button control for 16:9 and 2.35:1 that will adjust the lens and scaler. Overall I am very happy so far, barring discovering any major flaws.


----------



## Citation4444

I have now finished my UH380/M380 installation and can report some results. In summary, the results far exceeded my expectations. Great job Shawn and Panamorph. Now on to my results.

*Equipment*

Sim2 C3X projector

Screen Innovations Reference 1.3 54"x127" cinemascope screen

DVDO VP50 video processor

UH380 anamorphic lens

M380 motorized sled for lens

Projector mounted 22ft from screen giving throw ratio of 2.75


Here is the installation:









*Optical Results*


The geometry can be seen in the following pic.









This is a test pattern from the VP50. The VP50 is doing the scaling using the "letterbox" preset. Notice that there is very little geometric distortion. Also there is no discernible CA. The focus is virtually identical with or without the lens in place. I can tweak the focus ever so slightly and improve it, but I emphasize this is a tiny amount and only visible right at the screen and not visible from a couple of feet. So I would say the claim of no focus shift using the lens is sustainable. I'm especially pleased with the lack of CA. The UH380 is not perfect, but it's pretty daggone good. I'm sure the ISCO is better, but this is good enough for me for sure. If you want to see the image with more resolution you can see it HERE 


The same test pattern without the lens in place in 16:9 is shown next:









The full resolution pic is HERE 


The lens is very well built. The only negative I can report is that the internal surfaces of mine are not clean. I can see where the inside surface of the bigger lens was wiped by a cloth. I don't think this affects the image in any measurable way, but a sealed unit like this should be meticulously clean inside. Since my performance is so good on this one, I don't think I'll raise a stink with Shawn about it.

*M380 Motorized Mount*


The motorized mount works very well indeed. It is very accurate in that it positions the lens precisely where it should be every time. I was somewhat worried about this, but not to worry, it works great. It appears to be well built and gives the impression that it will hold up with use. We'll see about that.







The one negative is the remote sensor is not sensitive enough to bounce off my screen. So for now, I have to point the remote back at it to get it to work. I'll run an IR extender port to it soon and fix that problem. I'll also explore using the screen trigger on the back of my C3X. In the overall scheme of things, this is a very minor point, IMO.

*Summary*


I am extremely pleased with the UH380/M380 combo. With the two very minor items mentioned above (non-clean internal prism surface and low remote sensitivity) I think Shawn and Panamorph have a hit on their hands. I'm certainly glad I took advantage of the pre-release special.










I tried taking some screen shots, but I couldn't get my HD-DVD player to pause without introducing some blurring of the image. I've included one from Superman Returns and another from Training Day anyway. The images I see are much better than these screen shots show.

Superman Returns 
Training Day 


Now, back to enjoying this new toy. 











Bob


----------



## Jeff Regan

Bob,


I noticed the "wipe pattern" in the inside element of my UH380 as well. It is disconcerting to

see, but the performance of the lens seems to be unaffected.


Jeff Regan


----------



## Keith AP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Regan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the "wipe pattern" in the inside element of my UH380 as well. It is disconcerting to see, but the performance of the lens seems to be unaffected.



I'll triple that. My UH380 has the same wipe or smear on the inside as well. I'm a bit surprised. I checked with Shawn about cleaning the unit myself and it seems straightforward enough. I'll probably take care of this in the near future, but it doesn't appear to affect the image at all.


On the other hand, the performance is fantastic! New lens, new Carada 2.35 screen - absolutely unbelievable! I'm glad I didn't miss out on this deal.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chipvideo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So what should I do then. I haven't order a screen yet, but I am planning on the carada 2.35 128" screen. I am not goign to be using any masking as I plan to watch 90% movies in the 2.35 format. I am getting the screen that has 3 inch boarders with the black hole trim. Is that good enough to hide the overscan if I want it to fill top to bottom by zooming out enough? Or should I tell them to make me a 2.37 screen?



I would just ask them if they can make it 237 and if they question why, just tell them this simple fact - 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.370370207, not 2.35...


It is case of a smidge off the height or slightly longer width bars. If they have already made the screen at 235, then I would ask them to re-calculate and chop it down that tiny bit.


That way when you frame in your image, you can get even amounts of overscan top/bottom, left and right to hide any pincushion.


Of course that will depend on the TR of the projector where the longer the TR the less pincushion you will have...


Mark


----------



## astroboy

Okay, so I'm afraid this is the best I can do, for now at least. I just uploaded 16 images to Putfile; rather than imbed them here, below is the link to my homepage there where you can view or download them. There are four jpgs of each of the following cases: Full screen, image; full screen, test pattern; corner, image; corner, test pattern. The four variations are: No lens, and the U380 at throw ratios of 1.7, 1.9 and 2.1. The throw ratios are approximate, rounded to the nearest tenth. The descriptions designate: Lens/NoLens_Projector(7205)_FullScreen/Corner_Image/Test Pattern_ThrowRatio


The full screen pictures have been scaled, so they can't be used as an indication of image sharpness. I didn't scale the corner images, but Putfile did slightly. The corner images were taken at maximum zoom on my camera, in the hopes that comparisons of image sharpness could be made. As to my comment last night about stacking the pictures up in Photoshop, these jpgs have been made to facilitate that, albeit at lower resolution and compressed. The eight full screen pictures are all the same size, as are the eight corner pictures. If you have Photoshop or a similar graphics program that has layers, you can copy and paste each image onto a layer, then hide/unhide layers to get a good comparison between the variations. The images are not exactly lined up with each other, but they're pretty close.


If you don't have Photoshop, you can approximate the same effect with an image browser such as XNView. Resize the panes to match the size of the image, and click back and forth to see the differences.


When you download the pictures, the original file names will be replaced by an all-numerical name. You needn't rename them (unless you're going to use a browser, in which case it would be advantageous!), as there is text with the necessary info overlaid on each picture.


One thing you will notice is that there is significant nonuniformity in the squeeze ratio, especially in the shorter TRs. This is likely at least partially due to the short throws used in the test. The 1.7 TR was at 10.1', and the 2.1 was at about 12.5.'

I didn't know about the 12' minimum distance until I looked at the user's guide on Panamorph's site today. This brings up a beef: No documentation at all came with the unit. No packing slip, no instructions, no warranty card. Another quality control issue is that the front element of the lens was the dirtiest (at least, for being brand new) optical surface I've ever seen. I cleaned it as carefully as I could with lens tissue and lens cleaning fluid, until I ran out of tissue, but I can't imagine where all those smears came from.


The lens introduces a color shift that is quite evident in the photos. It likely was exaggerated by the camera, and I didn't notice it while watching bits of various movies-even a black & white one.


After all the discussion I've read about how much better HE is than zooming, I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I compared the corner images, which have the highest resolution. I couldn't see any significant difference in image resolution between no lens and the U380. While it's good that the lens did not degrade resolution, these photos don't seem to lend a lot of credence to the argument for using the full panel height.


All in all, while I can't deny that the effect of that big, wide picture is very cool (and that's with it spilling off my 16:9 screen), for me this lens is more a matter of practicality. Optically, it's a little better than I expected, but not quite as good as I'd hoped for. I don't how it's going to be set up yet (we may be moving soon). If I could put up with zooming/tilting the projector/shifting horizontal masking, and not having true CIH, then the lens is of limited value. I can, however, foresee situations, mainly due to room size and configuration, where such a lens could have advantages, given the limitation that the pincushioning is a lot less at longer TRs. I guess I have 30 days to decide.


That big image DID look cool, though.


Here's the link:

http://www.putfile.com/astroboyflier/images/59100 


Jeff


----------



## CAVX

Looking at your photos, and I am quite impressed by the performance levels you have documented.

*Fact - all anamorphic adaptors will work better at longer throw ratios resulting in less CA and edge distortions.*


What has been done here is to address a larger market that could not use the current line up of products due to the fact that their rear optics are just too small for many projectors - so well done to Shawn and Panamorph for this.


If this product is not quite what you had hoped for, then I will suggest that you need to get your self a "scope screen" and really watch a few films over the next few weeks. I think you will be feel better about it when you can actually use this product to its full potential...


Mark


----------



## chipvideo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would just ask them if they can make it 237 and if they question why, just tell them this simple fact - 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.370370207, not 2.35...
> 
> 
> It is case of a smidge off the height or slightly longer width bars. If they have already made the screen at 235, then I would ask them to re-calculate and chop it down that tiny bit.
> 
> 
> That way when you frame in your image, you can get even amounts of overscan top/bottom, left and right to hide any pincushion.
> 
> 
> Of course that will depend on the TR of the projector where the longer the TR the less pincushion you will have...
> 
> 
> Mark



My lens to the screen will be 180". The screen size I want is the 128 2.37 then. Since it is the criterion it will have 3 inch boarders to hide overscan. I just want to make sure that since I won't have any masking will the 2.37 be better than 2.35.


PJ is a panny900u ceiling mounted. My celings are excactly 7 feet. I do know that I will more than likely be watching at least 50% 16/9 programming. I guess I can always stretch it to fit screen or just deal with the white boarders for now until I get masking next year when the funds justify it.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chipvideo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My lens to the screen will be 180". The screen size I want is the 128 2.37 then. Since it is the criterion it will have 3 inch boarders to hide overscan. I just want to make sure that since I won't have any masking will the 2.37 be better than 2.35.



I would simply based on the fact that the shape of the light bean will be 2.37:1, so why not have a screen to match.


It would like buying a 1.85:1 screen for 1.78:1 projector as there is about 4% difference here too resulting in overscan at the top and bottom where a 16:9 screen fit perfectly...


Mark


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would simply based on the fact that the shape of the light bean will be 2.37:1, so why not have a screen to match.
> 
> 
> It would like buying a 1.85:1 screen for 1.78:1 projector as there is about 4% difference here too resulting in overscan at the top and bottom where a 16:9 screen fit perfectly...
> 
> 
> Mark



Although this is correct, keep in mind that this is assuming that you can perfectly fit your image to your screen. No anamorphic setup will be completely devoid of barrel and/or pincushion, which will require some amount of zoom to eliminate unless you don't mind having curved black segments on the side and/or bottom of your image. In my case I have a throw of about 2.1, and on a 136" diag 2.35:1 I still have about an inch or so of pincushion on each side and the same of barrel on the bottom.


I guess if you want the image to perfectly fit the screen and have a setup that can accomplish this, go for it, but when you're staring at a 100"+ image, an inch or two overscan lost on the sides goes completely unnoticed, especially when it's used to fix optical distortion.


----------



## BILL2286

Yes, one of the first things I noticed when I received my UH380 was the smears on the outside of the lens and what appears to be a 2" long hair inside the unit. Maybe Shawn could advise us all on the recommended cleaning procedure (that is, if it has any effect on the unit's performance), or are we all just being a little picky.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Although this is correct, keep in mind that this is assuming that you can perfectly fit your image to your screen. No anamorphic setup will be completely devoid of barrel and/or pincushion, which will require some amount of zoom to eliminate unless you don't mind having curved black segments on the side and/or bottom of your image. In my case I have a throw of about 2.1, and on a 136" diag 2.35:1 I still have about an inch or so of pincushion on each side and the same of barrel on the bottom.
> 
> 
> I guess if you want the image to perfectly fit the screen and have a setup that can accomplish this, go for it, but when you're staring at a 100"+ image, an inch or two overscan lost on the sides goes completely unnoticed, especially when it's used to fix optical distortion.



Fair enough when using a fixed stretch lens like the 380, but this conversation started when there was difference between two different types of adaptors - fixed vs variable prisms lenses, where the variable was set using a 235 screen, and as a result, is technically not stretching the image quite fair enough. This lack of stretch might only be in the order of 1 or 2%, but when the image requires 33%, 32 or 31 does not quite cut it.


It should be noted here that the fault was end user, not product related, so would not have happened using a screen with an AR of 2.37:1...


Mark


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Fair enough when using a fixed stretch lens like the 380, but this conversation started when there was difference between two different types of adaptors - fixed vs variable prisms lenses, where the variable was set using a 235 screen, and as a result, is technically not stretching the image quite fair enough. This lack of stretch might only be in the order of 1 or 2%, but when the image requires 33%, 32 or 31 does not quite cut it.
> 
> 
> It should be noted here that the fault was end user, not product related, so would not have happened using a screen with an AR of 2.37:1...
> 
> 
> Mark



Mark,


I certainly don't disagree with you on the technical aspect of what you're saying - you are 100% correct. My point was that I don't know that anyone would notice the difference one way or the other - a couple inches of overscan on a 2.35:1 with a fixed lens or a slightly understretched image with a variable geometry lens - from a real world, practical standpoint, especially when you take into consideration the need to use some masking to hide optical distortions.


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BILL2286* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, one of the first things I noticed when I received my UH380 was the smears on the outside of the lens and what appears to be a 2" long hair inside the unit. Maybe Shawn could advise us all on the recommended cleaning procedure (that is, if it has any effect on the unit's performance), or are we all just being a little picky.




Picky? Even at the pre sale price it is a lot of money, and It concerns me a bit that there should be as many reports of smudges and now HAIRS in the lens???


also the reports of no documentation what so ever?


Wouldn't you think we could expect a bit more than that?


Don't get me wrong I am grateful to be able to get the lens I hope it works well for me, have not got mine quite yet, but I will certainly post on what condition it arrives in.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Picky? Even at the pre sale price it is a lot of money, and It concerns me a bit that there should be as many reports of smudges and now HAIRS in the lens???
> 
> 
> also the reports of no documentation what so ever?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you think we could expect a bit more than that?
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong I am grateful to be able to get the lens I hope it works well for me, have not got mine quite yet, but I will certainly post on what condition it arrives in.



I also noticed minor streaking on my lens (I would compare it to what you see when you don't fully wipe glass cleaner off of a mirror and it dries) when the light hits it at certain angles. However, as others have reported, it seems to have zero effect on PQ, so frankly I'm not worried about it. If it doesn't affect the image, who cares?


As to the documentation issue - what kind of documentation would you expect? If you have the original e-mail receipts for warranty purposes, there's zero need for "how to" directions, and if you're really that badly in need of them, you probably shouldn't be buying this lens to install yourself in the first place. There are installation directions (or, should I say, guidelines) provided on the website if you so desire them.


The way I look at it, I got a solidly constructed, high quality lens that has been compared in terms of performance to the ISCO III, but at a fraction of that price. Given the price of good quality optics for this kind of application (DIY excepted), I think that this lens is a steal.


You might want to wait until you get your lens and actually use it before you start to panic about some of the listed "issues" here. The complaints have been very minor and completely overshadowed by the great value and performance of this lens.


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also noticed minor streaking on my lens (I would compare it to what you see when you don't fully wipe glass cleaner off of a mirror and it dries) when the light hits it at certain angles. However, as others have reported, it seems to have zero effect on PQ, so frankly I'm not worried about it. If it doesn't affect the image, who cares?



Same on mine. Also does not seem to effect the image but it would be nice if it was cleanable. I have monster cleaning kits so if we get the ok and the directions on how I will give it a try.


----------



## BILL2286

Yes, I agree, the streaking is a minor issue. The UH380 appears to be well designed and constructed and the packaging for shipment was excellent. Lenses do tend to streak & smudge very easily so maybe a little TLC during assembly and/or packaging would improve its looks upon arrival. Documentation would be nice, but it seems that if you are buying one of these then you have done (or should have done) all your research prior to ordering, and therefore should be quite familiar with the product and its installation by the time you receive it.


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also noticed minor streaking on my lens (I would compare it to what you see when you don't fully wipe glass cleaner off of a mirror and it dries) when the light hits it at certain angles. However, as others have reported, it seems to have zero effect on PQ, so frankly I'm not worried about it. If it doesn't affect the image, who cares?
> 
> 
> As to the documentation issue - what kind of documentation would you expect? If you have the original e-mail receipts for warranty purposes, there's zero need for "how to" directions, and if you're really that badly in need of them, you probably shouldn't be buying this lens to install yourself in the first place. There are installation directions (or, should I say, guidelines) provided on the website if you so desire them.
> 
> 
> The way I look at it, I got a solidly constructed, high quality lens that has been compared in terms of performance to the ISCO III, but at a fraction of that price. Given the price of good quality optics for this kind of application (DIY excepted), I think that this lens is a steal.
> 
> 
> You might want to wait until you get your lens and actually use it before you start to panic about some of the listed "issues" here. The complaints have been very minor and completely overshadowed by the great value and performance of this lens.



Um, no where did I say I was Panicing. But why should you think it is too much to ask that an item costing that much arrive at least clean?


as for instructions, I remember at least one person on these boards that put their lens on backwards.


Overall I am sure it is a well constructed lens and it is a good value, still don't think clean is too much to ask.


----------



## astroboy

Regarding the question of documentation: While it's true that usage of the lens is pretty easy to figure out, had I not gone to the U380's User's Guide on Panamorph's site, I wouldn't not have known about the 12' minimum throw, or that the warranty has been reduced from two years to eighteen months. Actually, I had read about the minimum throw, in the general User's Guide, but forgotten about it. Considering the requirements of the lens, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to include a page or two detailing them.


Jeff


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Um, no where did I say I was Panicing. But why should you think it is too much to ask that an item costing that much arrive at least clean?



The tone of your post was one of elevated concern, obviously my interpretation. Either way, my point was that you might want to get your lens before re-iterating already stated points. Sure, I was concerned about PQ when I first saw the streaks, but I've seen no effect and frankly I don't feel like taking apart a multi-piece lens to do something that doesn't need to be done.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> as for instructions, I remember at least one person on these boards that put their lens on backwards.



No offense to whoever did that, but I'll say it again - if the proper installation of this equipment is that much of an puzzle to you, then you'll probably want to have a certified installer do it rather than be messing with it yourself. It takes all of two seconds to hold it up in front of your projector to see which end should point forwards.


I'm not trying to be an ass here, just saying that I totally love my UH380, that it's a great lens, and that these very minor issues so far have turned out to be non-issues. I'm sure that Shawn has read this thread, and I'm sure that he's already looked into the cause of the streaks on the glass, and given Panamorph's outstanding record with customer service, that it'll be corrected ASAP. I'd rather see this thread used more for reviews, screen shots, and actual reviews and less for re-iterating items that have already been pointed out.


**Edit: I can understand the desire to have documentation included stating some technical data (i.e. preferred mounting distances and throw ratios) - that would be nice.


----------



## Keith AP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd rather see this thread used more for reviews, screen shots, and actual reviews and less for re-iterating items that have already been pointed out.



I fully agree - let's keep moving forward with all the other issues, as this one point has been made quite clear.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm sure that Shawn has read this thread, and I'm sure that he's already looked into the cause of the streaks on the glass, and given Panamorph's outstanding record with customer service, that it'll be corrected ASAP.



However, your assurances on this matter are meaningless unless you have information you're not sharing. If indeed this is true, it would be more appropriate for Shawn to reply at this time.


----------



## Jeff Regan

Here are some pics of my HT with HD81 and Panamorph/Stewart 100" setup.


Jeff Regan


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Regan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here are some pics of my HT with HD81 and Panamorph/Stewart 100" setup.
> 
> 
> Jeff Regan



Hi Jeff,


How do you like the HD81. I'm looking into that PJ myself.







I already have my UH380 lens. Does the HD81 have enough light output for you, are you happy with it..


Steve Carr


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> 
> How do you like the HD81. I'm looking into that PJ myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have my UH380 lens. Does the HD81 have enough light output for you, are you happy with it..
> 
> 
> Steve Carr



Steve,


My biggest problem with the HD81 is having to keep turning the iris down on bright scenes. The manual iris has steps from 1-16, with 1 being wide open and 16 almost closed. I normally run between 11 and 14, and still have good lumens while providing better blacks than with iris off. When the bulb ages and gets dimmer, I'll have a whole lot of range to boost output with the iris.


The UH380 has about 97% light efficiency, so unless your screen is huge, the HD81/UH380 combo should be very bright. The new firmware that offers automatic aspect ratio sensing with "AutoScope", dual triggers to actuate the

Panamorph M380 sled and masking make the Optoma/Panamorph setup very

user friendly.


Jeff Regan


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Regan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> 
> My biggest problem with the HD81 is having to keep turning the iris down on bright scenes. The manual iris has steps from 1-16, with 1 being wide open and 16 almost closed. I normally run between 11 and 14, and still have good lumens while providing better blacks than with iris off. When the bulb ages and gets dimmer, I'll have a whole lot of range to boost output with the iris.
> 
> 
> The UH380 has about 97% light efficiency, so unless your screen is huge, the HD81/UH380 combo should be very bright. The new firmware that offers automatic aspect ratio sensing with "AutoScope", dual triggers to actuate the
> 
> Panamorph M380 sled and masking make the Optoma/Panamorph setup very
> 
> user friendly.
> 
> 
> Jeff Regan



Jeff,


It's nice to see some good words about the HD81...it seems like it's been taking a lot of heat in some of the forums for some of its supposed "issues," which is disappointing considering how great the early PQ reports were. I specifically remember people who saw it at CEIDA commenting on how wonderfully bright it was, and how the colors really popped. I'm considering moving in that direction sometime soon myself, so I'm glad to hear that you like yours and that it's nice and bright


BTW, is that a Ferrari 308 GTS driver's side door mounted in the back of your theater? If so, it seems that your good taste in high performance equipment extends beyond home theater







I just got back from Vegas, and I had a chance to go visit the Ferrari dealership at the Wynn - all I can say is WOW, what gorgeous works of art those cars are!


----------



## Jeff Regan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> 
> It's nice to see some good words about the HD81...it seems like it's been taking a lot of heat in some of the forums for some of its supposed "issues," which is disappointing considering how great the early PQ reports were. I specifically remember people who saw it at CEIDA commenting on how wonderfully bright it was, and how the colors really popped. I'm considering moving in that direction sometime soon myself, so I'm glad to hear that you like yours and that it's nice and bright
> 
> 
> BTW, is that a Ferrari 308 GTS driver's side door mounted in the back of your theater? If so, it seems that your good taste in high performance equipment extends beyond home theater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got back from Vegas, and I had a chance to go visit the Ferrari dealership at the Wynn - all I can say is WOW, what gorgeous works of art those cars are!



HogPilot,


The HD81 is more challenging installation wise than most digital projectors, but

my installation in a small 14'X13'5" room with 8' ceiling, gives me the same size

16:9 image as my Sony CRT did. The vertical offset turned out to be 27% vs. the

36% I had read about in various places. The auto iris is lousy, although Optoma

has tweaked it from its original iteration. The first HD81's were delivered with

firmware version C04, but they already have C08 in development, so they are

really working hard to add features and fix issues. Unfortunately, firmware downloads are not available on their site yet and early firmware does not allow

full internet downloads anyway. HD81 owners with early firmware will have to

send their units into Optoma for new firmware. Having said all that, the HD81

does so many things right and keeps getting better because Optoma is an engineering driven manufacturer, that I think the image and feature set can't be beat at the moment(for the money)--especially for CIH installations and large screens.


The door on my theater wall is for a Ferrari 328, identical to a 308 except for the

built-in door handle. I used to have a Dino 246GT for several years, one of the

best looking automobiles ever, IMO. I guess we BOTH have good taste!










Jeff Regan


----------



## dseliger

I'm getting ready to mount my HD81 in my new theater...I'm using it with the UH380 w/M380.


Does anyone have any recommendations on mounting distance from the screen? Should i zoom the projector all the way in before i mount it, all the way out, or half way in between for the best results??


Any other tips are greatly appreciated.


My screen is 120" x 51"


10 foot ceiling


Thanks!


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations on mounting distance from the screen? Should i zoom the projector all the way in before i mount it, all the way out, or half way in between for the best results??



Generally speaking, the longer the throw (PJ farthest from screen), the better the performance of a anamorphic lens. There are other things to consider, but all else equal, you want the longest throw.


----------



## HogPilot

Exactly - the longer the throw (the less zoomed in you are), the less distortion you'll see from the lens. I'm at just under a 2.0 throw on my H79, and I do have some barrel and pincushion (more of the latter than the former) that I have to zoom out to mask when the UH380 is in place. I can't personally think of a reason why you'd want to have much ability to zoom out while using the lens, but then again everyone's setup is different and there are always extenuating circumstances.


----------



## tomhahn

I'm going to be getting the RS1 and the UH380 + sled. I'm not very handy so I'll have my contractor put it up. With my other pjs I've we've ceiling mounts but obviously this is a little more complicated with the lens + sled.


I'm wondering if there is anything wrong with this idea: What if I had him hang a simple platform (shelf, really) from the ceiling, big enough to put the pj + sled on. The pj would sit upright on the platform and the sled would be mounted on the top of the platform at its leading edge. I'll have to boost the pj an inch or two with its feet (if it has them) or a piece of plywood to get it up into the usable range of the lens bracket.


The advantages, it would seem, were:


- One thing to hang, and a simple thing at that

- No weight-bearing mount concerns with the sled

- More flexible/future-proof in that the pj can be swapped out with no change in the mounting.


Am I missing something, as this would seem to be easiest/most flexible. Sorry if lots of other folks are doing this and I just missed the posts.


Thanks,


-Tom


----------



## CAVX

HS1?










Mark


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tomhahn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The advantages, it would seem, were:
> 
> 
> - One thing to hang, and a simple thing at that
> 
> - No weight-bearing mount concerns with the sled
> 
> - More flexible/future-proof in that the pj can be swapped out with no change in the mounting.



Hi Tom,


I like this idea, but it is not necessarily upgrade proof. If you get a different projector down the road, it may have a significantly different vertical offset or throw ratio. As to the "No weight-bearing mount concerns" - true, if you make the platform very strong/substantial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't do this - I think it is as good a plan as any for PJ + UH380 + M380 mounting. I had a universal projector mount for my Panasonic 900, but when I got my Pearl, that "universal" mount just did not work as well as a different "universal" mount from Chief in a slightly different spot in the ceiling. I have resigned myself to changing mounts when I change projectors.


----------



## McCall

Has anyone heard from Shawn lately?

I emailed him and got no response, not sure if he is snowed in and no power or on Christmas vacation or what. He had told me my lens would ship on Tuesday, but no word or confirmation it did, and I know the weather is horrendous.


----------



## astroboy

Tom:


I believe most projectors have an optical offset to the image, up when mounted upright, down when mounted inverted. If you oriented the projector upright when near the ceiling, it would likely have to be tilted down rather drastically, introducing a lot of distortion and probably focus problems.


Jeff


----------



## ebr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone heard from Shawn lately?
> 
> I emailed him and got no response, not sure if he is snowed in and no power or on Christmas vacation or what. He had told me my lens would ship on Tuesday, but no word or confirmation it did, and I know the weather is horrendous.



I was about to post the same question. My lens was supposed to ship last Friday but I've gotten no word and multiple emails have gone unanswered...


----------



## McCall

The website says they are shut down now till after the holidays. So I don't know what that means to those of us waiting.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *astroboy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tom:
> 
> 
> I believe most projectors have an optical offset to the image, up when mounted upright, down when mounted inverted. If you oriented the projector upright when near the ceiling, it would likely have to be tilted down rather drastically, introducing a lot of distortion and probably focus problems.
> 
> 
> Jeff



That actually depends entirely on the projector. DLP projectors are known for having larger fixed offset percentages than other types of projectors, but every projector is different - some have a lot, some have none at all. Usually more expensive projectors have built in vertical lens shift that may or may not allow you to ceiling mount the projector but allow it to stay upright and still project the image down onto the screen.


The RS1 has lens shift, so depending on the specifics of the setup it could most likely accommodate an upright ceiling mounting with no problem.


----------



## tomhahn

I suppose in the worst case, the JVC could be laid upside down on the platform. Since it has a flat top it would be easy to raise it to the right height even w/o feet. But you have a good point, some future uber-stylish projector might not have a flat top (e.g., the 3 Sim2's I've had) and one would be left to more Rube Goldberg-ish methods to support it upside-down on the platform. It is a comment on the severity of my un-handiness that I still find these prospects preferable to use of power tools...


Edit: I just double checked the cine4home review and the the JVC does allow 30% above screen top while upright -- but of course your point is still valid.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tomhahn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Edit: I just double checked the cine4home review and the the JVC does allow 30% above screen top while upright -- but of course your point is still valid.



I don't know anything about the JVC, but... those %offset figures usually refer to how far off the center of the screen, not how far above the top. I find that spec often misleading in manuals, too. 30% above the screen is a big optical offset.


----------



## McCall

My H77 has 100% vertical shift up or down so as long as the lens is within the screen mine is about 2" from top of screen [centered horizontally, since there is NO horizontal shift on this model] the picture can be adjusted to within the screen.


----------



## ebr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The website says they are shut down now till after the holidays. So I don't know what that means to those of us waiting.



Well, I'm going to give Shawn the benefit of the doubt and assume that my lens shipped early this week and I will receive it soon. With all the raves about customer service, I can't believe he would have told me it would ship and then just check out for a couple weeks without a peep.


When did you guys order? My money was wired on 12/8.


----------



## tomhahn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about the JVC, but... those %offset figures usually refer to how far off the center of the screen, not how far above the top. I find that spec often misleading in manuals, too. 30% above the screen is a big optical offset.



Yeah, there's been a lot of discussion about this -- the number they actually quote is 80% up or down which is measured from the center as you say. (This was verified by cine4home.) I always find that misleading and like to talk about % of screen height above the top or below the bottom of the screen. But thanks for raising that...


You're also right that that's a big number and there is a lot of speculation on the actual artifact-free range. I'm not counting on it and will mount parallel to the top of the screen, which gives me more leeway for my next pj (Sony Diamond??).


----------



## McCall

Well My UH380 arrived today, Heavy sucker it is too. Won't really be able to even test it till my husband gets back this weekend, then we have to figure out how to mount it, I am going to redo the entire back wall to accomodate it and a shelf for the projector as well, it has a wall mount currently but I am not happy with it. I am still hopeing to do some sort of treatment over the entire projector/lens/ rear speakers section Trying to cover it all and maintain my art deco theme.


----------



## ebr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well My UH380 arrived today, Heavy sucker it is too. Won't really be able to even test it till my husband gets back this weekend, then we have to figure out how to mount it, I am going to redo the entire back wall to accomodate it and a shelf for the projector as well, it has a wall mount currently but I am not happy with it. I am still hopeing to do some sort of treatment over the entire projector/lens/ rear speakers section Trying to cover it all and maintain my art deco theme.



When did you order yours? I still have no lens and no response from any emails.


----------



## McCall

Ordered on 12/05 or there abouts. I am surprised you have not heard from Shawn, other than the holiday, he has been good about responding to emails from me. Have you tried calling them?


----------



## ebr

He responded well to me right up until 12/15. That's the last communication I got and it said my lens would ship "in the next couple days".


I wired money on 12/8 so maybe my lens will arrive today or tomorrow.


----------



## 1gasman

Happy Holidays!!


Panamorph, Inc. will be closed between December 18 and January 2. However, we will periodically check emails over the holidays. Best wishes from all of us to you and your families


From there webite I see they wont be back till jan 2nd.



1gasman


----------



## ca1ore

Can anyone comment on the picture differences of using a fixed lens setup rather than a moveable lens setup for 16:9 soure material - specifically, is the loss of resolution across the screen by having to scale/squeeze for a fixed lens noticable?


----------



## ca1ore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1gasman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also have been trying to reach him to order those units, no luck yet by phone.
> 
> 
> 1gasman



Probably 'off' for the holidays!


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1gasman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also have been trying to reach him to order those units, no luck yet by phone.
> 
> 
> 1gasman



Well the company is closed until Jan 2 according to the website for the Holidays.


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ca1ore* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment on the picture differences of using a fixed lens setup rather than a moveable lens setup for 16:9 soure material - specifically, is the loss of resolution across the screen by having to scale/squeeze for a fixed lens noticable?



I did not see any difference with Hi-Def 16x9 source with fixed lense.


----------



## ebr

"off" for the Holidays is fine but for the last communication from him to have been "lens will ship in the next couple days" with no mention of, btw we're closing down so you won't be able to reach us or anything like that is a bit surprising. Especially when its obvious that my lens didn't ship "in the next couple of days" as its been two weeks now.


Its just that, from the experiences I had read about, I expected a little better.


----------



## 1gasman

I was also checking on ordering the Lens and mount.

can u guys tell me what you paid on the special they were running. Ive probally missed the special but was wondering what the difference will be.


Also has anyone heard about a mount from panamorph, that attaches the h81.



1gasman


----------



## McCall

The website lists the current price not the special price which was considerably less.


----------



## ebr

My lens just arrived. I would have liked better communication, but at least I've got it now. Whew.


----------



## Citation4444




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1gasman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was also checking on ordering the Lens and mount.
> 
> can u guys tell me what you paid on the special they were running. Ive probally missed the special but was wondering what the difference will be.
> 
> 
> Also has anyone heard about a mount from panamorph, that attaches the h81.
> 
> 
> 
> 1gasman



The special intro price was $1500 each for the lens and motorized mount.


----------



## dseliger

You might be thinking of the panamorph mount made by Cheif, it wont work with the UH380 it weighs to much.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1gasman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Also has anyone heard about a mount from panamorph, that attaches the h81.
> 
> 1gasman


----------



## 1gasman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Citation4444* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The special intro price was $1500 each for the lens and motorized mount.



WOW!.

Thanks for info.


----------



## 1gasman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dseliger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You might be thinking of the panamorph mount made by Cheif, it wont work with the UH380 it weighs to much.



.


I think its somthing else. I will run it by shawn when he starts up operation again.


1GASMAN


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Hello all,


Because of the industry drive toward 2.35:1 systems I don't have as much time to post as I used to, but I wanted to say a big Thank You to everyone who participated in the original UH350 (now UH380) powerbuy. In addition, I want to thank Alan Gouger and many of the projector OEMs who have been encouraging me for years to come up with a high performance HE lens that is both large and, of course, affordable relative to the new ranks of 1080 projectors. In appreciation we are extending probably our final powerbuy for the UH380 lens and M380 transport before they go into mainstream distribution. This will be posted shortly in the AVS powerbuy section (with a link at the top of the 2.35:1 forum).


Kind regards and best wishes to everyone for a great new year!


----------



## kits

Can't wait for another Powerbuy on this one. Heard Prismasonic will also have a Powerbuy soon on their new lens that is expected to come out next month.


----------



## misterkit

Where did you hear that?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can't wait for another Powerbuy on this one. Heard Prismasonic will also have a Powerbuy soon on their new lens that is expected to come out next month.


----------



## McCall

So I assume you have all seen that the UH380 powerbuy is now on.


----------



## camarillo_cinema

I have an Infocus 4805. Any problems using 380 with this projector?


TIA-


Don


----------



## kits

 Check this Post and post number 32. She is from Prismasonic and she mentioned she will work with Alan to get a PowerBuy set up sometime in Feb.


I am still debating between these two lens. I think Panamorph has size advantage while Prismasonic's major plus is lower price even without powerbuy AND Pass-Through mode we don't need to slide out the lens when viewing 16X9 content. I don't care for slide out mechanism as the cost multiplies fast with. I find it's cheaper to have two projector installed one for 16X9 and one for CIH instead of spending 2K for a sliding mechanism. So, to me Pass-through mode looks very attractive.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *misterkit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where did you hear that?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kits* /forum/post/0
> 
> Check this Post and post number 32. She is from Prismasonic and she mentioned she will work with Alan to get a PowerBuy set up sometime in Feb.
> 
> 
> I am still debating between these two lens. I think Panamorph has size advantage while Prismasonic's major plus is lower price even without powerbuy AND Pass-Through mode we don't need to slide out the lens when viewing 16X9 content. I don't care for slide out mechanism as the cost multiplies fast with. I find it's cheaper to have two projector installed one for 16X9 and one for CIH instead of spending 2K for a sliding mechanism. So, to me Pass-through mode looks very attractive.



Regarding the slide issue, I built one with about $30 of stuff from Home Depot that is solid and works just fine. I spent roughly 3 hours from the time that I left for the store until the time that I had it fully mounted and working on my ceiling.


Although I have never seen a Prismasonic in passthrough mode, I do have two comments. Firstly, keep in mind that the amount of effort required to slide the UH380 out of the way is at least equal to, if not less than, the amount required to change the Prismasonic from passthrough to stretch. Secondly, with any anamorphic lens you will have some amount of pincushion and barrel distortion - when you're using it in full scope mode, you can mask that off but with any aspect less than 2.35:1, if you don't have a movable masking system on the sides, the pincushion will be noticeable to a certain degree on the pillar boxes on the sides. I don't know how much optical distortion the Prismasonic introduces in full passthrough mode, but I can't imagine that any extra lens would have zero effect on your image.


Both lenses are great lenses - in my opinion the UH380 is the better of the two in terms of PQ and build quality - but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the passthrough mode vs. using a cheap and easy to build slider.


----------



## mburnstein

For non 2.35:1 sources who keeps the lens fixed and does scaler horizontal squeeze by 25% vs. move the lens and do 16:9 source projection within the screen at contant height but 25% narrower width?


----------



## ebr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Regarding the slide issue, I built one with about $30 of stuff from Home Depot that is solid and works just fine. I spent roughly 3 hours from the time that I left for the store until the time that I had it fully mounted and working on my ceiling.
> 
> 
> Although I have never seen a Prismasonic in passthrough mode, I do have two comments. Firstly, keep in mind that the amount of effort required to slide the UH380 out of the way is at least equal to, if not less than, the amount required to change the Prismasonic from passthrough to stretch. Secondly, with any anamorphic lens you will have some amount of pincushion and barrel distortion - when you're using it in full scope mode, you can mask that off but with any aspect less than 2.35:1, if you don't have a movable masking system on the sides, the pincushion will be noticeable to a certain degree on the pillar boxes on the sides. I don't know how much optical distortion the Prismasonic introduces in full passthrough mode, but I can't imagine that any extra lens would have zero effect on your image.
> 
> 
> Both lenses are great lenses - in my opinion the UH380 is the better of the two in terms of PQ and build quality - but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the passthrough mode vs. using a cheap and easy to build slider.



I had the same delimma - which of these lenses with the concern for passthru or a sliding mechanism. I went with the Panamorph because I perceived it to be a slightly better lens (just through reading - I haven't seen a Prismasonic) and built my motion mechanism for less than $5.


In addition to the expense, I didn't want to have to fasten another large, hanging object to my ceiling because my projector is hanging down about 2 1/2 feet. But, because of that, I had another option - I can just flip my lens straight up and over. So, for the cost of two strap hinges, I have a moveable lens.


Lens in place:












Lens flipped up:


----------



## funlvr1965

EBR im sending you a pm


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/9075273
> 
> 
> I think the titles are relatively explanatory. After a little aligning (tilting the lens up and down), I had only very minor pincushioning on the sides, and some very minor barrel on the bottom (nothing that you'd notice while watching a movie). Right now I need to re-center the picture (left to right) when switching between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 by about 3-4 inches on the screen. I'm not sure if this is due to a problem with my setup or just inherent to the lens. Either way it's not a big deal, as the picture with the lens in place is absolutely spectacular - I have not noticed any chromatic abberation or glare issues, and of coupled with the DC3 chip and great optics in my H79 I have yet to see any screen door at a seating distance of 1.4. I had a couple buddies over here after an extended stint at the bar on Friday night, and we were watching Return of the Jedi, and they were in total awe. The one other "videophile" (jonnyozero3, who posts here), also saw it the next morning while not intoxicated and was still wowed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only (very minor) complaint I do have with using a lens - and this would apply to any anamorphic lens - is that subtitles (like Jabba the Hutt speaking in Return of the Jedi) are cut off since they're usually down in the black bars. Anyone have any work-arounds for this?



Hi,


I am fairly new in this forum. The forum is extremely interesting and the amount of information available at your finger tips is incredible. Thank you very much everyone for distributing your collective knowledge to everyone else in the world. Thanks for the AVS team for supporting this worthy cause.


I am also getting a UH380 (lens only)







and thinking of mounting options.


Hi HogPilot,


Could you please tell me what type of sliding rail that you are using (as given in the photo) and where to get them.


Thanks very much.


----------



## McCall

Depending on your set up you can make your own slide for the lens. Many of us do.

Mine is made with double heavy duty ball bearing style drawer glides.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/12578828
> 
> 
> Hi HogPilot,
> 
> 
> Could you please tell me what type of sliding rail that you are using (as given in the photo) and where to get them.
> 
> 
> Thanks very much.



They're 150lb capacity sliding drawer rails that I bought at Home Depo - if you go to either Lowe's or Home Depo you'll be able to find them, they're very inexpensive.


Enjoy your CIH'ing


----------



## syncguy

Thanks HogPilot. I will try to find it here in downunder.


----------



## studlygoorite

I just purchased my 1st Anamorphic Lens, the Panamorph UH380, and was wondering if there is anything I need to know about installing it? I have a track to put it on and will be able to slide it out of the way when needed. I have the Epson 6500 Projector and a 135" Diagonal Black Diamond Screen. I am planning on placing the lens 16' back from the screen as I read at Projector Central that this is the sweet spot for the Panamorph, would 15' or 17' make a difference? How far do I install the lens from the projector lens? Should it be as close as I can get it without touching each other, or should it be 1" away? Any other tips would also be appreciated.


Thanks, John


----------



## tbase1

you might want to go to panamorph's site, it's very helpfull in determining distance for your projector, lens, and screen.


----------



## Nasty N8

17' would be better and even farther the better if your projector still has some zoom to make the correct size 16/9 image before lens. Lens from projector as close as possible without touching gets you the best possible image. Center the light into the lens and tilt till the image is even as possible.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nasty N8* /forum/post/17764481
> 
> 
> 17' would be better and even farther the better if your projector still has some zoom to make the correct size 16/9 image before lens. Lens from projector as close as possible without touching gets you the best possible image. Center the light into the lens and tilt till the image is even as possible.



Thanks for the info.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nasty N8* /forum/post/17764481
> 
> 
> 17' would be better and even farther the better if your projector still has some zoom to make the correct size 16/9 image before lens.



Just becareful here as the corrective element "A" is designed for throws from 14.5 to 17 feet (check their site to confirm these). After that, you need to move to corrective element "B".


----------

