CAVX MKII vs. Panamorph CineVista - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 07-07-2013, 01:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 38
So, in my quest to rebuild my hometheater, this little debate arose, kinda.... If you had a CAVX MKII, would you shell out a possible 1,200 to 1,400 for the CineVista.....

My PJ of choice at this point is the Sony HW50, projecting on a 100"x42" Seymour Center Stage XD AT......

..... and the throw is unknown
kgveteran is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 07-09-2013, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 38
URL=http://s198.photobucket.com/user/kgveteran1/media/IMG_0808.jpg.html][/URL]

Who could resist a pic ! No opinions..... Hmmmmm interesting
kgveteran is offline  
post #3 of 7 Old 07-10-2013, 03:10 AM
Senior Member
 
MAZMAN808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney,Australia
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ok, i'll give you an opinion since i own a MKII as well.
First off, ive bought it when it just came out, so was using it with a optoma hd20 (720p), at the time i was happy with it as i loved a scope screen.
I then had a benq w5000 (1080p) and used it with that projector.

I started noticing things i didnt like with that lens, mostly softening of the image when in the light path, light spillage.(the pincusion i expected) vs not using it.
I didnt have much choice as i couldnt zoom with that projector as it didnt have enough zoom.

I then upgraded to the epson 6010 due to 3D etc.
I now dont use the MKII lens with this projector as i find zooming much better and cleaner/sharper/nicer, no pincusion is a great bonus too, no light spills on the sides etc.
It is an old lens so cant expect it to be as good as the newer lenses out now( even tho i havent looked at any since i started doing zoom) and was a fair bit cheaper then the current crop.

If i had the hw50, i would zoom.(my ceiling is low that i can reach it easily), but i dont know how good the cinevista is so i cant really comment on that or compare it to the MKII.

If the cinevista had no noticeable picture loss/softening, no side spills i would consider it.
Have you tried zooming? do you find your MKII very soft and the other issue's i mentioned?
MAZMAN808 is offline  
post #4 of 7 Old 07-10-2013, 04:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I noticed a softening and loss of sharpness, wts i'm not real picky about the picture other than a total distain for RBE. When the time comes I will give zoom a shot, as well as the MK II. This room wont be a reality for some time, I just want to hit the ground running once I do build the room :0)
kgveteran is offline  
post #5 of 7 Old 07-10-2013, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Before everyone gets too carried away, the MK2 was probably the most affordable anamorphic adapter ever released. Therefore it was always going to have performance issues. The glass used were in fact trophies, and the manufacture could not give optical specs because there were none. All I ever got was there was a 4 step polishing process, but there was no "Scratch and Dig" spec.

Because the prisms of the MK2 were made of one type of glass, there is no CA correction.
The light spill issues would be due to the anti-reflective coatings which are not true optic coatings.

The later MK3, MK4 and MK5 all have a proper optical spec surface finish of SD60/40 (this means the largest scratch on the surface is 60 x 40 microns!). They all have CA correction and they all have proper optic coatings. As a result, you pay more for that level of quality which reflects in the price of each unit.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #6 of 7 Old 07-17-2013, 09:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Before everyone gets too carried away, the MK2 was probably the most affordable anamorphic adapter ever released. Therefore it was always going to have performance issues. The glass used were in fact trophies, and the manufacture could not give optical specs because there were none. All I ever got was there was a 4 step polishing process, but there was no "Scratch and Dig" spec.

Because the prisms of the MK2 were made of one type of glass, there is no CA correction.
The light spill issues would be due to the anti-reflective coatings which are not true optic coatings.

The later MK3, MK4 and MK5 all have a proper optical spec surface finish of SD60/40 (this means the largest scratch on the surface is 60 x 40 microns!). They all have CA correction and they all have proper optic coatings. As a result, you pay more for that level of quality which reflects in the price of each unit.

Thanx for chimin in Mark ! Budget gear always has its pro's and con's, but as you stated, it's a great lens..... I will give it a trial run when this room finally comes to be
kgveteran is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 07-18-2013, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgveteran View Post

Thanx for chimin in Mark ! Budget gear always has its pro's and con's, but as you stated, it's a great lens..... I will give it a trial run when this room finally comes to be

MK2:

Pros: Price
Cons: Performance.

MK5:

Pros: Performance
Cons: Price

You really do get what you pay for with these optical devices.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Tags
Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Benq W5000 Dlp Projector 1200 Ansi Lumens 1920 X 1080 Widescreen Hi , Hsu Research Hc 1 Mk2 , Hsu Research Vtf 2mk3 , Hsu Vtf2 Mk4
Gear in this thread

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