I am going to put my C3X 1080 up for sale, but before I do, I would like to know what subtle differences exist between the case design of the Lumis and the C3X 1080. I am still at a 1.7 throw in my current home, putting me EXACTLY in between the T1 and T2 lens. I could not move the T1 lens C3X 1080 as far back as I would have liked.

1) Has the baffle over the Lumis lens decreased in size *at all* compared to the C3x1080? Are you able to get the ISCO III lens closer to the projector lens with the Lumis?

2) Since I am at 1.7, do you think I could squeeze into a T2 lens?

Just taking a guess at this. Looking at the pictures, there does not seem to be much difference where the lens is placed in relation to the front of the case. Given that the published throw ratios are exactly the same, I would imagine that you would have the same problem.

Schneider has a new Cine-Digitar XL lens that seems close to the ISCO III. Not sure if it would work better or not. I have also heard of a new monster Schneider lens. Could not find it on their site, but there is a Cine-Digitar MF Premiere lens at $15,500 list on their price list which could be it.

Since we're on the subject: How far from the center of the case is the lens?

I just sent a unit back to Sim2 for an update so I cannot measure, but from my inspection they are EXTREMELY close...not the ISCO will not be able to get any closer really and the center to lens side to side offset is about the same (well less than 3/4" difference as I recall).

I can understand a 1/8" protective gap, but more than that is unneccessary. The closer the anamorphic lens is to the projector lens, the less CA. The curved baffle is just uneccessary... optimal performance is to allow the lenses to be within 1/8 inch.

If they redesigned the case for the lumis, I'm surprised they would not optimise the front of the case to allow for cloer positioning of the anamorphic lens. To me, this is an important detail that is for some reason overlooked.

In any case, thank-you for your replies. I'm at 1.7 throw, directly between T1 and T2 lenses... Perhaps I can use T2 this time...

I can understand a 1/8" protective gap, but more than that is unneccessary. The closer the anamorphic lens is to the projector lens, the less CA. The curved baffle is just uneccessary... optimal performance is to allow the lenses to be within 1/8 inch.

If they redesigned the case for the lumis, I'm surprised they would not optimise the front of the case to allow for cloer positioning of the anamorphic lens. To me, this is an important detail that is for some reason overlooked.



There's always the 5000e ...

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the LUMIS case is 5-6 inches smaller in DEPTH (compared to the C3X 1080) which will also be useful for me and allow me to pick up 5-6 inches to get me closer to the 1.75 throw of the T2 lens....

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the LUMIS case is 5-6 inches smaller in DEPTH (compared to the C3X 1080) which will also be useful for me and allow me to pick up 5-6 inches to get me closer to the 1.75 throw of the T2 lens....

Where are you getting that figure? Are you looking at the HOST dimensions?

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the LUMIS case is 5-6 inches smaller in DEPTH (compared to the C3X 1080) which will also be useful for me and allow me to pick up 5-6 inches to get me closer to the 1.75 throw of the T2 lens....

They did that specifically listening to some of your criticism and to get you to buy a Lumis.

I am going to put my C3X 1080 up for sale...
Why are you putting your C3X 1080 up for sale? What are you thinking of replacing it with?

I put my C3X1080 up for sale yesterday... The shorter case of the Lumis will help me increase my throw ratio. I can use the extra 5 inches a lot... I hope that the case is indeed 5 inches shallower and the person that conveyed this information was not looking at the specs on the host box....

Where are you getting that figure? Are you looking at the HOST dimensions?

Looks like that was the case.... oh well. If anyone knows the case dimensions, that would be great.

Is this the same case as the C3X 1080 then?

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Software control upgradable via RS232, serial interface or USB
Mains voltage range 100-240 +/-10% (48/62 Hz)
Projector Weight 11 Kg. or 24.3 lbs
HOST Weight/Dimensions (WxHxD) 2.5 Kg or 5.5 lbs; 438x90x301 mm (17”x3,5”x11,8”)

Looks like that was the case.... oh well. If anyone knows the case dimensions, that would be great.

Is this the same case as the C3X 1080 then?

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Software control upgradable via RS232, serial interface or USB
Mains voltage range 100-240 +/-10% (48/62 Hz)
Projector Weight 11 Kg. or 24.3 lbs
HOST Weight/Dimensions (WxHxD) 2.5 Kg or 5.5 lbs; 438x90x301 mm (17”x3,5”x11,8”)
According to the User Manual, the Sim2 Grand Cinema C3X1080 dimensions are "435 x 190 x 430 mm (LxAxP)." There are some detailed drawings in the Appendix:

http://www.sim2.it/home/files/downloads/C3X1080_UserM_English_0.pdf

I put my C3X1080 up for sale yesterday... The shorter case of the Lumis will help me increase my throw ratio. I can use the extra 5 inches a lot... I hope that the case is indeed 5 inches shallower and the person that conveyed this information was not looking at the specs on the host box....

No chance...they are virtually indistinguisheable in case size. Though I haven't measured exactly, 5" would have been obvious (I have seen many of the C3X1080's and 3 Lumis' to date).

No chance...they are virtually indistinguisheable in case size. Though I haven't measured exactly, 5" would have been obvious (I have seen many of the C3X1080's and 3 Lumis' to date).

Yes, I verified this as correct, just over 17" deep. The confusion came from a quick read on the site where the only dimension listed was actually only for the HOST unit, not the PJ.

Jim

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv130/todo09/LumisDimensions.jpg

Their tech writers seem to miss the LR lens dimension (relative to anything else on the case) a lot. One of the fundamental dimensions for hanging it. That diagram has everthing you need except that one.

I believe the distance from the left side of the case (when looking at the front of the case) to the lens center is 11.5"

Jim

The 11.5" I mentioned above was confirmed when I measured yesterday (as best I could given the curved nature of the case).

As stated by others, superb image (and this is a prod. unit). My wife thought I had the HT5K on when she stepped into the room (until she noticed the Blacks!:D).

Jim

I'm still hoping that I am able to get the ISCO III lens closer to the LUMIS lens (as compared to the C3X 1080). The angled baffle over the lens (instead of a more desireable flat case baffle over the lens) seems very similar. I'm disappointed the did not address this simple issue and threrby allow the ISCO 3 (or any anamorphic lens) to get within 1/8" to 1/4" of the projector lens. The angled case surrounding the lens is undesireable in terms of use with anamorphic lenses.

I'm still hoping that I am able to get the ISCO III lens closer to the LUMIS lens (as compared to the C3X 1080). The angled baffle over the lens (instead of a more desireable flat case baffle over the lens) seems very similar. I'm disappointed the did not address this simple issue and threrby allow the ISCO 3 (or any anamorphic lens) to get within 1/8" to 1/4" of the projector lens. The angled case surrounding the lens is undesireable in terms of use with anamorphic lenses.

Have you had any issues with the ISCO3 and C3X? I don't recall seeing any problems when I had the C3X other than while being at the far end of the throw and filling pretty much all the glass of the ISCO. No vignetting and a very sharp picture with no CA. I always was worried about the case of the lens covering but needlessly so. I also believe that Sim uses the ISCO3 in their R&D of their pros during development and testing.

Have you had any issues with the ISCO3 and C3X? I don't recall seeing any problems when I had the C3X other than while being at the far end of the throw and filling pretty much all the glass of the ISCO. No vignetting and a very sharp picture with no CA. I always was worried about the case of the lens covering but needlessly so. I also believe that Sim uses the ISCO3 in their R&D of their pros during development and testing.

there are a couple issues here. The more glass the picture travels through on the ISCO III, the more CA and vignetting. Whether or not it is visible is another story. Just as whether or not you can tell if the pixels are 1/4th out of convergence or 1/8th out of convergence. The goal is to optomise every factor you can.

The projector case should not have a sloping baffle over the lens. The curved baffle over the lens of the C3X 1080 extend around 1 1/8" at the maximum point!! It is this sloping, curved case around the lens that FORCES you to use a 1.25" air gap between the ISCO III lens and the C3X 1080 lens. And that is WITH the ISCO mounted backwards in its housing (Get Grey (Scott)) and others know what I mean by this. The case is NOT optimized for use with an anamorphic lens. If it was, the lens would be near flush mounted on a flat surface so that the ANAMORPHIC lens can have a minimal air gap.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use the ISCO III with a T1 lens at less than 1.55 throw (without casting shadows and using over 100% of the glass surface). I will hands down debate that with ANYBODY. You WILL use more than the entire glass surface at throws smaller than that with the T1 lens. You actualy hit the metal casing of the ISCO III that surrounds the lens and will cast shadows on the edges of your screen.

That being said it is not ideal at all to use as much glass as you are using. The only thing to debate is how subjectively this is visible... for a high end company, it is disapointing lack of attention to detail and I'm still baffled at the lack of thought on the case design in this regard.

And that is WITH the ISCO mounted backwards in its housing (Get Grey (Scott)) and others know what I mean Presuming I do know what you mean, to clarify... The older Iscostat 9 mount plate is reversed when we do a modification to it. The modification is not done to get the lens mounted the the rearmost point (although that is a fringe benefit), but to orient the lens mount plate such that there is room to add a special made locking brake screw. This is there to allow the user to lock the lens so it will not "roll" in the threads throwing off the lens vertical roll adjustment / alignment. The Iscostat 9 mount (square post mounts) is now obsolete, replaced with the Multistand II which is a different design and now comes with a lens lock screw standard.