Given ISCO III and sled

[Kelvin1965S]

Originally Posted by tbase1

GetGray/CAVX

What model isco lens is this and is it worth playing with?

That doesn't look at all like my Isco II, though I don't know what it is.

Originally Posted by tbase1

It looks like the isco 1 is a 4:3 to 16x9 lens. I wonder if that's the limit for this lens.

That is the same 1.33 x increase so you can also use such a lens to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1. I know of users that had 4:3 projectors that used an Isco II to go to 16:9 same as I'm using mine to go from 16:9 to 2.35:1.

Originally Posted by Franin

lol I like that!

I liked that comment too.....it's not that it's hard, just take your time and go through each step a couple of times if neccesary. My more careful attempt on Friday seems to have optimised my lens setup, using the Cineslide information.....apart from me adding a bit of downward lens shift in my HD350 and then adjusting the Isco to compensate: This cured some 'ghosting/halo' effect I had on a bright 80 IRE window test pattern, though this could be unique to the Isco II/HD350 combo, it's worth looking for.

[Gary Lightfoot]

I've just dug out a picture of my ISCO II when it was attached to my Optoma H78. It looks very similar to the ISCO I image you have there, except it doesn't have the mount. The thread on the rear is for screwing it into a mount - GetGrey has a myriad of those if you ask him nicely.

This is the second ISCO 'I' I've seen now and neither had a mount in the sale. I'm not sure what the difference between a I and II is but they look optically very similar judging by the pics, although the I appears to have less in the way of internals. If you can get it at a good price it might be worth playing with unless someone can dig out some definitive info.

Just found this:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=29070

I owned two ISCO and a Panamorph fluid lens. The ISCO I lens looked sharp, but it was not a perfect 1.33:1 proportion, the ISCO II lens that I had was the best one and it looked great. The Panamorph fluid lens was cool(I still have it) but it was a 2.35:1 lens, and when I moved to a native 16:9 projector I couldn't use it any more.

Not definitive but perhaps the ISCO I wasn't a perfect 1.33 lens (I seem to remember seeing a different ratio attributed to the I in the past - maybe 1.25) and the II is?

Gary

[tbase1]

Do you see this as a cost effective route in for a newbie to scope?

[DaveUpton]

That would depend on your budget and your definition of cost effective. The lens route is considered to be the "no hold barred" approach rather than the budget one generally.

[tbase1]

This is not for me...i have a lens. I'm just looking out for guys that want to go the lens route that might be very interested if these were doable. I paid 500 for my first lens, so I would guess around that range would be cost effective, however, one mans cost effective is anothers high end.

[elmalloc]

i wonder how that 500 lens performs

[tbase1]

It performed well for me...however, so does my 1998 Volvo wagon.