Given ISCO III and sled

[Kelvin1965S]

That's a shame.....if I stick with a lens I don't want to have worry about zooming still.

I thought that the ISCO II and III worked the same, it's only that you pay more for the extra glass of the III, perhaps I misunderstood. One of the UK websites that advertise these lenses seem to say that the II is for use as a fixed lens and has a smaller size better for longer throws like over 2.0:1. The III being for shorter throws and/or larger image areas to avoid vigneting (sp?). As my throw is around 2.5 -maybe slightly more- then I was hoping I'd get no different results in my setup than if I'd bought a III.....maybe I'm deluded. For what I paid it's still less than any new lens and will probably hold it's value from what I understand.

Rambling again.....just waiting for tomorrow.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S

One of the UK websites that advertise these lenses seem to say that the II is for use as a fixed lens and has a smaller size better for longer throws like over 2.0:1.

And they are correct. It would be difficult to explain about the slight vertcial magnification this lens has to someone not knowing what an anamorphic lens can do or not do, so stating that it is best to leave this lens in place is just easier for everyone.

[Kelvin1965S]

Thanks yet again Mark, for the small number of HD 1.85:1 films I watch I could live with the occasional zoom if I find I can really see a difference compared to squezing with the lens in place.

I still think that Art should have actually given me his ISCO III lens and sled to try though. It's become a slightly expensive thread for me to post in.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S

It's become a slightly expensive thread for me to post in.

For you and me both

[tbase1]

The IIIL came in s and L lens types. As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.

By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by tbase1

As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.

Then you need to quickly remove the existing lens to give yourself a sense of urgency

By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?

I don't know. What did you pay for it and more to the point, what are you expecting for it?

[elmalloc]

Originally Posted by tbase1

The IIIL came in s and L lens types. As of today I still have not setup my lens....can't seem to stop going to happy hour after work. Tomorrow I'm planning on taking a half a day off so this is when I will setup my lens.

By the way......how much should I sell my primasonic lens for?

you got an L lense? Dang man what job do you have. Is the primasonic lense good enough for me since I live in Brusnwick you can give it to me for a few hundred

[tbase1]

Originally Posted by elmalloc

you got an L lense? Dang man what job do you have. Is the primasonic lense good enough for me since I live in Brusnwick you can give it to me for a few hundred

I'm just a lowly area manager for Verizon....however, give me call and we might be able to do a deal on the prismasonic.

[Kelvin1965S]

I got my ISCO II today and an Arcam P1000 power amp arrived also (thank goodness for my neighbours who signed for these two huge boxes...the ISCO box was so well packed it was bigger than the amp package ).

I've only had a quick setup as I've had to bring a piece of 3/4" plywood to make a deeper shelf for now (don't think it will pass the OH though, so it's temporary ). I'm at minimum zoom on my HD350 as with the 5% increase in picture size with the lens in place the image is a fraction too big, but it helps to trim the very slight pincushion. My Lumagen is useful for the aspect ratio change as the ISCO stand blocks the IR of the HD350 so I need to see if I can sort that out, though I don't really need to access the PJ's settings once the disc is put in.

I have adjusted the astigmatism and other adjustments quickly (having already spent some time ensuring my unlensed 16:9 image was spot on and focussed), just using the PJ's own test pattern. I'm collecting some new glasses tomorrow, so I'll be able to use CAVX's 1080p pattern to fine tune the various settings, but I don't think it's far off. My PJ's menu is set to pop up on the left hand side and apart from being stretched it looks sharp from my seat, so my worries about softness don't seem to be necessary. In fact it is far sharper than the left hand side of my old Panasonic AE3000 when it was zoomed . Text on screen has a slight 'ring' to it when I'm right up to the screen, but more than half a screen widht back it looks fine. I can still make out the individual pixels on the word 'focus' when on that menu.

I suppose I'm getting the optimum out of this lens as my PJ's zoom is on the back stop, so I'm getting maximum contrast and the image is still plenty bright enough even at iris setting 12 (with a single lamp on as I type this). I think the 16:9 image with the lens in place looks better than the old 'shrunk' version without lens, though I've only had some fairly low quality SD on for my son, so that could be placibo. I haven't setup my screen tent yet, so I'll do some more critical viewing later and report back.

[tbase1]

Good to hear someone spent some time setting up their lens...I'm still missing in action. What did you notice right off that bat that improved your image?

[Kelvin1965S]

I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.

The first improvement seemed to be higher contrast believe it or not....I've had to close the iris a step or two as the bright scenes were too much. I suppose having my zoom right at minimum compared to something over 1.33 (plus a bit more allowing for the 5% enlargement of the ISCO II), has got that last little bit of extra contrast. using the full panel has made the image brighter, hence needing to knock the iris down a little, which will also help CR.

I just watched a BluRay called 'Assembly' which unfortunately has black bar subtitles, but the picture quality seemed richer, more 3D, etc. Kind of hard to put my finger on exactly what, but it just seems better. I've still got some more adjustments to make, but maybe I'm already 99% there perhaps by happy accident or because I'm such a long throw makes it easier to setup?

What I have noticed is that where my zoomed black bars used to hit the bottom of my border and a little of the dark brown wall behind, there is nothing in my peripheral vision at all now. It's completely black, even my TV screen slightly shows beneath my screen and I can't see it at all now.

I thought I might make a hundred or two profit if I sold this lens on, but I actually think I'll be keeping in based on what I've seen so far.

[elmalloc]

pics required instead of text

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S

I thought I might make a hundred or two profit if I sold this lens on, but I actually think I'll be keeping in based on what I've seen so far.

Awesome

[Kelvin1965S]

Originally Posted by elmalloc

pics required instead of text

I'll take some pictures of the lens on the rough temporary shelf if you want, but it's not that exciting to look at, maybe some of the screen. I'm no photographer and we only have a simple point and shoot type 5mp camera, so I'm not going to get into taking close up screenshots as I don't think I'll help either way....You just have to try it to see what you think it seems, which is kind of boring from a forum point of view, but often that's the case with AV.

Hopefully someone else will give a lens a try and come away feeling like I do, but if they don't I wouldn't try to 'convince' them. I was watching my zoomed setup last weekend, thinking 'how could this get any better?' so it's not like I had a rubbish setup before, so if the ISCO hadn't come up for sale I would have happily carried on enjoying what I already had as I wouldn't have dreamed of buying one new at £2,500 I was only looking at this guy's Radiance advert (on the UK AVForums) out of noseyness (had no intention of bidding ) and saw he'd added the ISCO II and he had asked the mods to change his thread title to show the lens....I bought it before the mods had chance.

EDIT: Meant to add in my earlier post: In theory I had lost some precious (in the case of a HD350) ANSI contrast, due to the lens and also due to slightly closing the iris, but my room isn't perfect (a light coloured back wall and only half the ceiling or less is covered by my black cloth 'tent'), however I didn't notice anything negative on that score. Dark scenes with bright camp fires or end credits still seemed to look how I expect them to (which is what brought me to the HD350 from the AE3000 as I prefered not to have brightness compression and those scenes looked better on the HD350). I've never had a problem with bright scene performance and clips of Casino Royale looked very full of depth (I used the same scenes that I originally demod the HD350 against the HD750 in my own house) and only an external CMS could 'perfect' what I saw (the Lumagen HDQ doesn't do a bad job either to be fair, but I'm not used to perfect colours so it doesn't seem to bother me too much).

[elmalloc]

Thanks for the update

[tbase1]

[quote=Kelvin1965S;17490106]I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.

I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it. I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth. I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by tbase1

I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby

Tbase1, am I missing something? You're selling the SONY and going to buy a Panny?

[Franin]

[quote=tbase1;17492913]

Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S

I got back from work a little early, so I no excuse not to get it setup really, plus I've 6 or 7 years on you Tbase1.

I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it. I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth. I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.

Are you getting the automated cineslide tbase1?

[tbase1]

Originally Posted by CAVX

Tbase1, am I missing something? You're selling the SONY and going to buy a Panny?

That's right I'm selling it. I'm not sure if I'm going back or forward these days.

[tbase1]

[quote=Franin;17495581]

Originally Posted by tbase1

Are you getting the automated cineslide tbase1?

No...I want to go with a fix setup.

[CAVX]

Originally Posted by tbase1

That's right I'm selling it. I'm not sure if I'm going back or forward these days.

Not to be accused of Panny bashing, with a lens like what your about to install, I'd just want to have a display device that can run single pixel alternating lines (black white black white) and not have you see a grey block. I'll leave the rest to you

[Kelvin1965S]

Originally Posted by tbase1

I know man, but I'm on the bubble with a guy that's buying my ruby, so to spend the time playing around with the IIIL on the ruby and then pulling the thing down, I figured I'd just wait until things settle down with the ruby sales and buy another projector (ae4000) and set the lens up on it.

Yes, I see your point....I'm about to draw a deep breath and start tidying up all the cabling in my equipment rack. It wasn't worth doing it until I got my new power amp.

Originally Posted by tbase1

I also need to determine if I'm going to upgrade my dvdo vp30 to the duo or just skip the scaler period seeing that the ae4000 has AR adjustments. I want a fix lens setup for the wife and kids because they're use to the not moving lenses back and forth.

If you find the scaler doesn't add anything to the picture then I can understand wanting to simplify it, though IIRC there is no 'direct button' on the AE3000 (maybe the AE4000 is the same?) you have to cycle through each setting: 16:9>s16:9>V-stretch>H-stretch>4:3 then back again. With my HDQ it's a choice of two buttons, I imagine the VP30 is the same.

I'd really like to clear out some of my equipment rack, but I think I need to keep the HDQ as it's much easier to change AR than the PJ. I also use the masking controls to help trim the image. Maybe though a bit of work adjusting the lens setup could solve that. However I'd also need to find a player that can upscale DVDs as well and I don't know if there is anything that doesn't cost $$$s.

Originally Posted by tbase1

I also got a great deal on my IIIL.....1k over your isco II.

I didn't pay £2,500 for mine....that's the new price, I only paid a third of that. If you only paid 1k over that then that was a great deal.

Originally Posted by CAVX

Not to be accused of Panny bashing, with a lens like what your about to install, I'd just want to have a display device that can run single pixel alternating lines (black white black white) and not have you see a grey block. I'll leave the rest to you

One of my comparisons with the lens in place on the HD350 was that my image is sharper than my old AE3000 was when zooming. Now it might have been a poor example (my AE2000 was a little sharper) and the AE4000 may be improved, but I have to agree with Mark on this one. Make sure you demo it first or get a good returns policy as at the least they seem variable.

[tbase1]

One of my comparisons with the lens in place on the HD350 was that my image is sharper than my old AE3000 was when zooming. Now it might have been a poor example (my AE2000 was a little sharper) and the AE4000 may be improved, but I have to agree with Mark on this one. Make sure you demo it first or get a good returns policy as at the least they seem variable.[/quote]

I wonder if smooth screen had anything to do with the ae3000 not being sharp. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to zoom given the fact that I have the lens, but I'm wondering if I need to think the ae4000 purchase over based on what Mark is saying. At this point I'm not on the fence I spit the fence if you know what mean. Given the fact that you own or have owned a
AE series projector would you zoom with a ae4000 or use a IIIL with it or another projector with the lens?

[Gary Lightfoot]

The Panasonics have a double refraction crystal in the light path and although it does a good job of reducing SDE it's said to reduce high frequency detail as well.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/pr...nter/lc_ss.asp

That being the case, I'd opt for another pj like the JVC and use the ISCO.

Gary

[elmalloc]

Honestly Tony I would not consider the panasonic a projector high enough quality to match with an isco3 lense. I agree with Gary and Mark here...

I once owned a JVC RS1 and I thought it was a great PJ, but the color saturation was not always spot on (known push).

I wish my last name was lightfoot.

[tbase1]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

The Panasonics have a double refraction crystal in the light path and although it does a good job of reducing SDE it's said to reduce high frequency detail as well.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/pr...nter/lc_ss.asp

That being the case, I'd opt for another pj like the JVC and use the ISCO.

Gary

So based on what you're saying I would be going back from the ruby to the ae4000? If that's the case it's now time to look JVC or SONY. I don't want to fork out more then $2,500 for one, so what would be the used bet in that price range?

[Kelvin1965S]

Originally Posted by tbase1

Given the fact that you own or have owned a
AE series projector would you zoom with a ae4000 or use a IIIL with it or another projector with the lens?

Given that I'm a very recent convert to using a lens, I'm a little biased. But I have owned the AE1000, 2000, 3000 & JVC HD350 and zoomed with all of them. I know how variable the sharpness was between each of my AExxxx models (my AE2000 was the sharpest, then the AE3000 followed by my AE1000 which was 'blur city' ). I honestly wouldn't put my ISCO II in front of an AExxxx series, let alone the newer IIIL. While you may well get more accurate colours out of an AE4000 than with a HD350/550, there are more ways to achieve a good result (see link below). I also believe that it helps to have a pin sharp image before you put the lens in place, so at the least you'd need to select your AE4000 to find a good one judging on my experiences. If you just wanted to zoom and were lucky (or they have improved QC of the lens) then by all means give the AE4000 a go.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17424692 If you are quick.

While I've probably upset any AExxxx owners who may read this thread, I hope it's taken in context. I feel the AE3000/4000 is an alternative to using a lens, not a supplement.

[tbase1]

A couple of pic.'s of the IIIL. I let my son hold it for about a good 5 seconds until he began to act like it was getting to heavy for him.

[Gary Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by elmalloc

I wish my last name was lightfoot.

I'm in the UK and my Dad used to say we were descended from native Saskatchewan indians.

I've since done some family tree stuff and so far (back to early 1800) no Indian link.

Someone once told me the name originates from the name given to runners for the King which sounds kinda romantic, and so far that's probably more likely than the Saskatchewan link. It doesn't rain when I dance so I think that's the clincher.

This site is useful for finding out stuff like that too.

http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Lightfoot

Cheers

Gary

[Franin]

Originally Posted by tbase1

A couple of pic.'s of the IIIL. I let my son hold it for about a good 5 seconds until he began to act like it was getting to heavy for him.

Looking forward in reading your impressions on the lens.