New Panamorph Lens Coming Soon - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 163 Old 02-26-2013, 07:28 PM
Newbie
 
fuzzyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

It should be. What screen material / gain?

I was looking at the elite cinetension2 with cine white and 1.1 gain
fuzzyturtle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 12:59 AM
Member
 
jpl0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzyturtle View Post

What brand of screen do you have ? How far back is your projector
screen - HP Diy 137", 2 feet above floor.
projector - epson 6020 ( 17' away, 84" high}

I have 2.8 dalite high power screen diy built. Bungee cord wrap around 1x3 clear pine lumber. Screen can fold in half with a piano hinge in the middle because it's in a living room covering sliding doors to my lanai. During the day with lots of ambient light picture is still brilliant at eco living room mode, on my Epson 6020. Will never need to use normal power mode for long time, lamp wise. Night time have to use THX mode or Cinerama mode and, this is at full zoom 2.35 movie screening.

I have a panamorph U-100 since 2006 (VC). I have to hold it with my hand directly over lens of the projector. It is a vertical compress that means I would still have to zoom to fit my 137" screen thus, one inch away the beam will be to thick to fit the u-100. That is why I need a Horizontal stretch Cina vista. My hands can't hold the u-100 for two hours.

The screen and projector is so bright I don't need the cina vista but zooming is a hassle without memory (eg. Pana 8000) and keeping lens in place at all times is convenient and full pixel with no bars on top bottom. Have curtains for 6x9 viewing ( cover side bars).
jpl0220 is offline  
post #93 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 02:06 AM
Member
 
jpl0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The pani 8000 will be well bright enough because I have the epson 6020 and they are very similar in brightness. I can,t say much about the jvc because I haven't seen one.
jpl0220 is offline  
post #94 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 08:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzyturtle View Post

I was looking at a 138' ( 54' H , 127'W ) . Is that too big ?

Yes, 138 feet is too big. Perhaps 138" might be more realistic. smile.gif

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #95 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 09:06 AM
Newbie
 
fuzzyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Yes, 138 feet is too big. Perhaps 138" might be more realistic. smile.gif

LoL :P

So you think 138" would be fine for the space I have ?
fuzzyturtle is offline  
post #96 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
foraye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzyturtle View Post

LoL :P

So you think 138" would be fine for the space I have ?

Have you tried the projector calculator in the link I posted earlier? It should answer a lot of your questions.

GL
foraye is offline  
post #97 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 10:06 AM
Newbie
 
fuzzyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I must have missed it , I'll go back and look ...

Thanks
fuzzyturtle is offline  
post #98 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 02:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesAnotherTweet View Post

Throw distance would be between 13'0 to 13'6", screen size would be 125" 2.35:1 (49" height), screen gain would be 1.0 to 1.2 depending on what screen I get, and projector would be either JVC X35 (or 55) or Panny 8000.

I have not played with the Panasonic, but the JVC should work fine. It's my understanding that calibrated lumens on the Panasonic are pretty low.

The JVC also has the ability to dial out the chromatic, where the Panasonic does not.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #99 of 163 Old 02-27-2013, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzyturtle View Post

I was looking at the elite cinetension2 with cine white and 1.1 gain

You should be fine with the size you are looking at. I am running a JVC HD750 on an 11' wide Stewart StudioTek 130 and brightness is good (1.3 gain).

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #100 of 163 Old 03-05-2013, 11:46 AM
Senior Member
 
sipester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Here are the specs on the CineVista lens:

• Range of focal distance from screen to projector: 8 - 18 feet (2.4 to 5.4 meters).

• Ratio of projector throw distance to screen height: 2.5 x screen height minimum installation distance. Optimal installation range of 3 to 3.5 times screen height. It is not recommended to place your projector further back than a throw ratio of 4.5 times screen height.

• Recommended projector mount: Chief Mount or the Omnimount 3N1-PJT

• The CineVista is designed to be used in a fixed configuration, where the lens remains in front of the projector at all times. (In our view, the best way to think of this is that a fixed lens changes the projector from 16:9 native to 2.35:1 native.) Changes in aspect ratio are handled by simply changing the scaling mode using the projector’s remote (anamorphic stretch for 2.35:1 material, 4:3 mode for 16:9 material). The CineVista can be also be removed for 16:9 material if desired.

John, for the last point, can you slide the lens out of the way easily for 16:9 material if you also purchase the lens mount?
sipester is offline  
post #101 of 163 Old 03-05-2013, 11:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipester View Post

John, for the last point, can you slide the lens out of the way easily for 16:9 material if you also purchase the lens mount?

Not john, but would be happy to answer. The lens mount does not have provisions to slide the lens out of the light path. Also if you used the zonal pixel correction on the projector with lens in place, you would not want to remove the lens.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #102 of 163 Old 03-05-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Hello all! First review of the CineVista is out, from Andrew Robinson of Home Theater Review:

http://hometheaterreview.com/panamorph-cinevista-anamorphic-lens-reviewed/

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #103 of 163 Old 03-05-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Not john, but would be happy to answer. The lens mount does not have provisions to slide the lens out of the light path. Also if you used the zonal pixel correction on the projector with lens in place, you would not want to remove the lens.

The mount does allow for moving the lens to the side, but it was not really designed for that purpose. Over time the pieces could loosen and the lens would become wobbly. Of course, you could always then just re-tighten the screws smile.gif
DrZaus likes this.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #104 of 163 Old 03-06-2013, 02:05 PM
Senior Member
 
sipester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

The mount does allow for moving the lens to the side, but it was not really designed for that purpose. Over time the pieces could loosen and the lens would become wobbly. Of course, you could always then just re-tighten the screws smile.gif

I'm curious why it wasn't designed that way? Historically one of the biggest costs for an anamorphic lens set-up was the sliding mechanism. Since this was intended to be a budget piece, it seems like it would have been a great selling point to indicate that for under $1,500 you get an anamorphic lens AND a manual sliding mechanism. Otherwise, if you don't move it out of the way, then it seems that this will have a big (and frankly, unnecessary) impact on 16:9 content.
sipester is offline  
post #105 of 163 Old 03-06-2013, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipester View Post

I'm curious why it wasn't designed that way? Historically one of the biggest costs for an anamorphic lens set-up was the sliding mechanism. Since this was intended to be a budget piece, it seems like it would have been a great selling point to indicate that for under $1,500 you get an anamorphic lens AND a manual sliding mechanism. Otherwise, if you don't move it out of the way, then it seems that this will have a big (and frankly, unnecessary) impact on 16:9 content.

Engineering a full blown manual sliding mechanism would have increased the production and R&D costs enough that we would not have been able to even come close to hitting the $1500 price point, which we felt important. However, as I mentioned above, you can move the lens out of the way if you like, but sooner or later you will need to tighten the mount screws as the motion will eventually loosen them. As you say, this is a budget lens, so for us it makes no sense to add high end features to a budget piece.

As far as the impact on 16:9 content, the impact is actually pretty modest. Your vertical resolution is still 1080, and it is in the vertical that the human eye is the most sensitive to detail. Our take on this subject (from our "How It Works" brochure):

If you are a True Widescreen fan of major motion pictures, a 2.40:1 screen and anamorphic lens are the obvious solution for max performance. The next question is how important smaller format movies and other content are to you. The most common reaction to contemplating a fixed lens solution is that smaller formats like 1.85:1 and 16:9 are shown with a lower number of pixels (1440x1080). It is instantly obvious that with a moveable lens you get it all - full 1920x1080 performance for 16:9 AND 2.35:1/2:40:1. For some people this is the holy grail and there is no need to think of other options. On the other hand, you can save both money and complexity of setup by never having to move the lens. There are several other advantages to choosing a fixed lens:

1. Brightness and resolution per unit area is the same for ALL content.
2. Calibration never changes.
3. Vertical resolution is the same for all formats - just like having a moveable lens (all content has 1080 vertical pixels). With a moveable lens you are getting 33% more pixels in the horizontal direction for 16:9 sources (1920x1080 moveable vs. 1440x1080 fixed). While this seems dramatic, it turns out that vertical pixel count is the most important parameter in determining perceived resolution (for a number of reasons). Consequently, a change in horizontal resolution is more difficult to see. Is such a change real? Absolutely. Is it noticeable? Remember that in a constant height imaging system your 16:9 image is, by definition, narrower than your 2.35:1 image. So while you get more horizontal pixels in that 16:9 space by moving the lens out of the way and not using Mode II scaling, those increased pixels are still in the same smaller area relative to the 2.35:1 image. There’s a point in your field of view where you can’t even see an increase in pixels for the same image size. Consequently, the disadvantages of a fixed lens may not be as significant as you might think.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #106 of 163 Old 03-06-2013, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
My Isco II is on a fixed stand, but I just lift it out of the way for 16:9 films. I actually use the lens memory of my X35 to slightly zoom bigger since my Isco II magnifies the height slightly (like this new lens it is intended to be left in place). For those with a desk mounted projector (as opposed to a ceiling mounted one) surely it should be easy enough to fashion some sort of stand that would allow it to be moved easily?

Of course you then have the issue of any zonal adjustments made for use with the lens, so it would also depend on having some quick method to defeat this correction.

Personally I find there is a difference between scaled 16:9 with the lens in place compared to non scaled non lens 16:9. For one the light output is higher, so I can close the iris down further on my X35 for the same light output, but higher contrast (just a matter of setting up a separate preset with a different iris setting and greyscale adjustments since the lens does effect the greyscale slightly).

I always think it's a shame to waste pixels either way and leaving a lens in place for 16:9 weakens the argument for having a lens in the first place for full pixel use with 2.35:1 (you can't have it both ways as my parents used to tell me wink.gif ).

I noticed a rather silly comment in the review in the 'low points' section about not being able to change AR quickly (like it would be any faster if using the zoom method rolleyes.gif) since changing aspect ratio with a lens in place can be virtually instant if the lens is left in place, just a button press on my Lumagen and the AR changes in a split second. Anyway, using a lens for these dual aspect films like TDK means that you can just crop the Imax scenes anyway and watch the whole film in 2.35:1 as I did when I watched it (the one time as IMHO it's a yawnfest).

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #107 of 163 Old 03-06-2013, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Personally I find there is a difference between scaled 16:9 with the lens in place compared to non scaled non lens 16:9. For one the light output is higher, so I can close the iris down further on my X35 for the same light output, but higher contrast (just a matter of setting up a separate preset with a different iris setting and greyscale adjustments since the lens does effect the greyscale slightly).

I always think it's a shame to waste pixels either way and leaving a lens in place for 16:9 weakens the argument for having a lens in the first place for full pixel use with 2.35:1 (you can't have it both ways as my parents used to tell me wink.gif ).

Good points. This is my own personal take on a fixed lens system:

A standalone 16:9 projector optimizes performance for 16:9 material, with 2.40:1 material being compromised. A fixed anamorphic lens system optimizes performance for 2.40:1 material, with 16:9 material being compromised.

From my personal experience, the only substantially noticeable difference for 16:9 lens in vs. lens out is in brightness, like you mention. The difference in resolution is fairly hard to see, even when you go looking for it. However, as mentioned in my post above, the 16:9 and 2.40:1 brightness with a fixed lens system is the same per unit area, so 16:9 material is not brighter than 2.40:1 material (which it is with a moveable lens system).

But again, here we are talking about setting up presets for lens iris and grey scale settings for lens in and lens out, which is something you and I might do but the vast majority of consumers would never mess with wink.gif

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #108 of 163 Old 03-07-2013, 10:51 AM
Newbie
 
fuzzyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm still in the process of choosing a screen and something occurred to me in choosing between a 2.35 or a 2.40 set up .

When viewing 1.85:1 content on a 16x9 screen you get about an inch or so of letter boxing . Is that about the same amount you get when viewing 2.40 content on a 2.35:1 screen ? Or if I go with a 2.40:1 screen what does 2.35:1 content have the opposite effect ?

Thanks ,
fuzzyturtle is offline  
post #109 of 163 Old 03-07-2013, 11:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzyturtle View Post

I'm still in the process of choosing a screen and something occurred to me in choosing between a 2.35 or a 2.40 set up .

When viewing 1.85:1 content on a 16x9 screen you get about an inch or so of letter boxing . Is that about the same amount you get when viewing 2.40 content on a 2.35:1 screen ? Or if I go with a 2.40:1 screen what does 2.35:1 content have the opposite effect ?

Thanks ,

Your take is essentially correct. One of the reasons we recommend a 2.40:1 screen in many circumstances is that the overscan you do for 16:9 sources also hides the black bars for 1.85:1 material. When watching 2.35:1 films on a 2.40:1 screen, you will lose a tiny bit of the 2.35:1 image to overscan as well (just like you do with 16:9).

To me, this is really nothing to worry about. It's not as if cinematographers frame everything so precisely that losing a few rows of pixels totally destroys their artistic intent smile.gif My day job is actually in the film and video production industry, and I can vouch for that fact. When you think about the small viewfinders or monitors that filmmakers use to frame their images, you realize that they can't even really see the equivalent of the few rows of pixels we are talking about here.

Another option is to split the difference and go with a 2.37:1 screen. Most of the big screen manufacturers will happily create that aspect for you.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #110 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 08:00 AM
Member
 
Shepardos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm currently consider to buy a A-Lens for my next projector, because I will move into my new house in 6 month. I wonder if this "budget" CineVista Lens is prepared for 4k projector, because nobody knows what we will be offered after CEDIA / IFA!

So the question here is: Does this lens really can handle a 4k picture without optical "errors"?

Cheers
S.
Shepardos is offline  
post #111 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 08:07 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
You should not expect an uncorrected prism based lens to properly resolve 4k.
GetGray is online now  
post #112 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 08:58 AM
Member
 
Shepardos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
what does this mean? So every lens has a "problem" with 4k or how "worse" is this visable? I don't want to spend money into a A-lense without future prove in terms of 4k..

Thanks
S
Shepardos is offline  
post #113 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 09:05 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shepardos View Post

what does this mean? So every lens has a "problem" with 4k or how "worse" is this visable? I don't want to spend money into a A-lense without future prove in terms of 4k..

Thanks
S
It means you get what you pay for. You aren't going to get any future proofing when buying economy gear. Lenses or otherwise IMO.
GetGray is online now  
post #114 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 02:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shepardos View Post

I'm currently consider to buy a A-Lens for my next projector, because I will move into my new house in 6 month. I wonder if this "budget" CineVista Lens is prepared for 4k projector, because nobody knows what we will be offered after CEDIA / IFA!

So the question here is: Does this lens really can handle a 4k picture without optical "errors"?

Cheers
S.

I answered this question previously on the Industry News thread, but don't think I've ever answered it here. Here is our take on the CineVista and 4K:

The 4K question needs to be answered in two parts.

First, there is the question of where in the throw distance range the CineVista is actually capable of resolving 4K pixels with reasonable sharpness. With the CineVista, that seems to be right around a 12 foot throw. Keep in mind throw distance is separate from throw ratio, so that throw distance may not create an ideal throw ratio for your particular install. Throw ratio for the CineVista should be somewhere around 2.5x the screen height or greater. If the stars align, you're set. Keep in mind that the shorter the throw ratio, the more pincushion distortion you will see.

The second part of this has to do with chromatic aberration. To hit the $1500 price point of the CineVista, we had to eliminate the chromatic correction you find in our UH480 and DC1 lens systems. If you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. This is an entirely separate issue from focus, as all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned. That shouldn’t be confused with focus error even though misalignment might be perceived as blurring. This aberration can be dialed out pretty effectively with the use of ECC (Electronic Color Correction), which is available in most LCOS and LCD projectors currently on the market. There are some that will state that using ECC will diminish the projector's resolution on its own, and depending on the quality of the ECC processing in the particular projector there may be some truth to this. The Sony and Epson ECC processing we have tested seemed to have no impact on 1080P test patterns, but how well that translates to 4K and other projector brands I cannot answer - yet smile.gif

The long and short of it is that the CineVista can do 4K resolutions at the proper throw distance, and for maximum clarity for 4K with the CineVista your projector should have ECC capabilities. If that seems too restrictive, a Panamorph 480 or DC1 system might be a better choice (the 480 and DC1 have a wider focus range and essentially zero chromatic aberration).

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #115 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I thought I would put up a few pics to describe what we are talking about, re: ECC (Electronic Color Correction). As I mentioned, if you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. I have attached a few pics that show the aberration and how I was able to dial it out using the ECC on a Sony HW50. Please excuse the poor pics; they were taken with a camera phone sans tripod. However, you can pretty clearly see what is happening.






John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #116 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

You should not expect an uncorrected prism based lens to properly resolve 4k.

To be clear, the CineVista is corrected for astigmatism, just not for chromatic aberration. I dealt with the 4K question above.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #117 of 163 Old 03-18-2013, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shepardos View Post

what does this mean? So every lens has a "problem" with 4k or how "worse" is this visable? I don't want to spend money into a A-lense without future prove in terms of 4k..

Thanks
S

Hopefully my answers and pictures above help you understand the compromises and how they actually affect the image.

One thing I am always pointing out on the Forum is that the Panamorph lens systems are prism / cylindrical hybrids, not strictly "prism-based."

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #118 of 163 Old 03-19-2013, 05:48 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
One thing I am always pointing out on the Forum is that the Panamorph lens systems are prism / cylindrical hybrids, not strictly "prism-based."
The Cinevista is a hybrid?
GetGray is online now  
post #119 of 163 Old 03-19-2013, 09:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

The Cinevista is a hybrid?

Yes, it has astigmatism correction but no chromatic correction.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #120 of 163 Old 03-19-2013, 03:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
avsform1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Ok... I jumped in on the A-Lens setup and the lens is on its way. Any suggestions for framing it up with an RS4810 and 103 curve screen? Any particular patterns to use? I see that the manual advices to use the A setting from the anamorphic setting. Should I put the lens in place, set the lens mode at A, bring up the lens control pattern?

ThANKS
avsform1 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