Lenses, lenses, lenses........ - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-29-2014, 01:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
So, what are the cost of cylindrical lenses these days.
kgveteran is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-30-2014, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 590 Post(s)
Liked: 310
This is where they start out:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=91&IID=851

That's their smallest current model. Expect to pay around $4000 street for it brand new. They have a couple in between models until you reach the big boy XL lens which is the same as the old ISCO IIIL just with a new housing. Expect to pay around $8000 for that lens

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=91&IID=6835
Seegs108 is online now  
Old 05-01-2014, 01:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I emailed a optic company who does small lenses and asked if they wanted a nice niche market with affordable lenses.....

This info is a start.... I now use a dual prism thats quite dated, but it works
RLBURNSIDE likes this.
kgveteran is online now  
Old 05-01-2014, 05:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
nightfly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 18
A combo lens is also an option, say the Panamorph 480. I saw one for sale here on AVS for $1500.
nightfly85 is offline  
Old 05-02-2014, 05:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly85 View Post

A combo lens is also an option, say the Panamorph 480. I saw one for sale here on AVS for $1500.

Combo ?
kgveteran is online now  
Old 05-05-2014, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 590 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgveteran View Post

Combo ?

It's a hybrid cylindrical and prism based lens. And coincidentally, the one for sale is mine. smile.gif PM if interested. The lens is excellent and gets you to almost ISCO IIIL performance levels.
Seegs108 is online now  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgveteran View Post

Combo ?

I just wanted to take a moment to try and set this issue straight, as it seems to keep coming up and there is a lot of confusion.

There are basic "prismatic" lenses that are simply that - basic, and assembled from prisms. If configured properly, they will do the proper 33% stretch to get you from 16:9 to 2.37:1. The drawbacks of basic prismatic lenses:

  • Chromatic aberration - red and blue color fringing that increases as you move away from the center of the image, which looks very much like convergence misalignment on old three gun CRT sets. This is very easy to see with white grid test patterns, harder to see with actual video material (but noticeable if you go looking for it).
  • Astigmatism - lack of focus in one plane. For example, a prismatic based lens without astigmatism correction will be in focus in one plane - say, the vertical - but out of focus in the other (in this case, the horizontal).


Cheap, basic prismatic lenses will have the above issues, plus they will also have varying image quality based upon the quality of glass or plastic used. Obviously, bad optics will deliver a bad image for reasons even beyond what is discussed above.

Then there are hybrid lenses like those from Panamorph (disclosure - I sometimes consult for Panamorph). They are often referred to as "prismatic," but the reality is that they use both prism and cylindrical technologies in a hybrid configuration. The Panamorph UH480 and DC1 lenses are corrected for both astigmatism and chromatic aberration, and are designed to deliver an image every bit as good as a straight cylindrical. The technologies in Panamorph lenses are patented, so there are no other anamorphics quite like them.

There are some positives and negatives in regard to a Panamorph lens vs. a straight cylindrical (like the ISCO III). I will do my best to give a fair and honest breakdown. Pros and cons:

  • A cylindrical lens allows for focus adjustments, meaning that a lens like the ISCO or Schneider will allow you to fine tune focus for a variety of throw distances. This allows for versatility if you move or change your installation location. A Panamorph lens needs to be installed within its "sweet spot" for optimum focus. In the case of the UH480 and DC1, that optimum throw is 14.5' to 17.5'. Within that range it will perform just as well as any cylindrical in terms of focus. If one has a longer throw, Panamorph will replace the standard corrector element with one fine tuned for a different throw (all the way up to 40'). The corrector elements sell for just under $1K, but now you have a lens with a brand new "sweet spot" fine tuned for the specific install.
  • A cylindrical lens needs to be sighted and focused properly for best performance, which usually means a more complicated install. With a hybrid, installation is usually just a matter of making sure the lens is in the light path. No focus or sighting adjustments need to be made. The caveat is that you need to be in the sweet spot as described above.
  • A cylindrical lens has *slightly* less pincushion distortion at typical throw ratios. On a 10' wide screen, a hybrid lens will typically have about 1/8 of an inch additional pincushion distortion at the center of the screen.
  • In terms of overall picture quality, the UH480 should perform just about as well as a good quality straight cylindrical. The DC1 is the Panamorph premium lens and has better quality optical coatings and most importantly, a sealed case so no dust can get in to contaminate the optics. The DC1 is the only sealed anamorphic lens on the market.


The long and short of it is that both designs can deliver outstanding performance. One is not "automatically" better than the other.

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  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:37 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 53
>>There are some positives and negatives in regard to a Panamorph lens vs. a straight cylindrical (like the ISCO III)

The only negative vs. a prism (hybrid or otherwise) is cost. And with the DC1, even that is less of a factor, if not in favor of the XEIT.

>A cylindrical lens needs to be sighted and focused properly for best performance, which usually means a more complicated install.

Sorry John, you bias is bleeding through too much there. Have to call you on that one. That's about as "more complicated" as having to focus the projector.

>The DC1 is the only sealed anamorphic lens on the market.

?? Simply wrong there. The Schneider and Isco lenses, as well as the XEIT, are, and always have been fully sealed.

I think one IS automatically better. But I am also biased.

Cheers,
Scott
GetGray is offline  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

>>There are some positives and negatives in regard to a Panamorph lens vs. a straight cylindrical (like the ISCO III)

The only negative vs. a prism (hybrid or otherwise) is cost. And with the DC1, even that is less of a factor, if not in favor of the XEIT.

>A cylindrical lens needs to be sighted and focused properly for best performance, which usually means a more complicated install.

Sorry John, you bias is bleeding through too much there. Have to call you on that one. That's about as "more complicated" as having to focus the projector.

>The DC1 is the only sealed anamorphic lens on the market.

?? Simply wrong there. The Schneider and Isco lenses, as well as the XEIT, are, and always have been fully sealed.

I think one IS automatically better. But I am also biased.

Cheers,
Scott

A few quick points:

Isn't it true that you need to "sight" the cylindrical lens so that the light path from the projector passes through the center of the lens? With a prismatic / hybrid, all you need to do is make sure that the light beam from the projector is not cut off (no vignetting, in other words). This is why I used the phrase "usually means a more complicated install" in regard to the cylindrical.

I challenge you to immerse an Isco or Schneider in water and see what happens. Try the same thing with a DC1 smile.gif

I have never examined an XEIT, so will cop to making a possibly inaccurate statement about the DC1 be the "only" lens that is sealed without ever having tested the XEIT.

Let's shoot out the lenses some time - blind - with a state of the art projector and screen at normal to close viewing distances with reference quality video and see which wins out. Since we both agree to having bias (heck, EVERYONE has bias - it's part of being human), that's the ONLY way I know of eliminating it.

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  
Old 05-06-2014, 07:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post


I think one IS automatically better. But I am also biased.

Cheers,
Scott

I'm curious, Scott. You and I have known each other for quite a while now. Why do you think one is "automatically" better? Isn't it in the performance, not in the design? To me, it's much like saying "a ribbon tweeter is automatically better than a horn tweeter."

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  
Old 05-06-2014, 07:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

A Panamorph lens needs to be installed within its "sweet spot" for optimum focus. In the case of the UH480 and DC1, that optimum throw is 14.5' to 17.5'. Within that range it will perform just as well as any cylindrical in terms of focus.

Does anyone happen to know the sweetspot for a Prismasonic HD5000/AVS1 lens?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Old 05-14-2014, 10:45 PM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
* A cylindrical lens needs to be sighted and focused properly for best performance, which usually means a more complicated install. With a hybrid, installation is usually just a matter of making sure the lens is in the light path. No focus or sighting adjustments need to be made. The caveat is that you need to be in the sweet spot as described above.

This is the first time I've seen the ability to precisely focus a cylindrical lens to the millimeter, for perfect sharpness, depicted as some kind of problem or "complication"! And I DO hope John is not saying that a prism lens somehow has a focal range of plus or minus several feet. If he is, then a new principle of optics has been invented: let's call it "universal focus", where near-enough is good enough, and you can just plonk something in front of a projector and it'll be perfect.

Just_doesn't_happen, mate. An image is either in focus or out of it. No grey areas.
Quote:
* A cylindrical lens has *slightly* less pincushion distortion at typical throw ratios. On a 10' wide screen, a hybrid lens will typically have about 1/8 of an inch additional pincushion distortion at the center of the screen.

What John fails to mention regarding pincushion is that pincushion is not the only distortion that presents in an anamorphic environment. There is also geometric distortion, where nominally square grid divisions will elongate or squeeze depending on their position in the image.

A prism lens, having only plane surfaces (and hence zero degrees of freedom when it comes to correcting optical geometric aberrations), stretches the image much more than 1.33x at the edges, and much less than 1.33x in the center of the image. Sure, the average may come out to roughly 1.33x, but the grid distortion is quite notable, especially with short throw ratios.

The Isco has his problem too, to a lesser extent. Only the Xeit lens has been specifically designed (using additional glass element groups, more than any other lens) to reduce this geometric distortion by a substantial amount.

Quote:
* In terms of overall picture quality, the UH480 should perform just about as well as a good quality straight cylindrical. The DC1 is the Panamorph premium lens and has better quality optical coatings and most importantly, a sealed case so no dust can get in to contaminate the optics. The DC1 is the only sealed anamorphic lens on the market.

In response to rather ill-informed comments regarding sealing, the Xeit lens utilizes no less than 5 O-rings to keep dust and moisture out... permanently. You can drop a Xeit lens into a swimming pool and water won't enter it. I don't claim it'll float, but it won't get wet on the inside either. (Note: due to potential electrical hazard, do NOT put your projector into the swimming pool at the same time, especially if it is switched on).

Generally, I do sometimes wonder why (if Panamorph lenses are such superb precision optical instruments) they decline to publish specifications, stating, among other things color purity, ANSI contrast performance, sharpness, pincushion, geometric distortion, ghosting performance, calibration standards, and other factors considered important in assessing quality projection lenses.

www.xeitoptics.com/specifications/
Aussie Bob II is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob II View Post

This is the first time I've seen the ability to precisely focus a cylindrical lens to the millimeter, for perfect sharpness, depicted as some kind of problem or "complication"! And I DO hope John is not saying that a prism lens somehow has a focal range of plus or minus several feet. If he is, then a new principle of optics has been invented: let's call it "universal focus", where near-enough is good enough, and you can just plonk something in front of a projector and it'll be perfect.

Just_doesn't_happen, mate. An image is either in focus or out of it. No grey areas.
What John fails to mention regarding pincushion is that pincushion is not the only distortion that presents in an anamorphic environment. There is also geometric distortion, where nominally square grid divisions will elongate or squeeze depending on their position in the image.

A prism lens, having only plane surfaces (and hence zero degrees of freedom when it comes to correcting optical geometric aberrations), stretches the image much more than 1.33x at the edges, and much less than 1.33x in the center of the image. Sure, the average may come out to roughly 1.33x, but the grid distortion is quite notable, especially with short throw ratios.

The Isco has his problem too, to a lesser extent. Only the Xeit lens has been specifically designed (using additional glass element groups, more than any other lens) to reduce this geometric distortion by a substantial amount.
In response to rather ill-informed comments regarding sealing, the Xeit lens utilizes no less than 5 O-rings to keep dust and moisture out... permanently. You can drop a Xeit lens into a swimming pool and water won't enter it. I don't claim it'll float, but it won't get wet on the inside either. (Note: due to potential electrical hazard, do NOT put your projector into the swimming pool at the same time, especially if it is switched on).

Generally, I do sometimes wonder why (if Panamorph lenses are such superb precision optical instruments) they decline to publish specifications, stating, among other things color purity, ANSI contrast performance, sharpness, pincushion, geometric distortion, ghosting performance, calibration standards, and other factors considered important in assessing quality projection lenses.

www.xeitoptics.com/specifications/

Ah, my good friend AussieBob II returns to the forum. smile.gif

I very deliberately don't make definitive statements saying "my lens is better than yours" or ever bash a competitors product. I see nothing in my posts above that bashes or denigrates ANY competitive lens. If you look through my long history of posting in this forum, I think you will find that I always refer to the Schneider and ISCO as excellent products. I have never seen your lens or a Prismasonic, so therefore have never made comments positive or negative about them. In fact, I will always say "I have never seen XXX lens, so cannot comment about it."

You misrepresent my statement about complication. What I said (and you even quoted me) was "a cylindrical lens needs to be sighted and focused properly for best performance, which usually means a more complicated install." Notice the word "usually," and notice that I said "sighted and focused," not just focused. And please point out to me where I said it was a "problem." In fact, you selectively quote. In the same paragraph of my response, I used the same design feature as a positive! Here I quote myself: "A cylindrical lens allows for focus adjustments, meaning that a lens like the ISCO or Schneider will allow you to fine tune focus for a variety of throw distances. This allows for versatility if you move or change your installation location."

And yes, I am saying that a Panamorph lens (not a prism lens) has a focal range of a few feet. In the case of the UH480 and DC1, it's 14.5 - 17.5'. You may be incredulous (which, of course, is an argument from incredulity, which is one of the best examples of a logical fallacy there is) but it's true. Within that range, the pixels on even a 4K projector are crisp and sharp. I've seen installs down to 12 feet or up to 20 feet with the same lens where you needed to be literally inches from the screen to see that the pixel focus was slightly softened. Sit at any reasonable distance and the slight softness is unnoticeable. Still, we recommend corrector elements once you get out of that 14.5' to 17.5' throw (and, to be clear, that is not "plus or minus several feet" - it's 3 feet total range, so plus or minus 1.5 feet).

RE: pincushion not being the only kind of distortion in an anamorphic lens, i.e., grid distortion as you move away from the center. This is true. Where I disagree is the use of the descriptors "much" less and "much" more, plus the manner in which you just lump Panamorph in with other "prism" lenses. As I go to pains to point out, a Panamorph is not a simple prism lens, so it is not fair to draw comparisons as if it were.

To the claim, though, that there is more "stretching" of the image out to the sides than there is in the middle. This is true, but I would argue that you are exaggerating the visible effects greatly. I do, however, agree that it is worse at short throws. A variety of things are worse on all anamorphic lenses at short throws, so I hardly think we need to focus (no pun intended) on lenses installed outside of their recommended throw ranges and ratios. I would also point out that what is noticeable with a test pattern is not necessarily noticeable with actual video content! If this "issue" were so noticeable, I would think someone on the Forum would have posted about it by now. As you point out, the ISCO exhibits this as well. I have not seen your lens, but for now I take your word for it that you have corrected the grid distortion.

I would really like it if you would take in the entirety of my comments regarding what is a sealed lens or not into account. We HAVE tested Schneider and ISCO lenses, and they are not airtight. And I said this about the XEIT lens:

I have never examined an XEIT, so will cop to making a possibly inaccurate statement about the DC1 be the "only" lens that is sealed without ever having tested the XEIT.

RE: why Panamorph does not publish specs regarding its lenses. I don't see what publishing specs has to do with actual performance of the product at all. Any company can publish any optical specs they want. There is no governing body fact checking the specs, so they are essentially useless (1,000,000:1 contrast on a projector, anyone?). The marketing focus at Panamorph is on the experience, not the specs. THAT is what consumers are buying. I've been in the home theater biz since 1983, and I can count on the fingers of one hand how many people have made examining the specs the criteria by which they choose their products. (As an aside, DPI and SIM2 offer high end lens options for their projectors - as did Marantz - yet I have never seen them post any lens specs either.)

That said, if what you are getting at is "how do the lenses actually perform," I am totally with you. As I posted in another thread:

I do get frustrated when people just assert something definitive without any hard data to back it up. Until someone actually tests a claim using some kind of blind or double blind standard, it's impossible to make any kind of definitive statement ("high rez audio sounds so much better!" or "product a blows away product b")...of course I expect people to be extremely skeptical of what I report here, since I still occasionally work as a consultant for Panamorph and can very fairly be accused of bias (although almost all of my Panamorph related work has been with CE manufacturers and major studios to get anamorphic video part of Blu-ray and next generation video, a project that - if successful - will benefit everyone, Schneider, XEIT, and ISCO included). I WANT people to be skeptical of my claims, just like I want them to be skeptical of the claim that one design or brand is somehow "automatically" better than another. I encourage a more controlled shootout between the two different lens products, and am happy to let the cards fall where they may when it comes to the results...an ideal shootout would be one that was attended by representatives from all the major brands, with each lens set up properly and under best conditions. At that point their contributions to the proceedings would end, and it would be up to a group of qualified observers to make judgements based upon ideal real world viewing conditions.

Because I am so aware of the dual phenomenons of confirmation and expectation bias, I am skeptical of my OWN findings. We all tend to take in information that supports our own existing conclusions or biases and ignore information that contradicts them. This is a hard-wired tendency that it is extremely difficult for us human beings to overcome. The only way I know of overcoming these tendencies is a test like what I describe above.


Don't you agree, what is actually perceivable to the end user is all that matters? If our lens - and yours, or the ISCO III or Prismasonic, or whatever - performs just as well as another in a situation like I describe above, isn't it fair to say that both products are excellent and worthy of consideration?

This reminds me so much of the discussions over 4K resolution and hi-rez audio. Yes, on paper there are benefits. But can you actually see or hear them? That, to me, is all that matters.

I don't get your attitude at all. I have never bashed or denigrated you or your products in any way, or even cast aspersions on them (which you seem more than happy to do regarding me and Panamorph). In fact, I have reached out to you on several occasions to see if we could be friendly competitors (I say "we" even though I technically do not work for Panamorph) and work together toward supporting anamorphic content from the Hollywood studios, etc, yet have never received a positive response.

It is possible to disagree and still be friendly. I am hardly peddling snake oil.

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  
Old 05-15-2014, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have used both the prism and cylindrical lenses. While both gave me a sharp image I did note two differences. The prism lens tended to reflect more light back toward the projector. The loss was too small to be apparent in the projected picture, but in a totally dark room it was faintly visible. Viewers don’t normally look behind so it wasn’t a major issue.
The second difference which is related to the mounting is the cylindrical lens has more axes of adjustment. For the best picture geometry, the projector, the lens, and the screen alignment is critical. I found it much harder to achieve with a prism lens as it had two mounting adjustments that allowed height and vertical tilt, but you could not turn the lens nor could you adjust the horizontal tilt. This is more of a mounting issue than a limitation of the lens type.
I found it much harder to setup than the simple instructions that came with the prism lens and nothing came with the cylindrical lens. Runco has or had very detailed instructions on lens alignment in the owner’s manual that is applicable to all lenses provided you can adjust all axes.
CRGINC is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 03:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Interesting about the retro-reflections you saw, as that kind of harkens back to the design change Panamorph did years ago with the UH380 when it was replaced with the UH480 (and later, the DC1). The optical path was changed on the 480/ DC1 to eliminate retro-reflections. Be curious to know what "prism" lens you had the issue with. As I go to pains to point out, Panamorph lenses are not simple prism lenses, but a patented hybrid design. That said, some people did experience retro-reflections with the older UH380 only when paired with certain JVC projectors.

You are absolutely correct that alignment between lens, screen and projector is important, although if the projector is properly squared perpendicular to the screen I don't know why you would want to turn the lens. The only reason I can think of (if I am understanding you correctly) is to try and compensate for a projector that is not square to the screen. Trying to compensate for that with an anamorphic lens can cause all kinds of problems.

Just using Panamorph as an example, all you should need to do (assuming the projector is properly squared) is make sure no light is being cut off by the lens aperture, and then adjust the tilt to minimize pincushion. If there is a side to side alignment issue, the mounting plate for the UH480 / DC1 allows for rotation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0ngJp5mWCA

You can see it referenced at 2:50 and again at 6:00.

Thanks for your comments smile.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  
Old 05-15-2014, 06:32 PM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Panamorph lenses are not simple prism lenses, but a patented hybrid design.

Panamorph has a patent that mentions prism lenses, but that is different to it having a "patented hybrid design".

You can't patent a basic prism lens design because they are as old as the hills. They are "established art", going back to the 19th century. Panamorph didn't invent prism lenses although they can be found using the word "patent" in association with their brand to imply that they did.

What you CAN do is patent various bits and pieces around it, and after-market applications like the crazy color channel pixel adjustment idea which digitally corrects (read: distorts) projector color channels, so the prism lens doesn't have to.

Adjusting pixels to color-correct a prism lens requires varying correction over the width of the image field to offset the color aberrations introduced by uncorrected prisms. No consumer projector, even today, does this to the fineness of precision needed to perform the correction, but let's patent it anyway. Then we can say it's a "patented hybrid design."

Panavision - "vision", not "morph" - added an astigmatism corrector lens to it's original prism lens back in the early 1950s, well before Panamorph even existed. Corrector lenses are not a new idea.

Correctors change the location of the focal plane of one of the axes - vertical or horizontal, take your pick - and either pull it back a little or push it forward a little, so that both axes coincide on the image plane. Correctors employ a very weak cylndrical optical power to gently nudge one half of the image into focus. It's hardly rocket science.

They provide a fixed correction to the focus of only one image plane. These correctors are not continuously adjustable like cylindrical lens astigmatism adjustments are. Therefore if you change the throw of the projector, even by a small amount, you need a different corrector. Panamorph claim that their correctors are calibrated in throw regions, in spans of a few feet each. In each throw region focus is claimed to be perfect. But there is and can only ever be one sweet spot per corrector. Everything else in the related region is a fudge: close to focus, sometimes, but never quite there.

Which brings us to consider the definition of "focus" . None is supplied by Panamorph. There are no metrics given. We are just assured that it's fine, without any specification of what that word means. I guess that's OK for the old 720p systems that were around when Panamorph started up, but today more and more projectors are delivering 4K, over 5 times that resolution in each of the vertical and horizontal image planes.
Aussie Bob II is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 07:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
TK Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
i don't have any comparisons to make, but I really like the picture that my X95 and DC1 make.

TK Doom

Unreal Tournament Forever
Project Gotham Racing too!
 

TK Doom is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 07:57 PM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

i don't have any comparisons to make, but I really like the picture that my X95 and DC1 make.

And in the end that is what is critical for the end user (noting I am a proud Xeit owner).

I really appreciate Aussie Bob's posts as helping build a more complete understanding of lenses as a whole and how they operate. He is a very passionate and knowledgeable person, as are some of the other posters - as a consumer we need to be informed by the 'debate' and make our own choices while still being open to other possibilities as to what could have/should have(?) been chosen.
John Schuermann likes this.
stephenbr is online now  
Old 05-15-2014, 08:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob II View Post

Panamorph has a patent that mentions prism lenses, but that is different to it having a "patented hybrid design".

You can't patent a basic prism lens design because they are as old as the hills. They are "established art", going back to the 19th century. Panamorph didn't invent prism lenses although they can be found using the word "patent" in association with their brand to imply that they did.

What you CAN do is patent various bits and pieces around it, and after-market applications like the crazy color channel pixel adjustment idea which digitally corrects (read: distorts) projector color channels, so the prism lens doesn't have to.

Adjusting pixels to color-correct a prism lens requires varying correction over the width of the image field to offset the color aberrations introduced by uncorrected prisms. No consumer projector, even today, does this to the fineness of precision needed to perform the correction, but let's patent it anyway. Then we can say it's a "patented hybrid design."

Panavision - "vision", not "morph" - added an astigmatism corrector lens to it's original prism lens back in the early 1950s, well before Panamorph even existed. Corrector lenses are not a new idea.

Correctors change the location of the focal plane of one of the axes - vertical or horizontal, take your pick - and either pull it back a little or push it forward a little, so that both axes coincide on the image plane. Correctors employ a very weak cylndrical optical power to gently nudge one half of the image into focus. It's hardly rocket science.

They provide a fixed correction to the focus of only one image plane. These correctors are not continuously adjustable like cylindrical lens astigmatism adjustments are. Therefore if you change the throw of the projector, even by a small amount, you need a different corrector. Panamorph claim that their correctors are calibrated in throw regions, in spans of a few feet each. In each throw region focus is claimed to be perfect. But there is and can only ever be one sweet spot per corrector. Everything else in the related region is a fudge: close to focus, sometimes, but never quite there.

Which brings us to consider the definition of "focus" . None is supplied by Panamorph. There are no metrics given. We are just assured that it's fine, without any specification of what that word means. I guess that's OK for the old 720p systems that were around when Panamorph started up, but today more and more projectors are delivering 4K, over 5 times that resolution in each of the vertical and horizontal image planes.

Wow. OK. I'll try and correct a few of the misrepresentations here.

"Panamorph didn't invent prism lenses although they can be found using the word "patent" in association with their brand to imply that they did."

Can ANYONE here on the forum please let me know where Panamorph made a claim that they patented basic prism lenses?

What you CAN do is patent various bits and pieces around it, and after-market applications like the crazy color channel pixel adjustment idea which digitally corrects (read: distorts) projector color channels, so the prism lens doesn't have to.

Two points. One - please can ANYONE point out an occurrence where Panamorph claimed to have patented "color channel pixel adjustment" processing? Anyone...?

Two - why do you keep beating the dead horse of a color correction system which helps correct chromatic aberration on what Panamorph has always presented as an entry level product?

Adjusting pixels to color-correct a prism lens requires varying correction over the width of the image field to offset the color aberrations introduced by uncorrected prisms. No consumer projector, even today, does this to the fineness of precision needed to perform the correction, but let's patent it anyway. Then we can say it's a "patented hybrid design."

This is just so bizarre. Nowhere have I - or anyone - claimed that the color correction and the patented hybrid design have anything to do with one another. Where do you get this stuff? The color correction is designed to compensate for panel misalignment on 3 chip LCD or LCOS projectors. We have worked with the projector manufacturers to adapt that to also correct chromatic aberration in our entry level product. It works. Is it perfect? No. Have I claimed it is perfect? No. Have we ever claimed to have patented it? No. Do we ever conflate electronic color correction with having a "patented hybrid design"? No. Does it work to the point that anyone sitting at a typical distance from a projection would probably never notice the artifacts? Yes.

Panamorph claim that their correctors are calibrated in throw regions, in spans of a few feet each. In each throw region focus is claimed to be perfect. But there is and can only ever be one sweet spot per corrector. Everything else in the related region is a fudge: close to focus, sometimes, but never quite there.

Do you have a DC1 in your possession? A UH480? Have you actually tested this? Any difference in focus would be so slight within the specified range that it would require incredibly unrealistic viewing distances to detect. That is, if you could detect it at all with your naked eyes.

Which brings us to consider the definition of "focus" . None is supplied by Panamorph. There are no metrics given. We are just assured that it's fine, without any specification of what that word means. I guess that's OK for the old 720p systems that were around when Panamorph started up, but today more and more projectors are delivering 4K, over 5 times that resolution in each of the vertical and horizontal image planes.

Sony has tested the UH480 and DC1 with their 4K projectors and has specifically endorsed them. If you like, I can give you contact info at the folks at Sony who did the testing and you can verify for yourself. To suggest that Panamorph lenses are possibly only good for 720P resolutions is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure some here on this forum have Panamorph lenses attached to Sony 4K projectors, and it will be an easy task for any of them to verify what I am saying.

I am at my wit's end regarding this exchange. I put it to anyone else reading this thread on the forum to let me know if they have ever seen me misrepresent Panamorph products, or bash and cast aspersions on another person or product (lens or otherwise). I know from my own personal perspective I have always taken pains to be fair and honest and help out folks on the forum, whether they owned Panamorph products or any other. Perhaps I am incorrect in my own assessment of my behavior here, and I leave it for anyone else to chime in. If I am guilty of all of the stuff AussieBob #2 is accusing me of, I really do want to know if my perceptions are that far off.

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  
Old 05-15-2014, 10:05 PM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Two points. One - please can ANYONE point out an occurrence where Panamorph claimed to have patented "color channel pixel adjustment" processing? Anyone...?

I will.

From the Panamorph patent, Us Patent No. 6678095, claiming to patent:
Quote:
Section 19(e)... at least one image modulator modulates said at least one beam of light with an image signal that is adapted to scale or shift or both scale and shift said incident beam of light so as to compensate for chromatic aberration by at least one of said first prism, said second prism and said at least one curved refractive element.

https://www.google.com/patents/US6678095

You just can't do this with a digital projector, digitally. You have to have a mechanical adjustment so that fractional pixel movement can be accomplished. But that only move the entire image or color channel by a fraction of a pixel.

The amount of "shift or scale" has to vary laterally and vertically across the screen to make the three color channels distort differentially as a counterweight to the varying refraction distortions inherent in the prism system. That sounds like it would be easier to do optically.

Perhaps someone should just cut to the chase, and invent an achromatic lens... now THERE'S an idea!
Aussie Bob II is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 10:19 PM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Do you have a DC1 in your possession? A UH480? Have you actually tested this?

You don't HAVE to test it. It's simple optics. No mystery... A fixed focal length lens, even a weak "corrector-type" one, has only ONE point of focus. It's a matter of defining what's claimed as "acceptable", and I can see no specifications available from Panamorph or any other manufacturer - except Xeit - that even attempts this.
Quote:
I am at my wit's end regarding this exchange.

Clearly.
Aussie Bob II is offline  
Old 05-15-2014, 11:24 PM
Member
 
jabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to say I am enjoying the robust debate, since I am learning quite a bit from it. I have a Prismasonic HD-6000F cylindrical lens and I am keen to know the performance of it vs the ISCO and XEIT, however am unable to find such information.
jabz is offline  
Old 05-16-2014, 12:09 AM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabz View Post

I have to say I am enjoying the robust debate, since I am learning quite a bit from it. I have a Prismasonic HD-6000F cylindrical lens and I am keen to know the performance of it vs the ISCO and XEIT, however am unable to find such information.

Here is at least a comparison between the Xeit and the Isco from Xeit's website:

http://xeitoptics.com/xeit-v-isco-shootout/
stephenbr is online now  
Old 05-16-2014, 12:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob II View Post

I will.

From the Panamorph patent, Us Patent No. 6678095, claiming to patent:
You just can't do this with a digital projector, digitally. You have to have a mechanical adjustment so that fractional pixel movement can be accomplished. But that only move the entire image or color channel by a fraction of a pixel.

The amount of "shift or scale" has to vary laterally and vertically across the screen to make the three color channels distort differentially as a counterweight to the varying refraction distortions inherent in the prism system. That sounds like it would be easier to do optically.

Perhaps someone should just cut to the chase, and invent an achromatic lens... now THERE'S an idea!

Now I at least get where some of your ideas are coming from. What you are looking at (and linking to) is the original Panamorph patent that was filed way back in 2001 (just check the date). At that point, Panamorph only manufactured oil-filled vertical compression lenses without chromatic correction - the P752, I believe, but I could be wrong since that was WAY before my time at Panamorph. And, at that time, RGB based scaling was a new concept as far as home cinema goes, and it looks like Shawn Kelly filed this idea of correcting aberration this way along with the original patent. (BTW, Shawn has eighteen issued and pending US patents on varied devices from optical elements to virtual displays. Shawn was the optics development program manager for the U.S government's Strategic Defense Initiative as well as the director of research for the USAF 3D display program, so he had a hand in developing some of these basic color processing and optical technologies). So, while I can see where you get some of your basic ideas, you are referring to old - very old - information.

Some clarifications:

The P752, and its successors - the U85, and more recently the FVX200 - are vertical compression lenses and do not have chromatic aberration correction built in. Since they are vertical compression designs, chromatic aberration is limited to less than a single pixel width at the very top and bottom of the image (far less than what you get with an uncorrected horizontal expansion lens on the left and right). This design was originally used to convert 4:3 projectors to the 16:9 aspect ratio (such as the NEC HT1000, a very popular 4:3 projector back about 10 years ago).

RE: your point about "inventing" an achromatic lens. The Panamorph UH480 and DC1 are fully corrected for chromatic aberration. They do not rely upon electronic color correction in any way. They are astigmatism and chromatic aberration free designs. This was also true of the Panamorph UH380, introduced back in 2006. So, all Panamorph horizontal expansion lenses up until the release of the CineVista have had correction for astigmatism and chromatic aberration built in. Even the CineVista is corrected for astigmatism, just not chromatic aberration.

So, if it helps, here is the Panamorph lineup:

DC1 - top of the line horizontal expansion lens, fully corrected for astigmatism and chromatic aberration, premium optical coatings, fully sealed light path. We will shoot this lens out against any other lens on the market, any day, regardless of price.

UH480 - up until the release of the CineVista, the most popular horizontal expansion lens on the market, also fully corrected for astigmatism and chromatic aberration. Have shot this out with the ISCO III on numerous occasions, even by others here on the forum: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1148318/anamorphic-lens-shootout/120

CineVista - entry level horizontal expansion lens, fully corrected for astigmatism but not for chromatic aberration. This was to hit the price point dealers and distributors were asking for - under $2K. By this point, makers of LCD and LCOS projectors had adopted electronic chromatic correction as a way to compensate for LCD and LCOS panel misalignment. Work was done with various projection manufacturers to allow this system to dial out most visible aberration from the CineVista in order to open up the anamorphic lens market to a whole new group of consumers. This was quite successful, as it is now the best selling anamorphic lens on the market.

FVX200 - the lone remaining vertical compression lens in the lineup, fully corrected for astigmatism but not for chromatic aberration. As mentioned above, aberration on a vertical compression lens is much less than a horizontal expansion design, but the same electronic color correction can be used to dial out most of what remains.

The main point here is that the UH480 and DC1 - the two flagship Panamorph lenses - are both corrected for chromatic aberration and astigmatism.

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  
Old 05-16-2014, 12:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob II View Post

You don't HAVE to test it. It's simple optics. No mystery... A fixed focal length lens, even a weak "corrector-type" one, has only ONE point of focus. It's a matter of defining what's claimed as "acceptable", and I can see no specifications available from Panamorph or any other manufacturer - except Xeit - that even attempts this.

All optical systems are optimized for something. Pure cylindrical lens systems are also optimized for a throw distance and then the “adjustment” of the elements allows variation from that “sweet spot” throw distance while diminishing performance in other areas. Panamorph lenses have a larger sweet spot than cylindrical lenses so deviations from the optimized configuration retain performance over a larger deviation, taking away the obvious need for an adjustment. But that performance will also deteriorate with departure from the design throw distance. The Panamorph hybrid design is simply that – prisms with integrated astigmatism correction. For throw distances significantly outside the “sweet spot” of the basic configuration Panamorph offers different prescriptions. A lens designed for a specific throw is always better than a “zoom” lens trying to work for a range of configurations.

It works. It works very well and the vast majority of anamorphic projection lenses are Panamorph for this reason along with product quality and customer service. As I mentioned above, Sony recommends Panamorph lenses for their 4K projectors over everybody else. Why would they do this? Why does Panamorph also have the explicit endorsement of Digital Projection (DPI), SIM2, Epson, JVC, Runco, and others? If somebody would rather have a “zoom” type of lens so they can adjust it for multiple throw distances then of course they have that option with other brands.

From my experience working with Panamorph, they're proud of the products they make specifically for the demands and needs of the market and their projector manufacturer partners and high end customers. They can also make many varieties of these lenses from old designs to new. I know they constantly investigate alternatives and tune the product offerings accordingly because that is where I work with them on the consultation side - I do trainings, consult with projector manufacturers, and more lately consult with the movie studios regarding anamorphic content.

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  
Old 05-16-2014, 01:46 AM
Member
 
Aussie Bob II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
They are astigmatism and chromatic aberration free designs.

Only with the corrector, and the corrector is limited in application, as it has no adjustment whatsoever.
Quote:
All optical systems are optimized for something.

So why not tell us what that mysterious "something" is?
Quote:
Pure cylindrical lens systems are also optimized for a throw distance and then the “adjustment” of the elements allows variation from that “sweet spot” throw distance while diminishing performance in other areas.

This is just baloney. You don't seem to be able to help yourself, putting "diminishing performance" in at the end of your statement.

The Xeit lens is continuously adjustable in astigmatism correction from 2.5 metres to infinity. The same lens that will display a sharp image on a screen 10 feet wide, will display with equal sharpness on a screen 50 feet wide, at five times the throw. The Schneider and Isco lenses are the same. Every time you put your fingers to a keyboard you come out with more disinformation. You're just digging yourself in deeper by doing so.

Prism systems are inherently limited. They are the crudest way of stretching an image. They have no degrees of freedom available, as they employ only flat surfaces, with maybe a minimally curved surface for the corrector element (if they have one, as the higher end models do have).
Quote:
Now I at least get where some of your ideas are coming from. What you are looking at (and linking to) is the original Panamorph patent that was filed way back in 2001 (just check the date).

I was simply reading a current patent issued in favour of Panamorph. Forgive me if that's some kind of technical mortal sin, or a clever semantic trick. 2001 isn't that long ago, after all.

You asked the Forum to provide a reference to a claim by Panamorph that they had patented a color channel morphing system, and I provided it. When I did so you made plonking comments about "at last" getting "where some of my ideas are coming from".

It's there in black and white, John. Just like you demanded.

The idea of changing the projector's output by digitally warping its individual color channels to suit an uncorrected prism system is a classic case of "tail wags dog"... fix the projector to suit the lens...brilliant... apart from the fact that it can't be done digitally anyway, to the degree of precision required to achieve the desired result.

It'd be funny, if you hadn't touted exactly this process last year as the unifying solution to the color aberration problem that the Cine Vista lens presented. That's not a vertical compression lens, circa 2001. It's a horizontal expansion lens, circa 2013. Suddenly "2001" became current technology in 2013 when it came to talking-up the Cine Vista. So please don't plead "ancient history" to us all of the sudden.

This - the Cine Vista - was a lens that you suggested was the sharpest "on the planet", except that it needed a projector company to do something completely impossible to make it even better.

There are very few miracles in optics. Mostly they are aconfined to an improvement in process or manufacture. Every now and again someone does come up with a newish idea, but prism anamorphics aren't one of them. The Panamorph patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on as far as it describing a new idea is concerned.

I'll grant that prisms were state of the art, in 1950, but so what? Panavision had a patent for their own prism system around that time too, but it was only for the adjustment mechanism, not the optics. The optics were basic, and well understood by those "familiar with the art".
Aussie Bob II is offline  
Old 05-16-2014, 10:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 938
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Aussie, to compare apples and apples, don't you think both the specs and the price should be listed on the website? If your lens costs 5-10x more than a competitor's, it seems a little disingenuous to fault them for not publishing specs while you, as far as I can tell, have not even listed the price.

Put it this way, you could have a lens ten times better than the next guy in every way, but that won't matter if the price is out of reach for 99% of interested parties. And then forcing them to send an email for a price quote, with caveats that one must be a "legitimate end user" (whatever that means), screams opportunistic pricing to me, and that seems really dishonest. I've read and learned tons from both you guys, but this seems to be getting a little personal and the only thing that could end up being damaged are your own companies' bottom lines. I don't see the upside to arguing on a forum, one company doesn't publish specs (although they are measurable independently), and the other doesn't publish a price. Hmmm, it seems to be like neither is being upfront about the cost / benefit for the end user here, and having to dig through third party sites or fire off private emails for exclusive prices seems really antiquated. Do what you like, but I don't give a damn about some 5000 or 10,000 dollar lens that may or may not be better than one which I can get for a couple grand tops, easily on the open market.
John Schuermann likes this.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
Old 05-16-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Last notes and then I'm done. I don't want to get bound up in a personal, heated exchange. Never wanted to, and I am happy to let people read through my comments and responses and judge for themselves whether or not my claim that I am being misrepresented in attitude and fact is based on reality or not.

One factual matter, just to set the record straight:

I never claimed the CineVista was the sharpest lens on the planet. I made that comment in regard to the FVX200.

I leave it for anyone to read the linked to patent to determine for themselves if the reference made within qualifies as Panamorph claiming to have patented "color channel pixel adjustment" processing.

This seems to be getting so personal and heated I have no interest in going any further. For the record, I have a pretty high level of confidence, never having seen one, that the XEIT lens is an excellent performer. I would be happy to shoot it out any day with the Panamorph DC1, which is also an excellent performer. My assertion is that the proof is in the performance, not in the design.

I stand by my own personal integrity in that I have never intentionally mislead anyone, nor made a hostile, negative claim about any other competitive product on this forum.

I stand by the fact that just about every single home theater projector manufacturer has specifically endorsed Panamorph for their projection systems - SIM2, JVC, Epson, DPI, and others. Sony has gone so far as to recommend the Panamorph DC1 as their go to lens for Sony 4K projectors after testing lenses from several manufacturers. This is worth pondering.

I would be happy to participate in any blind shootout between Xeit, Isco, Prismasonic or whoever would like to join. As I said, my main assertion is that the proof is in the performance. One can quote specs and discuss theory and throw up test patterns all day long, but it all ultimately comes down to how the product performs in the real world.

Here is my guess at what the results of such a shootout would be. With reference HD or 4K video content using a reference HD or 4K projector on a reference screen in a blackout room, at a seating distance of 2 to 2.5X screen height, all of the high end lenses - Xeit, Isco, Schneider, and Panamorph - would do extremely well. My guess is that most could not tell one from the other. Of course, I'd like to believe that the DC1 would win the shootout, but as of right now, that is just a belief. Until I test it under controlled conditions, that is all that it will remain.

FWIW, I am not trying to assert that a lens like a Prismasonic or a CAVX would not do well, it's just that I've never seen one. Despite the acrimony between AussieBob II and I, I believe that his passion comes from having designed a top quality product, and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and therefore am willing to lump his lens in with the other high end lenses. I also know Scott Horton, and he and I have been friendly since Scott first came to a large scale projector shootout I hosted in Denver almost 7 years ago. I believe I can trust Scott's review, and I also think Scott can vouch for my integrity when it comes to my approach to this field. I would hope so, anyway, as it still remains my belief that people can remain friendly competitors.

So, here is to Xeit, Schneider, Isco, Prismasonic, CAVX, and Panamorph, for doing their best to make quality products.

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  
Old 05-16-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgveteran View Post

So, what are the cost of cylindrical lenses these days.

Aren't you glad you asked? wink.gif

lol

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  
Old 05-16-2014, 02:02 PM
Senior Member
 
clausdk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabz View Post

I have to say I am enjoying the robust debate, since I am learning quite a bit from it. I have a Prismasonic HD-6000F cylindrical lens and I am keen to know the performance of it vs the ISCO and XEIT, however am unable to find such information.

I am considering the HD6000 or C150 I think it's called now. Hard to find reviews on it or comparisons with other lenses. I can't afford an ISCO anyways but the HD6000 seems like an affordable alternate.
clausdk is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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