Replace A lens set up with Eshift and zooming? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 Old 11-28-2012, 01:11 PM - Thread Starter
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
Just having a thought today about 4K and the future generally; I'm sure that at some point I will own a 4K projector so just thinking ahead to some degree. I have an older Isco II lens which I guess might not be up to using with a 4K projector (or maybe even an Eshift one). I'm about to get a new JVC X35, but also thinking that an X55 without lens might be another option.

In my set up I'm at the absolute minimum zoom with my current HD350 (RS10) so getting least brightness from the projector. I've measured the lux output when using the lens to fill my 2.35:1 screen and also when zooming to fill the same screen, I get near enough the same result. So for me there isn't the gain in brightness that many lens users have, possibly due to the rapid change in aperture of the projector's lens from minimum zoom to 1.33x zoom. I also own a Lumagen Mini3D video processor and I am familiar with using the 'shrink' method having done this previously before I got my lens.

So I'm considering the following for going with the Eshift option, given that I wouldn't gain or lose brightness either way. My Isco II is on a stand, so I only put it in place for 2.35:1 content (H squeeze just for the trailers and menus) and don't use it at all for 16:9 content which means adjusting the projector's zoom, focus and shift as the Isco II magnifies the image height by approx 5%. I have some minor peculiarities with my particular set up which may also be improved by the X55 option.

Postives over existing HD350 plus Isco II set up:

If I went to an Eshift model I would have more pixels on the 2.35:1 screen when zooming than I do now with the HD350 plus lens, so I'd have a higher pixel density than now.
The X55 has 5 lens memories which will save the need to have to adjust the zoom, focus and shift when removing my Isco II lens for 16:9 content.
The floating shelf for the projector I'm building won't need to be so deep with the lens.
The image will no longer be too big for the screen I have due to the slightly long throw distance (the Lumagen is used to trim about 2-3" off each side and a fraction off the top and bottom).
No pincushion at all (though it's very minor anyway).
Sell the A lens while there are still buyers who want one.


Negatives:

More money than X35 plus keeping the Isco II.
Overspill of black bars ( I'll be building new screen pelmet so this could have black velvet borders to null this effect).
Frequent zooming may wear the mechanism out sooner, though plan would be to use 'shrink' setting on Lumagen for 16:9 menus, trailers and 'after film' TV broadcast material when the 'main feature' is 2.35:1, so I'd only use 1:1 pixel mapped 16:9 (ie use the 'other' lens memory) for 1.85/1.78:1 BluRays.
No longer in the A lens club and have to change my signature. wink.gif


Any thoughts or has anyone done a similar change? It isn't an option to keep the Isco II and buy an X55 before anyone suggests it: I already have a better CMS in my Lumagen, so it's hard enough to justify the extra cost as it is. biggrin.gif I already have a Darbee device too, which works well with my existing set up, presume it would work well with the X55 too judging by other RS55 + Darbee owner's comments.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 Old 11-28-2012, 02:39 PM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
If I went to an Eshift model I would have more pixels on the 2.35:1 screen when zooming than I do now with the HD350 plus lens, so I'd have a higher pixel density than now.

4K is 3840 x 2160 pixels. That's 8,294,400 pixels altogether.

Zooming will place only 6,220,800 of those pixels on the screen. You lose 2,073,600 pixels, which happens to be exactly one entire Blu-Ray's worth of pixels. Think how lovely and sharp a Blu-Ray image is. Now put it in the trash can.

You paid for those extra pixels. With a lens application you get to keep them.

Once upon a time the 1920 x 1080 standard - totalling 2,073,600 pixels - was the Holy Grail of high definition. It is still the standard. Why throw them away?

Incidentally, your anamorphic image is highly likely to be brighter than zooming. You may not have sensitive enough measuring equipment to note the difference. If you are using a photographic light meter, or a camera meter, then this is the wrong instrument.

Remember, 17%-20% greater brightness amounts to less than one-third of a stop in photographic terms. Hard to measure on all but the most delicate equipment.

So why bother with it if it's so hard to measure? Because 20% is still a lot of light, equivalent to many hundreds of hours of bulb loss, the difference between Low Lamp and High Lamp, for example.
Aussie Bob II is offline  
post #3 of 23 Old 11-28-2012, 02:54 PM - Thread Starter
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
I think you've missed a point in my OP Bob: I can either buy another 1080p projector and carry on using my Isco II lens or I could buy an Eshift model (note, not a full 4K model) and sell the lens.

My existing lens would likely not be good enough for true 4K so rather than keep the lens until I can buy a true 4K model, I'm debating the change now to Eshift. The extra cost of the X55 over the X35 is partly covered by the used value of the Isco II. This would give me 3840 x 1620 (approx) upscaled pixels instead of the current 1920 x 1080 pixels upscaled from the 1920 x 810 I have now. I'm not throwing away a BluRay's worth of pixels, though I am 'wasting' the 540 'lines' that produce the black bars, but overall I'll still have more pixels on the viewable screen area, hence my conundrum. In both cases there is upscaling involved so not the usual 1:1 pixel mapped verses scaling, plus optical arguements.

This is not a standard lens verse zooming thread. It's a lens plus 1080p projector verses a 2160p projector zoomed thread. Given some of my set up issues mentioned in the OP, it seems that I might gain something with this change. The worst negative seems to be the overspill issue which I would have to solve with black velvet above and below the screen, which is a pain, but something I could manage.

If at some point in the future I get a true 4K projector (and a true 4K source) then adding another lens could be an option, but that's not the current question.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #4 of 23 Old 11-29-2012, 01:55 PM - Thread Starter
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
Found another thread a bit further down the forum and this useful comment from Getgray:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

For true 4k, if you don't need the light (read you are trying to cut down on light), you don't want the extra light, and anamorphic content is not available, then I'd say one coudl live without an A-lens in that specific case. Otherwise, same arguments as always apply. If 4K is good horizontally, then 4k must be good vertically, too, right smile.gif. Especially since you are already scaling (1080p) anyway. smile.gif

This seems to lean towards what I'm asking, though in my case it isn't 'true' 4K though as above it is scaled from 1080p. I don't need the extra light and in fact I don't get any extra light over zooming anyway. The X35/55 are brighter than my existing HD350 (even ignoring that I'll have a new lamp) and I presently run with the iris plenty of clicks down from full open.

Can anyone tell me if an Isco II is up to using with 'faux' 4K using Eshift? If not, then what level of lens would I need to go to? For background information, I'm in a very long throw set up which IIRC works out to be a throw of 2.7 or so. While it isn't an option to get the X55 and keep the lens it's still useful information for the longer term, should I go with the X35 for now and keep the Isco II.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #5 of 23 Old 11-29-2012, 02:39 PM
Member
 
Jim S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Zooming will place only 6,220,800 of those pixels on the screen. You lose 2,073,600 pixels, which happens to be exactly one entire Blu-Ray's worth of pixels. Think how lovely and sharp a Blu-Ray image is. Now put it in the trash can.


If Blu-Ray gives you an outstanding picture at 2,073,000 pixels, I am having a hard time understanding how 3 times Blu-Ray pixel density at 6,220,800 is that a bad thing when zooming a 4k picture? What am I missing?
Jim S. is online now  
post #6 of 23 Old 11-29-2012, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Kelvin,

I don't know that I have much to say to help you. I own the JVC RS55 (E-shift) and also now own the Panamorph UH480 A-lens and I only bought it because my throw is just a bit too short to use my entire screen width. I still use the zoom method, in general. As I think you know, I vary my image size: sometimes I go smaller 2:35:1 just using the zoom method. But when I want my widest image I engage the A-lens for scope.

FWIW, I used the zoom on my previous JVC RS20 almost every day for over two years, and there was never a sign of wear or breaking down of the lens zoom mechanism. Same so far for my year old RS55 with E-shift.

I do get some pincushion with my A-lens (again, shortish throw) but I generally don't notice it when watching movies. None when zooming, of course.

For zooming I really can't imagine over-spill of the "black bars" being an issue. They are so dark I'm sure they'd disappear against any even moderately dark background.
(I'm not even sure you'd really notice them on a brightish wall surrounding your screen).

One other thing you didn't mention as a positive for your particular zoom option with the X55: with the X55 obviously you get the E-shift that you don't get with the cheaper model. Pretty much all us E-shift model owners have noticed very welcome gains in image quality with E-shift vs no E-shift (this is comparing my RS55 with E-shift vs my RS20 with no E-shift, and my RS55 to itself with E-shift on/off). There is a slightly more "solid" and realistic impression to the image when E-shifted. But even better is the additional "MPC" processing you only get with the E-shift models - I'm sure you've read about the detail/sharpness/dimensionality enhancement controls. They really are something else. Having lived with them it would be hard to go back to not having them available. There is a "wow" factor I can achieve (in subtle grades) that I never had with a non-E-shift projector. So in going with the E-shift projector you may well have an image that is better than what you could get with the X35 and an A-lens.

That said, you already have a Darbee, so you are getting an extra "kick" image wise.
Though, yes, for me the best of all has actually been combining the Darbee with the E-shift MPC processing. The Darbee is a bit more crude in a way. Once I dial the Darbee to an acceptable degree, I can further add the MPC settings and they edge more "wow" factor in, but in a more subtle natural way to my eyes.

Cheerio,

Rich
R Harkness is offline  
post #7 of 23 Old 11-30-2012, 12:46 AM - Thread Starter
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
Thanks Rich. Actually that does help as I knew that you are one of the few A-lens users with an X55.

Good to know about the zoom holding out as you probably use yours more than most along with your 4 way masking. I can at least set up my Lumagen so that I can zoom for 2.35:1 and then change to another memory setting that isn't 1:1 pixel mapped and instantly 'shrink' any 16:9 content down to fit within the screen height. Given that I seem to watch more 2.35:1 films than anything else, then I probably won't be using the zoom control anywhere near as much as you do. I can also set the Lumagen to crop any content outside the screen area so I won't get any overspill for films like Dark Night that have 16:9 parts.

Interesting to hear that you like to combine the MPC and Darbee as I wondered if the Darbee might become excess to requirements. I'll try it with both myself if I go the X55 route. I'm hoping to get a demo next week, so I'll be able to see for myself anyway.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #8 of 23 Old 11-30-2012, 07:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

I can at least set up my Lumagen so that I can zoom for 2.35:1 and then change to another memory setting that isn't 1:1 pixel mapped and instantly 'shrink' any 16:9 content down to fit within the screen height.

I'm wondering why you would do that.

One of the advantages of the X55 is is that you don't have to end up with a compromise CIH method in terms of throwing any resolution away for 16:9/1:85:1 content. That is what the pre-set zoom memories are for. (I personally can't get on with a set
up that would have me throwing away any of the resolution in the image, and if you have a projector that gets around this I can't understand why one wouldn't take advantage). And if you tend to watch 2:35:1 predominantly that means you won't have to
be using your zoom much anyway.
R Harkness is offline  
post #9 of 23 Old 12-01-2012, 02:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Hi Kelvin,

If you can try a '55 with your lens so you can do some comparison testing, you'll know for certain if zooming without a lens (blashfeeeemer!) is as good or not. I would think an eshifted & zoomed image should be just fine visually though as the resolution is greater.

Without a lens you may notice the pixel size increase as you zoom. Depending on how you feel that effects your image, may determine whether or not keeping the lens is worth it - assuming the ISCO II is OK with 4k, but as the display is really only 1080 being 'wobulated', I would think that the lens should still resolve the image just fine. It's how it looks to the eye that is the trick that is going on. It's not really sending 4k through the lens,

Another thing you could do is keep the lens in place all the time and use the Lumagen to shrink the image to 16:9, so you're keeping the pjs vertical res and losing some horizontal res. Although you're losing some pj res, the apparent res you'll be using will still be greater than the res of BD so you won't be losing anything as such. It's what I used to do with DVD on my old 720 pj and it worked so well compared to removing the lens (couldn't really tell the difference with video content), that I stopped removing it and left the lens in place all the time. With a 1080 pj and a lens there is benefit to removing the lens for 16:9 because you use the full res all the time. With 4k you can leave it in place.

So, IMHO both should work just fine, you'll have to choose, bearing in mind that I know where you live smile.gif

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #10 of 23 Old 12-01-2012, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm wondering why you would do that.
One of the advantages of the X55 is is that you don't have to end up with a compromise CIH method in terms of throwing any resolution away for 16:9/1:85:1 content. That is what the pre-set zoom memories are for. (I personally can't get on with a set
up that would have me throwing away any of the resolution in the image, and if you have a projector that gets around this I can't understand why one wouldn't take advantage). And if you tend to watch 2:35:1 predominantly that means you won't have to
be using your zoom much anyway.

I think he plans to only shrink 16:9 for things like menus, trailers, special features and likely HDTV. For the main BD feature he would zoom using the lens memory. This is exactly what I do with my RS55/Lumagen setup. This combination really is ideal not just for the shrink capabilities but the custom electronic masking for fitting every image perfectly to the screen and dealing with variable aspect ratio films. It is also very nice to start up the setup in 2.35 mode and not have menus/etc bleeding all over the screen wall.

So Kelvin, my vote is for the X55 for the improved convenience/simplicity and you may even wind up with better overall PQ than the X35/lens combo. Glad to hear you can get a demo and see for yourself. wink.gif
5mark is offline  
post #11 of 23 Old 12-01-2012, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I zoomed for years until I got the lens. Now my older Sony projector does not have a 100K: 1 contrast ratio so the benefit I enjoy with the lens is the lack of spillover of grey bars. If you calculate the height of the masking above and below the screen to absorb any light leakage is quite a bit of material. Even on my 2.37 screen I have a couple of inches more masking above and below then horizontally and the screen looks much narrower than it really is. At normal viewing distances I really couldn't see the difference in picture quality between zooming and the lens.
It is very convenient to be able to push a button and have the picture zoom to whatever ratio you desire. You should try it with and without the lens since you already have it. Also remember the source material is still only 817 or so by 1920 pixels. It is just being scaled up to four times the pixel count. Any information is being calculated from the original pixels. That is OK as with my DVDO upscaling processor I can make a DVD quite pleasant to watch.
CRGINC is offline  
post #12 of 23 Old 12-02-2012, 07:21 AM - Thread Starter
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
Thanks for all the comments, I've been away for the weekend seeing some ultra, ultra high definition in3D without glasses (aka a concert at the Albert Hall wink.gif).

Rich: As 5mark says my intention is just to use Lumagen 'shrink' for menus and trailers rather than keep zooming in and out if I know the main feature is 2.35:1 then I'll just use that lens memory and shrink the menus before the film starts. For 16:9 I would use another lens memory so that I see the full 1:1 pixel mapped (albeit 'wobbulated' to 2160p). In both cases the main feature would be viewed at 1:1 pixel mapped.

CRGINC: I have previously zoomed so I know how big an area the bars cover: It's not too bad at the top as my screen wall is painted dark brown, though below the screen my TV partly shows, so I added a wide black velvet strip which also used to serve as a 'screen' for subtitles before I was able to shift them with my Oppo player. I might make some changes but I think I've got the masking side covered (and plan to finally add some side masking too for 16:9). I know what you mean about upscaling: My Lumagen can make a pretty decent job of upscaling DVDs, though I don't seem to watch many these days.

Gary: I might take my lens along (also see below) to my demo, but more for info. I know it isn't true 4K, but ultimately a zoomed X55 should put a higher pixel density on the screen than a 1080p plus lens. If I can see the pixels on the zoomed X55 then I would be able to see them now with my HD350 and Isco which I can't. I couldn't see them when I used to zoom with the HD350, but the increased denisty did do something to improve the image, so hopefully the X55 would improve slightly upon that. Leaving the lens in place full time isn't an option, but more due to cosmetic reasons: I'm building a floating shelf for the (white) X35/X55 which will be painted the same colour as the rear wall to make the projector as discrete looking as possible. Leaving the black Isco in front all the time would detract from the clean lines we're hoping for: My OH has been pretty understanding about my other projector related plans for the room and the Z3 3.0 I bought earlier this year as a weekend 'toy' so I suppose I have to concede this point. biggrin.gif It does worry me that you know where I live though Gary. wink.gif

There was a slim chance that I would get to see the X35, X55, VW50ES and Epson9000 together today at a fellow forum member's house, but I think the dealer did't get the JVCs in time. frown.gif I had lent him my lens as he wanted to compare the Sony plus lens against the X55 without, but I couldn't make it due to my London weekend unless I got back in time. I'll probably have to arrange later this week or maybe next weekend if he has a slot.

I think that the time will come when I'll need to dispose of the lens (sorry Gary wink.gif), so doing it now seems a chance to move up to 'faux' 4K sooner than I'd thought: Longer term we have some changes planned for our room which would mean that any projector will have to 'fire' across the room rather than down it. This would mean a much shorter throw, so pincushion would become an issue with a lens, so another minus for keeping the lens even if it would work OK with Eshift now. So long as I end up with an improvement over what I'm currently doing it would be worthwhile: In a way I don't want to know if it could look better with Eshift plus lens as selling the lens helps justify the extra expense as I hadn't even planed on replacing my projector this year. In fact at one point I gave it to a relative to use for a while, but got it back again and rekindled my interest.

EDIT: Managed to get round to see the end of an X55 demo and have to say I' very impressed with the Eshift: Right up to the screen and the pixels completely disappear (even zoomed to fill a 4 metre wide 2.40:1 screen. Sat back in my seat I liked the difference in apparent sharpness with Eshift on (using the 'Film' setting as some others seemed a bit too much for my taste). The motion seemed smoother than my HD350, but I gather this has been improved on previous models to mine, so maybe not a specific X55 improvement.

The guy who had the demos and borrowed my lens would buy it off me if I decide to go for an X55, so some hard thinking tonight so I can order the right projector and let the lens buyer know if he can have it from me.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #13 of 23 Old 12-03-2012, 10:21 AM - Thread Starter
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
Still not decided on which way to go. I have just set my lens back up as it had been altered slightly after I lent it to another projector owner to test out. I also just ran a test and compared my peak white output using my lens and then just zooming to fill the screen. My lamp is starting to dim a little bit, but there was very little difference as I had found previously, I just re did the test after some other comments on here that the difference should be 18% or more. I think it's to do with the aperture changing on my projector as I alter the zoom as I'm completely on the end stop at minimum when using the lens.

The figures I just measured were:

74.5 Lux when zoomed.

78.3 Lux using the lens.

ALL settings remained the same for this test apart from projector zoom and lens in/out (I used the 100% white pattern in my Lumagen for the source). I make this a difference of 5% in favour of the lens, so in my set up brightness isn't a consideration. Having seen the X55 zoomed to maximum on a 4 metre screen (but sat further back to give the same filed of view) I think that the Eshift could replace the lens for me, though I have to admit I didn't find such a huge increase in contrast over my much older HD350, hence why I'm not so sure about what to do today...

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #14 of 23 Old 12-06-2012, 03:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I think it would be a bummer if you sold the lens and then Folded Space suddenly makes it appearance on BD. I would be hanging on to it for a while yet. If you go E-shift 4K, get a scaler and keep that lens.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 23 Old 12-06-2012, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
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
As I said Mark...the lens goes to help pay for the extra. I can't keep the lens and go Eshift. If I go for the Eshift model it's an extra £2,100 over the X35 in the UK (X35 being £2,500).

However, I have a feeling I'm leaning towards keeping the lens and getting either the X35 or the Sony VW50ES. I tried zooming on the HD350 the other night and simply confirmed that with the 1080p projector I prefer the results with the lens. It did show that the overspill of zooming isn't an issue with the HD350's contrast so the X55 would be better than this. I haven't been able yet to compare a 1080p with lens against the X55, but might get chance next week though it's a smaller screen and shorter throw than I have now it might prove one way or the other.

The folded space idea sounds interesting, but I guess it could be a long time before I can rent them from Blockbuster (I rarely buy discs as I only watch films once apart from demo pieces).

EDIT: Found out the throw of the VW50ES is wrong for my room so it won't go small enough to use my lens, so that's out. Think I'll wait until next upgrade to go to 4K/Eshift, so it's going to be the X35, plus the Isco II, Darbee and my Mini3D. The same combo with my existing HD350 looked pretty damn good tonight on Casino Royale, so I'm going to be a cheapskate and just go for the budget upgrade. If a 'folded space' player (and discs) comes out, I'll be ready to pounce. cool.gif

EDIT 2: Just ordered a white X35 which will be delivered on Saturday. cool.gif Long live the Isco II biggrin.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #16 of 23 Old 12-08-2012, 08:50 AM - Thread Starter
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
Well my new X35 is working really well with the Isco II lens (plus Darbee and Mini3D). They've changed where the IR sensor is so the remote works much better than the HD350 did when I had my lens in front of the projector. I'm changing my projector 'stand' soon, but have done a fresh set up of the lens today on the existing bookcase top set up and I seem to have really got the lens sharpness dialed in properly. I've used the lens memory to slightly zoom the image when I remove the lens to make up for the Isco II's 5% height magnification effect. It's quite slick at how it works and I've turned off the grid display so you just see the image zooming with a 'Loading lens memory please wait' message in the middle of the screen. It takes about the same time to adjust as it takes for me to lift the lens away and put back on the shelf where I keep it when not in use. smile.gif I don't know if the pixel spacing is any tighter than my old HD350 (the image certainly is sharper anyway) but even with my brand new glasses on I have to stand about 4 feet from the screen before I can see the pixels when the lens is up (I sit about 11 feet back and it's 9.5' wide 2.35:1 screen.

The money I've saved by not buying the X55 (and even allowing for some money from the Isco II sale) is enough to buy a really good new TV for day to day viewing, so I'm pleased with the outcome. I have a feeling that lenses will become less popular as true 4K and perhaps native 2.35:1 projectors come down in price, but for now I'l happy with my choice. smile.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #17 of 23 Old 12-11-2012, 02:01 AM
Member
 
UdoG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Does the X35 support vertical squeeze in 3D? So that you can use the ISCO II with a 2.35:1 screen in 3D without zooming the picture? In the manual I found the following informations (X30):
Quote:
If a 3D signal is fed in when Anamorphic mode is set to A or B, Anamorphic mode is
automatically turned Off.
UdoG is offline  
post #18 of 23 Old 12-11-2012, 08:13 AM - Thread Starter
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdoG View Post

Does the X35 support vertical squeeze in 3D? So that you can use the ISCO II with a 2.35:1 screen in 3D without zooming the picture? In the manual I found the following informations (X30):

I think it does, but I'll check next time I switch it on. I use my Lumagen for all scaling duties, so I haven't used the X35's anamorphic button in anger.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #19 of 23 Old 12-11-2012, 08:26 AM
Member
 
UdoG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks! That would be interesting!
UdoG is offline  
post #20 of 23 Old 12-13-2012, 10:04 AM - Thread Starter
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
Just put my X35 on tonight and checked that there are three choices in the anamorphic menu:

Off
A (vertical stretch for 2.35:1 content with lens)
B (horizontal squeeze for 16:9 with the lens in place)

I don't know if the scaling is as good as my Lumagen, but the feature is there for sure. smile.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #21 of 23 Old 12-13-2012, 10:08 AM
Member
 
UdoG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Great smile.gif

Is the feature also available in 3D? Maybe you can check this too...

Thanks!
UdoG is offline  
post #22 of 23 Old 12-13-2012, 12:04 PM - Thread Starter
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
Not sure if I can test this as I haven't got an emitter or glasses, so I don't know if the projector will output 3D without the emitter. The other issue is that I don't have a 3D BluRay. I have one side by side 3D recording on my HD PVR of the Olympics closing ceremony so I'll try that to see if it will work.


EDIT: Just tested it using a side by side recording and the anamorphic modes seem to work in 3D. cool.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #23 of 23 Old 12-13-2012, 02:26 PM
Member
 
UdoG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Great news - thanks!
UdoG 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