Summary of available lens - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 89 Old 08-20-2010, 03:28 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
topher_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi
Can someone give a quick run down of the available lower cost anamorphic lens (HE type) and a ballpark cost?

I am not interested in MSRP just a large range so I know that we are talking about a $2000 lens vs a $5000 lens.

There doesn't seem to be that many options out there but perhaps I am missing what is available.

I would help people research alot!

I am probably buying a JVC RS15 and am really interested in not losing lumens that zooming would do. I like a bright image.

Thanks,
Chris
topher_m is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 89 Old 08-20-2010, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
The reason you won't find quality "cheap" lenses is good optics + precision engineered housings = BIG$$$.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 89 Old 08-21-2010, 10:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Home theater brothers AR2 $1000
CAVX MK3 $2500
CAVX MK4 $5500
Panamorph 480 $3000
Prismasonic 5000 $2500-3000
AVS branded 5000 $2000-2500
Schneider $7000-12000
Isco IIIs $7000
Isco III $9000

Guestimates feel free to alter fix add...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #4 of 89 Old 08-21-2010, 12:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasty N8 View Post

Home theater brothers AR2 $1000
CAVX MK3 $2500
CAVX MK4 $5500
Panamorph 480 $3000
Prismasonic 5000 $2500-3000
AVS branded 5000 $2500-3000
Schneider $7000-12000
Isco IIIs $7000
Isco III $9000

Guestimates feel free to alter fix add...

Correction, the AVS1-M and AVS1-R are $1999 and $2499 respectively now...just as a reference.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #5 of 89 Old 08-21-2010, 02:12 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Fixed sorry took it from your sticky post.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #6 of 89 Old 08-21-2010, 05:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Correction, the AVS1-M and AVS1-R are $1999 and $2499 respectively now...just as a reference.


Precisely what is the difference between the AVS1-R and the Prismasonic H5000-R?

Is it just the gold accents and AVS labeling!


...Glenn
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #7 of 89 Old 08-21-2010, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:


feel free to alter fix add...

All I would like to do is re-classify the different models into 2 classes:

Prism based anamorphic adaptors:

Home theater brothers AR2 $1000
CAVX MK3 $2500 [soon to discontinued]
Panamorph 480 $3000
Prismasonic 5000 $2500-3000
AVS branded 5000 $2000-2500

True cylindrical anamorphic lenses:

CAVX MK4 $5500
Schneider $7000-12000
Isco IIIs $7000
Isco III $9000

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #8 of 89 Old 08-22-2010, 10:21 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
True Mark should have thought of that.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #9 of 89 Old 08-22-2010, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
... and since this thread will likely get a lot of visits, it should be clear that the prices are estimates as of whatever date and that they exclude any sleds or other mounting hardware (unless of course they include mounting hardware).
SteveHorn is offline  
post #10 of 89 Old 08-22-2010, 05:33 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I know that street pricing discussion ist verboten but are these MSRPs only ?

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #11 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 08:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baumann View Post


Precisely what is the difference between the AVS1-R and the Prismasonic H5000-R?

Is it just the gold accents and AVS labeling!

...Glenn

You got it. That is the only difference. Oh, our price also includes all the import duties and such so it actually ends up being even less expensive.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #12 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 10:56 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
And in the FWIW department, the MSRP's on the Isco's are *way* above the street pricing through AVS, or others with access.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #13 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,923
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Liked: 540
I still want to know more about the forthcoming less expensive cylindrical lenses that were hinted at in this thread.
Stereodude is offline  
post #14 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 12:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
...also worth noting, for the uninitiated, is that among the lens in the comparative list, the Prismasonic and the AVS lens offerings differ from the rest in that they are in themselves a complete solution -- no additional $2,500 sled or any further appurtenances are required.

Are Eleven Channels Really Enough?

Jedi is offline  
post #15 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 01:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
...still on the subject of anamorphic lens, why can't someone like Chief Mfg offer with their custom mountings plates (the custom ceiling mount plates designed for a particular make & model of projector) a second set of "scope" mounting holes that would position the mount over a corrected center of gravity that balances the whole affair including the added mass of an anamorphic lens/slide assembly. The workaround, I realize, is to mount the stretch lens assembly on a completely separate mount, but the trouble and resulting appearance of doing so is a bit of mess. I would think the weight of the various lenses and slides are similar enough that an alternate set of plate mounting positions could fairly well serve the lot of lens offered.

Are Eleven Channels Really Enough?

Jedi is offline  
post #16 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 03:35 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

All I would like to do is re-classify the different models into 2 classes:

Prism based anamorphic adaptors:

Home theater brothers AR2 $1000
CAVX MK3 $2500 [soon to discontinued]
Panamorph 480 $3000
Prismasonic 5000 $2500-3000
AVS branded 5000 $2000-2500

True cylindrical anamorphic lenses:

CAVX MK4 $5500
Schneider $7000-12000
Isco IIIs $7000
Isco III $9000

Mark, Why are you discontinuing your MK3? You are in the position of having a product at a lower cost of entry and of course the new MK4. None of the other manufacturers have both markets. I went from a prism to a cylindrical lens. I am sure others have as well.

Charles
CRGINC is offline  
post #17 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGINC View Post

Mark, Why are you discontinuing your MK3?

As the names MK3/MK4 suggest, they are evolutionary steps. My first lens was the Aussiemorphic MK1. So the MK3 is no longer considered by myself (hence why I don't use one) as the best I can offer. I am however looking at a new cylindrical lens to offer at the lower price point. I'm still costing that one up, so nothing is for certain yet.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 03:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

And in the FWIW department, the MSRP's on the Isco's are *way* above the street pricing through AVS, or others with access.

True that!

Mike Miles

ICR [ Sales Consulting and Small Part-Time AV shop, very small...  ]

Process Integration, Inc. [ contract sales consultant ]

Eastern Shore of Maryland

mmiles is offline  
post #19 of 89 Old 08-23-2010, 11:44 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


I still want to know more about the forthcoming less expensive cylindrical lenses that were hinted at in this thread.

Not long now.
Aussie Bob is offline  
post #20 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 03:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

Not long now.

So enter it in the list...

Prism based anamorphic adaptors:

Home theater brothers AR2 $1000
CAVX MK3 $2500 [soon to be discontinued]
Panamorph 480 $3000
Prismasonic 5000 $2500-3000
AVS branded 5000 $2000-2500

True cylindrical anamorphic lenses:

CAVX MK4 $5500
Schneider $7000-12000
Isco IIIs $7000
Isco III $9000

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #21 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 06:51 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi View Post

...still on the subject of anamorphic lens, why can't someone like Chief Mfg offer with their custom mountings plates (the custom ceiling mount plates designed for a particular make & model of projector) a second set of "scope" mounting holes that would position the mount over a corrected center of gravity that balances the whole affair including the added mass of an anamorphic lens/slide assembly. The workaround, I realize, is to mount the stretch lens assembly on a completely separate mount, but the trouble and resulting appearance of doing so is a bit of mess. I would think the weight of the various lenses and slides are similar enough that an alternate set of plate mounting positions could fairly well serve the lot of lens offered.

Here's the deal with mounts, and some reasons why they don't do above:
1) The gimbals made by the mount companies (e.g. RPM/RPA for Chief), aren't designed to handle ANY dynamic (moving) load. Some (e.g. RPM) have micro adjustable set screws and are fairly sensitive to CG position. They are flimsy in the regard of handling a load that moves. They have small gauge sheet metal and only #6 screws to interface to the also thin gauge projector plates.
2) The ubiquitous 1.5" pipe mount is effectively a stiff pendulum. It is also not designed for a dynamic load. Any force applied to a weight on a pendulum will setup up an oscillation (vibration, swinging), it's simple physics. The 1.5" pole mount has nothing to prevent such a vibration and so anything that disturbs such a mounted projector will cause the projector to "swing". It doesn't take much for that to be VERY obvious on screen. People with basement installs and rooms overhead will often complain about just such "vibrations" becasue even footfalls on the floor above can set them up and casue the PJ to vibrate/swing. It is worse the longer the pipe, but it is there even for short ones.
3) Even the heavy duty ceiling plates have some flex and will do so when subjected to a projector movment force. Anyone who has a 1.5" pipe ceiling mount can reach up and just give the projector a "tap" and away it will go. Depending on the pole length, 10 to 30 seconds before coming to complete rest.
4) Finally, a PJ, lens, all the lens and PJ mounting hardware, with a motorized transport can get dangerously close to the weight limits of the gimbals. The Mount companies are no more likely to make a HD gimbal for us (scope people) than Blue Ray is to make anamorphically encoded discs. Market too small.

Now, add a moveable anamorphic to the mix. With or without a motorized transport, these lenses are fairly heavy (well all of them except for AB's new lens that's reported to be light). The big dog Isco III is around 10 lbs. I think Marks MK4 is similar in weight. Even if Chief made a mount with the CG located correctly with the lens in place, when you move it out of place, you just moved a cantilevered 10 lb load ~9" to the other side and completely moved the CG. So one says , well center the lens and get the "Average" CG location. Tried it. Doesn't work (well). Remember that it only takes a hair of a movement of the PJ on the mount to translate to a big movement on the screen that is 50 times larger than the light source, and 12-30 ft away. The tinyest flex in the PJ mount will cause movement of the image and some misalignment on the screen.

Now add a fast CineSlide to the mix. The CineSlide moves these heavy lenses their full travel in 1-2 seconds depending on chosen firmware. 10 lbs, that is accellerated to speed, then decellerated to stop, over ~9" of travel, in 1 second. F=MA, we al remember that from High school physics. "a" is the accelleration and decelleration and those combined with that weight ("m") generate a substantial force that will cause the 1.5" pole mount, the gimbal, and the mount plate to all flex. Result: vibrations on the screen every time you move the lens. For a few seconds anyway (~13 seconds for a 24" pole and a Sim2 C3X when tested).

Some users aren't worried by the short period (no pun intended) of the vibrations. But if I spent $5-$75k on a PJ and then added a high end cylindrical lens, I'd want the best performance. Dealers often want the easiest install. For the extra time it takes to do this right, and mount independently, the picture and result is worth it. Trust me there. The only exception to this is for projectors with more substantial mounts (i.e. not a 1.5" pole mount and RPM/A gimbal).

That's why we make and strongly recommend independent mounts for Anamorphic lenses. They are more trouble to install, but once installed, any vibration experienced in the anamorphic lens and it's mount is invisible to the user on-screen. It's like looking at your computer monitor and holding a clear pane of glass in front of you. You can move the glass all you want and the your eyes won't see the movement. Becasue neither they, nor the monitor is moving. The lens may vibrate (it does not with our mounts due to rigidity) but if it does, the light beam and PJ do not so the image remains stable.

We have worked directly with may customers on a wide variety of mounts for CineSlides and Isco lenses. We have made it as easy as possible to deal with the independent mounts by way of installation templates, and CAD drawings, particularly for popular projectors. If you are going to setup to allow movement the lens, which I also strongly recommend, you will get best results if you mount it independent of the PJ.

But if someone insists, we can make a mount for popular projectors, too .

Cheers,
Scott


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #22 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 08:39 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
To add to the above, Panamorph makes a "universal" adapter plate. Fits a bunch of projectors has a gazillion holes in it to mount their transport and lens to the PJ, sandwiched under a gimbal. About $500 for the plate IIRC. But to do that right they supply a set of chains to string up to the ceiling. That's to try to stabilize what I described above. Most installers I've encountered don't use them due to aesthetics and difficulty getting them in and tensioned properly. I tried stabilization cables, too. They did such a poor job I aborted the 'kit" and still strongly recommend independent mounting.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #23 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 08:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

To add to the above, Panamorph makes a "universal" adapter plate. Fits a bunch of projectors has a gazillion holes in it to mount their transport and lens to the PJ, sandwiched under a gimbal. About $500 for the plate IIRC. But to do that right they supply a set of chains to string up to the ceiling. That's to try to stabilize what I described above. Most installers I've encountered don't use them due to aesthetics and difficulty getting them in and tensioned properly. I tried stabilization cables, too. They did such a poor job I aborted the 'kit" and still strongly recommend independent mounting.

The Pro kit doesn't use chains anymore (thicker plate, more expensive). Though depending on the lens and projector it can be tough to get it to lock down correctly...
Jason Turk is offline  
post #24 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 09:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 24
It seems worth mentioning that Schneider now has a less-expensive cylindrical lens in the $3K retail range. They call it the 1.33x EL (Entry Level). The mechanical diameter is 123mm; length is 98,5mm; 4 cylindrical elements; manual focus ring; 2.9lbs.
Pete is offline  
post #25 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 10:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 142
So what's different about that than the other Schneider's, what's sacrificed to hit that price point? That sounds very interesting to me

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #26 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 10:29 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
The lens is made from plastic instead of glass. Otherwise it's not shipping yet, so I can't say about it's mechanicals, but I expect they are the same/similar to the others.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #27 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 10:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 142
My gut reaction is plastic lenses would kind of defeat the purpose of getting a cylindrical lens wouldn't it? Of course on the other hand, polycarbinate works pretty well for glasses, so maybe it wouldn't be bad....

Any thoughts, or this a wait for them to ship and see?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #28 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 11:01 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Well, given Schneider/Isco's pricing history, I have been extremely surprised by the pricing that's been floated to date. So far, in the US at least they are planning on a bundle with the Kino Torsion transport only. Obviously I'm not thrilled about that . But I expect that to change so I can bundle with the faster more robust controlled CineSlide (the KT is a trigger only activation). At least they acknowledge they think it's better to move the lens for 16:9 . To date I've not been given a dealer price on lens only.

As for how well it will do, that's a wait and see. We'll just have to test it and see. AB will be the first to point out we don't have MTF numbers on any of the lenses. I've had conversations with Mark Peterson regarding setting up the equipment he used to test PJ MTF so I could test them all and see how they compare MTF wise. There are several factors to consider on all of these when comparing IMO. Off the top of my head in somewhat (my) priority order:
- any artifacts introduced or done better than another:
* geometric - detriments, improvements
* Contrast Ratio (CR) affects (lens MTF)
* ghosting
* Chromatic aberration
* etc.
- pricing both end user and dealer margins
- built quality on mechanicals
- are they sealed/dustproof

I'm sure Mark and AB will be interested in how that lens stacks up comparison wise (or not ) since it is apparently going to be priced well under theirs (if they split it from the KT). I honestly don't know what to expect out of any of the 3 new possibilities as I've only held one of them in my hand (the EL) and not used any.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #29 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 07:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

My gut reaction is plastic lenses would kind of defeat the purpose of getting a cylindrical lens wouldn't it? Of course on the other hand, polycarbinate works pretty well for glasses, so maybe it wouldn't be bad....

Any thoughts, or this a wait for them to ship and see?

It will be interesting to see (yes pun intended) how it performs. My optical designer's opinion of plastic for such a lens is:
"good for 720, not so good for 1080"

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #30 of 89 Old 08-24-2010, 08:03 PM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Here's the deal with mounts, and some reasons why they don't do above:
1) The gimbals made by the mount companies (e.g. RPM/RPA for Chief), aren't designed to handle ANY dynamic (moving) load. Some (e.g. RPM) have micro adjustable set screws and are fairly sensitive to CG position. They are flimsy in the regard of handling a load that moves. They have small gauge sheet metal and only #6 screws to interface to the also thin gauge projector plates.
2) The ubiquitous 1.5" pipe mount is effectively a stiff pendulum. It is also not designed for a dynamic load. Any force applied to a weight on a pendulum will setup up an oscillation (vibration, swinging), it's simple physics. The 1.5" pole mount has nothing to prevent such a vibration and so anything that disturbs such a mounted projector will cause the projector to "swing". It doesn't take much for that to be VERY obvious on screen. People with basement installs and rooms overhead will often complain about just such "vibrations" becasue even footfalls on the floor above can set them up and casue the PJ to vibrate/swing. It is worse the longer the pipe, but it is there even for short ones.
3) Even the heavy duty ceiling plates have some flex and will do so when subjected to a projector movment force. Anyone who has a 1.5" pipe ceiling mount can reach up and just give the projector a "tap" and away it will go. Depending on the pole length, 10 to 30 seconds before coming to complete rest.
4) Finally, a PJ, lens, all the lens and PJ mounting hardware, with a motorized transport can get dangerously close to the weight limits of the gimbals. The Mount companies are no more likely to make a HD gimbal for us (scope people) than Blue Ray is to make anamorphically encoded discs. Market too small.

Now, add a moveable anamorphic to the mix. With or without a motorized transport, these lenses are fairly heavy (well all of them except for AB's new lens that's reported to be light). The big dog Isco III is around 10 lbs. I think Marks MK4 is similar in weight. Even if Chief made a mount with the CG located correctly with the lens in place, when you move it out of place, you just moved a cantilevered 10 lb load ~9" to the other side and completely moved the CG. So one says , well center the lens and get the "Average" CG location. Tried it. Doesn't work (well). Remember that it only takes a hair of a movement of the PJ on the mount to translate to a big movement on the screen that is 50 times larger than the light source, and 12-30 ft away. The tinyest flex in the PJ mount will cause movement of the image and some misalignment on the screen.

Now add a fast CineSlide to the mix. The CineSlide moves these heavy lenses their full travel in 1-2 seconds depending on chosen firmware. 10 lbs, that is accellerated to speed, then decellerated to stop, over ~9" of travel, in 1 second. F=MA, we al remember that from High school physics. "a" is the accelleration and decelleration and those combined with that weight ("m") generate a substantial force that will cause the 1.5" pole mount, the gimbal, and the mount plate to all flex. Result: vibrations on the screen every time you move the lens. For a few seconds anyway (~13 seconds for a 24" pole and a Sim2 C3X when tested).

Some users aren't worried by the short period (no pun intented) of the vibrations. But if I spent $5-$75k on a PJ and then added a high end cylindrical lens, I'd want the best performance. Dealers often want the easiest install. For the extra time it takes to do this right, and mount independently, the picture and result is worth it. Trust me there. The only exception to this is for projectors with more substantial mounts (i.e. not a 1.5" pole mount and RPM/A gimbal).

That's why we make and strongly recommend independent mounts for Anamorphic lenses. They are more trouble to install, but once installed, any vibration experienced in the anamorphic lens and it's mount is invisible to the user on-screen. It's like looking at your computer monitor and holding a clear pane of glass in front of you. You can move the glass all you want and the your eyes won't see the movement. Becasue neither they, nor the monitor is moving. The lens may vibrate (it does not with our mounts due to rigidity) but if it does, the light beam and PJ do not so the image remains stable.

We have worked directly with may customers on a wide variety of mounts for CineSlides and Isco lenses. We have made it as easy as possible to deal with the independent mounts by way of installation templates, and CAD drawings, particularly for popular projectors. If you are going to setup to allow movement the lens, which I also strongly recommend, you will get best results if you mount it independent of the PJ.

But if someone insists, we can make a mount for popular projectors, too .

Cheers,
Scott

All that needs to be posted over in the DIY section too. Good stuff. I had not thought of mounting the lens/sled separately from the PJ.
SteveHorn is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off