Given ISCO III and sled

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by ilsiu

Nevertheless, if the price was underestimated, that just reinforces my point. People will pay top dollar so that they don't have to walk to the light switch - those same people probably wouldn't want to zoom either, even if they thought there was picture quality to be gained.

I think this really does help illustrate one of the points that's relevant here. Many people simply haven't directly experienced genuine high end HT systems, and the huge performance hike they deliver. With such a lack of experience, inevitably comes lack of understanding.

The idea of lighting automation, in a high end HT, is not about not having to walk to "the light switch". Its about tailored performance and maximum flexibility. Typical lighting systems, and the user requirements from them, currently being installed in most most genuine high end systems would simply be impossible to configure and operate without automation. Convenience isn't the main driver, its a totally different level of capability and functionality.

Hope this helps.

PS. I think we are starting to get way OT now.

[ilsiu]

Originally Posted by coldmachine

I think this really does help illustrate one of the points that's relevant here. Many people simply the direct experience of genuine high end HT systems and the huge performance hike they deliver.

True - I think very few people here have access to genuine high end HT systems. It's certainly a very abstract concept to me.

Originally Posted by coldmachine

The idea of lighting automation, in a high end HT, is not about not having to walk to "the light switch". Its about tailored performance and flexibility.

This is off topic, so I'll just comment that all the complex lighting tasks (controlling different zones, synchronizing lighting with other actions, and stuff I'm sure I can't conceive in my wildest dreams) can be done control panel on the wall. People see value in automating those tasks (and doing it remotely from their seat), thus many are willing to pay a great deal for it.

Aspect ratio changes can be done manually (be it zooming or sliding a lens in place), but similar to lighting control, there are people that would greatly appreciate an automated solution.

At this time, automated zoom options are extremely limited (either very low end or very high end), so anamorphic lenses will be the preferred solution. So automation should be an important factor when taking the price of anamorphic systems into consideration. That's all I wanted to point out.

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by ilsiu

This is off topic, so I'll just comment that all the complex lighting tasks (controlling different zones, synchronizing lighting with other actions, and stuff I'm sure I can't conceive in my wildest dreams) can be done control panel on the wall. People see value in automating those tasks (and doing it remotely from their seat), thus many are willing to pay a great deal for it.

We are getting OT, but I need to explain further, in response to your post.

Again, lack of direct experience may be obscuring the issue, and actually causing incorrect conclusions to be drawn.

The type of system, and control, I was referring to is always remote anyway. The type of panel needed for that will typically be a Crestron/AMX display monitor. They can be fitted to a wall, and they can be fitted to a seat or be a handhold.

The wall mounted option is frequently far more expensive than the seat console or handhold option, and simply makes absolutely no sense in that environment.

Hope this helps.

[ilsiu]

Originally Posted by coldmachine

We are getting OT, but I need to explain further, in response to your post.

Again, lack of direct experience may be obscuring the issue, and actually causing incorrect conclusions to be drawn.

The type of system, and control, I was referring to is always remote anyway. The type of panel needed for that will typically be a Crestron/AMX display monitor. They can be fitted to a wall, and they can be fitted to a seat or be a handhold.

The wall mounted option is frequently far more expensive than the seat console or handhold option, and simply makes absolutely no sense in that environment.

Hope this helps.

This will be my last post on this (off) topic, I promise

There are lots of different levels of remote lighting control. Some are very basic - they just turn on, off, or dim by remote control; all of which can be done manually at a standard, wall mounted dimmer switch. There are lots of people that buy those basic systems so they don't have to go to a wall mounted switch to perform exactly the same tasks. I believe those people would place much value in the automated aspect ratio changes an anamorphic lens allows.

The above may or may not apply to high-end users. I defer to you on describing on what high end users want or need. I do feel qualified to comment on low end users .

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by ilsiu

This will be my last post on this (off) topic, I promise

There are lots of different levels of remote lighting control. Some are very basic - they just turn on, off, or dim by remote control; all of which can be done manually at a standard, wall mounted dimmer switch. There are lots of people that buy those basic systems so they don't have to go to a wall mounted switch to perform exactly the same tasks. I believe those people would place much value in the automated aspect ratio changes an anamorphic lens allows.

The above may or may not apply to high-end users. I defer to you on describing on what high end users want or need. I do feel qualified to comment on low end users .

And this will be my last too.

I totally understand that some people may wish to simply avoid walking to the wall to switch a light. However, even a user of a basic system who ties a lighting profile to a pause control on his BD, that also calls up some background music, is likely to see that as increased functionality, rather than simple convenience.

For others, automation makes possible what would otherwise be utterly impossible. Also, in many cases, with extreme light controlled HTs, having to use a wall panel to operate the lighting would constitute a safety issue.

It was that difference in outlook, and experience, prompted by the "up to", that I wished to comment on.

Im back on Topic now too.

[rabident]

Originally Posted by GetGray

My wife and young kids would be zoom challenged. Their grandmother would not even understand what it was I don't think (mother in law, not my mother ). None of the family, even MIL have any trouble pressing the button that says "2.35" or "16:9" though. My son was 7 when I hung the first CineSlide. Within a week he was "aspect savvy" and recognized the difference between a 1.78 menu and the 2.35 movie. And knew how to press the button that changes them. With automation you can even have the lens move out of the way if you press "pause" revealing any otherwise off-screen information.

As ilsiu pointed out I was referring to the difficulty in initial setup - not ongoing operation. For daily operation, I would agree it's the simplest no compromise solution. I do one button masking for CIW now. I will likely be a future customer when I make it back to CIH since ease of use is important to me.

[GetGray]

Originally Posted by rabident

I was referring to the difficulty in initial setup - not ongoing operation.

I understand, thanks. I didn't mean to misrepresent your comment with my answer, sorry. Just wanted to point out the install isn't that bad. For initial setup, mounting a CineSlide once is definitely harder than zooming, once for sure. Adjusting the lens (a large Isco IIIL in particular), just isn't *that* hard though. Some new owners have had a lot of fear that it would be very difficult but find it is really reasonably straight forward. Unless they are spatially/mechanically challenged. But those filks are normally having an installer do the construction work anyway. There's a member or 2 around here who have obsessed with fine tuning but in normal installations, the thing is really pretty forgiving and not very hard to setup.

[GG386]

Originally Posted by GetGray

the thing is really pretty forgiving and not very hard to setup.

It took me longer to dress up the wiring and ceiling tile than to get it hanging

[tbase1]

Is a motorized sled for a Isco 3L worth buying if I'm close to my projector? If so how much do they cost?

[Mike_WI]

Originally Posted by tbase1

Is a motorized sled for a Isco 3L worth buying if I'm close to my projector? If so how much do they cost?

If you plan on leaving the lens in place all the time and use AR changing in your video processor (or projector) then you don't need a slide.

If you are close and don't mind moving it manually, you don't need it.
It is nice however.

Here is a link:

TechHT CineSlide

MSRP: $2595

You can PM GetGray for more info.


Mike

[mrlittlejeans]

I would totally sell the ISCO II and sled and buy four AE4000's.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans

I would totally sell the ISCO II and sled and buy four AE4000's.

An ISCO II sells for about $800 these days, so I doubt that would fund your four AE4000 Pannys

[ilsiu]

Originally Posted by CAVX

An ISCO II sells for about $800 these days, so I doubt that would fund your four AE4000 Pannys

OT question: is that new or used? US dollars?

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by ilsiu

OT question: is that new or used? US dollars?

Yes used , and yes US Dollars.

That is for the older ISCO II not the ISCO III Art has.

[Ken Tripp]

Originally Posted by CAVX

Yes used , and yes US Dollars.

That is for the older ISCO II not the ISCO III Art has.

That's a good price considering you can still buy the ISCO II new and for about half what the III costs. Any thoughts on why the II's drop in value so quickly?

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by Ken Tripp

That's a good price considering you can still buy the ISCO II new and for about half what the III costs. Any thoughts on why the II's drop in value so quickly?

I didn't know the ISCO II was still available new. I thought that the smaller lens was an ISCO IIIs.

Anyway, I think these lenses were seriously undervalued when people began to sell them off. The point with the ISCO II is that is not a true cylindrical lens. It actually has weak sperical elements which cause a height shift between lens in and lens out, so unless you intend to leave the lens in the light path 100% of the time (as I do with my own lens), there will be a small amount of zoom required for CIH The ISCO III (apart from being very much larger, hence the extra cost) does not have this issue and why it is the preferred lens for CIH.

[Ken Tripp]

Originally Posted by CAVX

I didn't know the ISCO II was still available new. I thought that the smaller lens was an ISCO IIIs.

Anyway, I think these lenses were seriously undervalued when people began to sell them off. The point with the ISCO II is that is not a true cylindrical lens. It actually has weak sperical elements which cause a height shift between lens in and lens out, so unless you intend to leave the lens in the light path 100% of the time (as I do with my own lens), there will be a small amount of zoom required for CIH The ISCO III (apart from being very much larger, hence the extra cost) does not have this issue and why it is the preferred lens for CIH.

Thanks Mark, maybe this site screwed up the description...

http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/

At long throws and if you're going to leave the lens in place it sounds like a used ISCO II may be a good buy.

Speaking of which, how's your new baby coming along and any idea of price yet.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by Ken Tripp

Thanks Mark, maybe this site screwed up the description...

http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/

At long throws and if you're going to leave the lens in place it sounds like a used ISCO II may be a good buy.

Exactly. It is a smaller lense so needs the longer throw and if you intend to leave the lens in the light path all the time, then this lens is perfect (TR pending of course).

Speaking of which, how's your new baby coming along and any idea of price yet.

It is in production and whilst I can't post a price here, you can contact me with email for the price. The MK4 works with TRs down to 1.4:1 as well.

[tbase1]

I hope my IIIL does not make me wish I kept my birthday cash. I have a
prismasonic V1000 that I'm happy with, so there better be a WOW factor or it goes back for a refund.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by tbase1

there better be a WOW factor or it goes back for a refund.

If you didn't see an imporovement with the ISCO III, I'd suggest taking those glasses (the ones calibrated for 50') back for a refund

[tbase1]

maaaaaan you are on your "A" joke game. Maybe I'll get two of the IIIL's and make glasses out of them...That'll teach those Zoomers.

[CAVX]

WOW Glasses with continiously adjustible astigmatis correction. Your on a winner their Tbase1 and you'd not need to get a pair of 51' cal'd glasses next year You might want a neck brace to hold them up though

[tbase1]

one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the
prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.

[drewski11]

Originally Posted by tbase1

one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the
prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.

watch one then the other and then switch back just to make sure

[rboster]

Originally Posted by tbase1

one more dayt until I get my new isco IIIL....... Should I wait and watch movies then or watch a movie with my prismasonic and then watch one with the isco IIIL in the same day. I know you guys think it's a no brainer with the isco, but i want to see if there is a wow factor. What will the WOW factor be for this lens compared to the
prismasonic v1000? Sorry about highjacking the thread for a second.

I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system

[tbase1]

We will soon see, and to keep with the thread I'll see what it looks like with zoom as well. At the end of the day I'll be able to say if I'll zoom instead of using the prismasonic or the isco IIIL lens. I don't have the sled so i can't really answer Art's question, but will know real soon when I get my panasonic ae4000 projector.

[CAVX]

Simply put, even with correction elements, prisms base lenses are always going to have a "sweet spot" that they work best at. This is not to do with the prisms themselves, rather the correction element.

A true cylindrical lens does not have a sweet spot as its front (or rear) lens can be moved in or out to bring both lenses into the same focal plain together. The result is that both horizontal and vertical lines are brought into focus at the same time anywhere in the lenses opperating range.

Until you see this for self, it is easy to dismaiss the benefit and assume all anamorphics to be the same. They are not.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by cavx

simply put, even with correction elements, prisms base lenses are always going to have a "sweet spot" that they work best at. This is not to do with the prisms themselves, rather the correction element.

A true cylindrical lens does not have a sweet spot as its front (or rear) lens can be moved in or out to bring both lenses into the same focal plain together. The result is that both horizontal and vertical lines are brought into focus at the same time anywhere in the lenses opperating range.

Until you see this for self, it is easy to dismaiss the benefit and assume all anamorphics to be the same. They are not.

+1

[Franin]

Originally Posted by rboster

I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system

Imagine having the ability to focus your image across the whole screen and top and bottom. Also the optics used are from the highest quality which also counts when it comes to pq, that's the beauty of a cylindrical. When I move from prism to cylindrical the difference was night and day.

[prismasonic]

Originally Posted by rboster

I would love to hear the comparison between the ISCO and the Prismasonic. I've thought about going from my Panamorph 480 to an ISCO or other higher end lens system

tbase1 has a 5 year-old, 2-element Prismasonic lens, which do not have focus or CA correction. It would be same if the EPSON's five-year-old projector model were compared to the Panasonic's latest one.