Which type of compression / expansion lens should I get - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #61 of 89 Old 08-27-2014, 03:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Yes, at the same image size. First of all, as you pointed out, opening the lens aperture to zoom also increases light output, and of course you need to zoom with a VC lens. Of course, the brightness increase when zooming varies with projector model, but you get my point. With a VC lens you get the light output advantage of zooming PLUS the light output advantage of using an anamorphic lens. Also, since there are fewer surfaces in a VC lens there is actually more throughput (although, admittedly, not a whole lot). So with the same projector throwing the same image size via HE or VC lens, the VC lens "created" image will be brighter. Depending on the projector model and the increase in brightness created by zooming, you could theoretically get up to twice the brightness increase over HE.

Other advantages of a good VC lens:

  • It's sharper than an HE lens, and over a wider range of throw distances. The sharpness at each color is superior to any other design.
  • The internal distortion can't be beat. There is a slight variation in height of each square of a grid pattern from top to bottom, but from left to right it is essentially invisible.

The downsides are the zoom issues already discussed (plus the associated long throw), and of course, there is no correct answer to "which is better, barrel or pincushion distortion." As pointed out by CAVX, though, the long throw distances required by VC lenses effectively minimize the barrel distortion regardless.
If cgott were going to view scope most of the time, I would agree with you, but given he only watches 1-2 scope movies a month, vs 90-95% of the time 16:9 content, so I just don't think a lens is worth the cost vs the benefit on such a small amount of content.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 89 Old 08-27-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
If doing Constant Width on a 16:9 screen, would you really want the scope picture to be brighter than the 16:9 picture? In that scenario, uniform brightness at both ratios would be less distracting.

The brightness benefit of a lens is more important in Constant Height projection, where the 2.35:1 image is larger than 16:9, and consequently spread out over a greater area and dimmer. In that case, you want to preserve as much brightness in the scope image as possible.
I understand your point, but at the same time I have demoed this type of setup many times and have never had anyone say they'd rather not have the extra brightness (in fact, the invariable response is "wow"). It's a way of making 2.40:1 content more "spectacular," which is part of what this forum is all about. You also ditch the projected black bars. On top of that, you can also shift the image up or down by tilting the lens. Many shift the image to the top or bottom of the screen and just mask the remaining portion.

And, let's say, we do get our MFE anamorphic process off the ground (which is looking more and more likely every day - we now have two major CE manufacturers and one studio working through testing) - then you would want such a setup for sure to get the 33% additional resolution for Scope movies.

Here's something else to consider. As automatic "zoom method" systems become more popular and widespread, a VC lens with transport becomes an even more valuable piece of hardware, as it combines the benefits of both zooming and having a lens into one. You get the combined brightness boost of zooming and using all the pixels - extra valuable on large Scope screens and with 3D content.

This is the Digital Cinema application, as it takes into account the fact that the DCI projector is already zooming to get to 2.40:1. With true anamorphic content like we are promoting with MFE, the net result is both higher TRUE resolution and brightness

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 offline  
post #63 of 89 Old 08-27-2014, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
If cgott were going to view scope most of the time, I would agree with you, but given he only watches 1-2 scope movies a month, vs 90-95% of the time 16:9 content, so I just don't think a lens is worth the cost vs the benefit on such a small amount of content.
Hard to argue with this, and would agree 100% if we were talking typical list prices When the lenses in question are $200 - $500 it makes it a slightly harder call.

IMO.

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 offline  
post #64 of 89 Old 08-28-2014, 11:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Thanks to everyone for the info/help - very much appreciated!

I decided to go ahead and buy the Panamorph VC lens.
The main reason(s) being the hobby aspect of this (I've probably gone through 10 projectors (though I've been with mostly BenQ throughout and have had this BenQ for 2-3 years now - a long time for me). i.e. I've been an AVS - HT enthusiast for over 10 years, and never had a lens. I've read debates here, and honestly (when I had a 2.40 screen - before current HT rebuild, and subsequent space constraints) was happy with the PQ via zooming, so never pursued the lens. Though I could see room for improvement (e.g. even more brightness/pop), and being that I don't see lenses for sale too often - figured - given the cost mentioned - it's worth it to try it out, and see for myself -how my setup differs with/without lens.
With that I decided to go with the VC (over the HE) as it seems there's a consensus here that the Panamorph FVX200 is a much better quality lens that the HTB/DIY (e.g. astigmatism adj, less CA, etc...), and re: HE/VC - from John's comments VC seems to be a good direction to go.

I'm definitely fine with 2.40 stuff been brighter / better PQ than 16x9 stuff. And if it it's a total waste of $ (i.e. improvement in brightness doesn't offset cost/possible distortion/hassle), off to AVS classifieds / eBay to recoup the $...

Also, I called to order the screen material to add the wing extension to convert the 16x9 screen to a 2.40 screen. Who knows maybe the improvement will get me to watch more 2.40 stuff ;-)

I'm looking forward to posting before / after pics of both the lens, and screen addition! (now I just need to learn how to take pics of a screen - whenever I do they don't come out as nicely as those I see others post)
John Schuermann likes this.
cgott42 is online now  
post #65 of 89 Old 08-28-2014, 01:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgott42 View Post
Thanks to everyone for the info/help - very much appreciated!

I decided to go ahead and buy the Panamorph VC lens.
The main reason(s) being the hobby aspect of this (I've probably gone through 10 projectors (though I've been with mostly BenQ throughout and have had this BenQ for 2-3 years now - a long time for me). i.e. I've been an AVS - HT enthusiast for over 10 years, and never had a lens. I've read debates here, and honestly (when I had a 2.40 screen - before current HT rebuild, and subsequent space constraints) was happy with the PQ via zooming, so never pursued the lens. Though I could see room for improvement (e.g. even more brightness/pop), and being that I don't see lenses for sale too often - figured - given the cost mentioned - it's worth it to try it out, and see for myself -how my setup differs with/without lens.
With that I decided to go with the VC (over the HE) as it seems there's a consensus here that the Panamorph FVX200 is a much better quality lens that the HTB/DIY (e.g. astigmatism adj, less CA, etc...), and re: HE/VC - from John's comments VC seems to be a good direction to go.

I'm definitely fine with 2.40 stuff been brighter / better PQ than 16x9 stuff. And if it it's a total waste of $ (i.e. improvement in brightness doesn't offset cost/possible distortion/hassle), off to AVS classifieds / eBay to recoup the $...

Also, I called to order the screen material to add the wing extension to convert the 16x9 screen to a 2.40 screen. Who knows maybe the improvement will get me to watch more 2.40 stuff ;-)

I'm looking forward to posting before / after pics of both the lens, and screen addition! (now I just need to learn how to take pics of a screen - whenever I do they don't come out as nicely as those I see others post)
Fantastic! I'm very glad you went this direction rather than cropping things. Please make sure you post pics. Very curious to see the outcome.
John Schuermann likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #66 of 89 Old 08-28-2014, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Just to make sure everything will work properly -

You said you had an 18' throw. Is that correct? For the FVX200 you should be at about 4.3X the screen height. You said the screen is 51" tall, so 51" x 4.3 = 219" or 18.2'. If all of that is correct, you should be good.

ENJOY! And please do report back here how it all works out.

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 offline  
post #67 of 89 Old 08-28-2014, 03:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Just to make sure everything will work properly -

You said you had an 18' throw. Is that correct? For the FVX200 you should be at about 4.3X the screen height. You said the screen is 51" tall, so 51" x 4.3 = 219" or 18.2'. If all of that is correct, you should be good.

ENJOY! And please do report back here how it all works out.
Yep!
thx
cgott42 is online now  
post #68 of 89 Old 08-29-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
I thought I would take this opportunity to post a couple of jpegs, one that shows the difference in how Vertical Compression (VC) lenses work vs. their Horizontal Expansion (HE) counterparts, and the other the difference between pincushion and barrel distortion. I find that illustrating these concepts visually is much more effective than trying to explain them via text (plus its an excuse to post Godzilla and Star Trek images).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	lens distortion.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	169.0 KB
ID:	234961   Click image for larger version

Name:	VC vs HE Lens.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	229.5 KB
ID:	234969  

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 offline  
post #69 of 89 Old 08-29-2014, 10:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Thanks for the info John. Just a question. Won't the VC lens require him to compromise 16:9 quality by leaving the lens in place if he does not want to zoom the picture substantially when switching? Unless I am missing something it looks like the VC lens is compressing the 2.35:1 image to same width it has in 16:9 mode, so the picture would have to be zoomed out to get the image framed on his extended 2.35:1 screen. Then zoomed back in to watch 16:9 content without throwing away resolution (which is the majority of his viewing). Wouldn't an HE lens on a slide have been the best solution solution? Am I missing something?

jeahrens is offline  
post #70 of 89 Old 08-29-2014, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Thanks for the info John. Just a question. Won't the VC lens require him to compromise 16:9 quality by leaving the lens in place if he does not want to zoom the picture substantially when switching? Unless I am missing something it looks like the VC lens is compressing the 2.35:1 image to same width it has in 16:9 mode, so the picture would have to be zoomed out to get the image framed on his extended 2.35:1 screen. Then zoomed back in to watch 16:9 content without throwing away resolution (which is the majority of his viewing). Wouldn't an HE lens on a slide have been the best solution solution? Am I missing something?
No, you are not really missing anything. Since most of his viewing is 16:9, most of the time he can leave the lens out of the light path. Cgott42 says he will watch Scope films maybe two or three times a month, so most of the time the lens remains off.

When he DOES want to watch Scope, he can move the lens into place and either A) zoom the image in to fill his "patched" 2.35:1 screen for Constant Image Height (which is exactly what he would do if just zooming anyway), or B) move the lens into place and enjoy a much brighter 2.35:1 image on his 16:9 screen for Constant Image Width (if he doesn't want to hassle with attaching the "wings" or mess with zoom). The advantage of "A" over standard zooming is that the picture will be a good 20 - 30% brighter, plus the black bars will be gone rather than projected above and below. The advantage of "B" is a 30% brighter, more impressive Scope Constant Image Width picture than standard letterbox, and again, no projected letterbox bars. Since going to Scope means attaching screen "wings" to achieve Constant Image Height, moving the lens and zooming is the least of the hassles

Yes, leaving the lens in place all the time means compromised quality for 16:9 sources, but of course that is true for both VC and HE designs. With both you will need a transport, so a wash. (A quick note. Yes, leaving a lens in place for 16:9 does mean reduced resolution in the horizontal for 16:9 sources - a resolution of 1440 x 1080 vs. 1920 x 1080. However, the biggest noticeable difference is a reduction in overall brightness, as resolution remains the same vertically, where human beings perceive most detail. On the upside, with the lens in place both 16:9 and Scope material have the same brightness per unit area.)

The benefits of an HE lens are not having to zoom to fill the larger screen and the ability to be used at shorter throw distances. Of course, with today's lens memory projectors, the zoom is handled automatically anyway. A VC lens with transport makes a great companion to a projector with lens memory, since (as I mentioned before) with this type of system you get the brightness benefit of zooming plus the brightness benefit of the lens (plus of course the elimination of projected letterbox bars). You really do end up with about a 30% brighter image than just zooming. Of course, cgott42 does not have a lens memory projector, so he will need to zoom manually.

If cgott42 had a true 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen and could have found a high quality HE lens for $500, for sure I would have pointed him in that direction, if only because he would not have to manually zoom. It was the combination of having a (primarily) 16:9 screen, a long throw, and the availability of a high quality VC lens for $500. The FVX200 will certainly have better picture quality than the HTB lens (in fact, better in many ways than most HE lenses).

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 offline  
post #71 of 89 Old 08-29-2014, 12:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Good info! Just making sure I was thinking correctly. Since scope viewing is few and far between, it's probably not a dealbreaker. My former DLP had no lens shift, whereas the BenQ does. So in his case this should be feasible (though I haven't really looked at the throw capabilities on that unit).

I have no doubt that lens will provide a better picture than an inexpensive HE lens.

jeahrens is offline  
post #72 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I received the lens, also came with a custom built slide .
However it seems that with the lens in front of the projector that the half of the image is being projected onto the ceiling. I made sure the lens is level but it seems that the lens projects it higher? Note my projector is shelf mounted and the slide sits on a platform which attachs to the bottom of the projector.


thx
cgott42 is online now  
post #73 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 10:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Flip it over. And it should not necessarily be "level", what you want is to adjust the tilt so that the barrel distortion is even at the top and bottom of the image.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #74 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 11:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Flip it over. And it should not necessarily be "level", what you want is to adjust the tilt so that the barrel distortion is even at the top and bottom of the image.
Gotcha, I'll have to find a way to flip (as it's on a shelf)
Also - what do you mean by barrel distortion
cgott42 is online now  
post #75 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgott42 View Post
Gotcha, I'll have to find a way to flip (as it's on a shelf)
Also - what do you mean by barrel distortion
See post 68 above.

The lens should be tilt-able. You want to make sure it's tilted to match the angle of the light beam.

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 offline  
post #76 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 12:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgott42 View Post
Gotcha, I'll have to find a way to flip (as it's on a shelf)
Also - what do you mean by barrel distortion
My old Panamorph P752 had a wing bolt on each side, you just take those out and flip the lens over in the stand and screw it back in. It was the same bolts that set the height and the tilt.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #77 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 12:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
See post 68 above.

The lens should be tilt-able. You want to make sure it's tilted to match the angle of the light beam.
Yep, it's tiltable, do you mean as I tilt it to match the light beam it should reduce the barrel distortion?
cgott42 is online now  
post #78 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 12:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
My old Panamorph P752 had a wing bolt on each side, you just take those out and flip the lens over in the stand and screw it back in. It was the same bolts that set the height and the tilt.
thanks , I can unscrw it and flip it, but it won't fit on the lens sled - see pic
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Proj with lens sled.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	201.4 KB
ID:	287809  
cgott42 is online now  
post #79 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgott42 View Post
Yep, it's tiltable, do you mean as I tilt it to match the light beam it should reduce the barrel distortion?
Exactly.

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 offline  
post #80 of 89 Old 09-30-2014, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgott42 View Post
thanks , I can unscrw it and flip it, but it won't fit on the lens sled - see pic
Looks like you can just flip the lens over by removing the two thumbscrews on either side. You can also try raising the projector an inch or so.

One thing I'm concerned about. Is your projector centered left and right to the screen? Looks like you have extremely limited space in which to mount the projector. Making sure the projector is horizontally centered to the screen is vital for an anamorphic lens (up and down lens shift is ok).

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 offline  
post #81 of 89 Old 10-01-2014, 08:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I tried it this morning (very quickly) but initial info/reactions:
tilting the lens enough to get the image on the screen results in massive keystone issues
I couldn't see any barrel distortions (regardless of lens tilt) :-)
A/B comparison of image with /without lens (ignoring keystone) - was favorable - I first tried with the lens in - and immediately thought hey that looks nicer, more pop. Then I moved the lens away and replayed the scene - wasn't bad at all and I definitely liked it, and when looking at it without the lens began to question the difference. But again, the fact that my initial reaction - was "hey, cool" probably means there is a diff. Will be testing more (it was really only a 10 sec comparison).

Regarding lens positioning / sled issue:
yep, the proj. is mounted to middle of screen (side wall that you see is actually the middle of the room - as back has indent from equip closet)
However, I can't flip the lens as when I try the tall part of the lens bangs against the sled . Will try by moving projector higher perhaps that will give me room to move the lens up and then be able to flip...
cgott42 is online now  
post #82 of 89 Old 10-02-2014, 12:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
thanks, after putting a board under the projector (raising it about 3/4") I was able to move the lens higher and thus have room to turn it upside down so it projects nicely on the screen.

As I shifted the actual lens of the projector itself up and down I noticed that when I had it in the middle it seemed brightest - is that to be expected?
re: the VC lens - when I set the projector to letterbox mode and slide the VC lens in front of the projector the image didn't fill the full width of the screen (I had to zoom in) - is that to be expected? - no big deal, just wondering
cgott42 is online now  
post #83 of 89 Old 10-03-2014, 05:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Is it close? I seem to recall my P752 would effectively extend the throw a few inches meaning the zoom on the projector needed a little different with the lens in place. But then again I never moved that lens so I don't remember very well.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #84 of 89 Old 10-03-2014, 06:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Pretty close - definitely noticeable that the image is not reaching the border - probably about 2-3" on each side
cgott42 is online now  
post #85 of 89 Old 10-04-2014, 11:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Can you take a picture and post it here?
John Schuermann is offline  
post #86 of 89 Old 12-10-2014, 10:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
cgott42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Spring Valley, NY USA
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Can you take a picture and post it here?
How do I take pictures of the image on my screen - when I do it doesn't look like the actual image, whereas I see others on the forum post excellent pics of their screen image?

Also - for a further update - I ended up "solving" my dual 16x9 / 2.35 "needs". Currently I have a motorized 106" 16x9 screen recessed into the ceiling, so when I watch 2.35 - I'm "only" getting a 100" - so, I put up a 2x4 on the ceiling and covered it in black velvet (thus it serves as the top border of the screen) - and put velcro along the back of the 2x4. SeymourAV sells their AT XD material in 96" width, so 10' of it costs $220 + s&h - so I split it with someone (48" x 120" each) , added velcro to the top (not easy to sew and avoid the material "bunching" up) , sewed the bottom over and bought a 10 foot pipe for a weightbar ($10 in HD) and have a 120" 2.35 screen for $150. As mentioned I only watch 2.35 material once (maybe 2x) a month. so I keep the screen rolled up and stored away, and when I watch the monthly blockbuster I take it out and attach it to the 2x4.
Asthetically , things look good. Hassle-wise - it takes me ~1 min to set up and another to take down. Being that my projector is shelf mounted where I can reach it (low ceiling room) - no problem to adjust the position of the lens. And I have a 20% larger screen.

As for the lens itself, I have had a month to use it - overall I'm happy with the purchase - as when I zoom in the spill over was very distracting. As for PQ - I don't see any issues. The only Q is whether I should have gone with a HE lens, and I'm guessing yes, but (a) I got a good price on this VC lens and (b) I'm looking forward to John's compressed space format which will be using VC lens (if / when it comes to fruition). I've tried leaving the lens in place while watching 16x9 material (after setting the project to project in 4x3) - and it also looks fine - however without being able to point to something specific - I prefer the non-lens image - If I had to guess I think that with the lens in place the outer parts of the image are not as sharp- just a layperson impression.
Again - tell me how to take pics, so I can post
thx!

Overall
cgott42 is online now  
post #87 of 89 Unread Today, 12:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
A couple of points:

While the aspect ratio of movies released is about 50 / 50 in terms of aspect ratio, when you look at the top grossing (i.e., most popular films), the percentage changes to about 75% in 2.35:1 / 2.40:1. Check your own personal collection and see how they shake out.

Jeahrens is correct - don't worry about the difference between 2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1. The transfers themselves are all over the place when it comes to aspect ratio. Zoom a little into the surround and you are set.

An HTB lens has considerably more chromatic aberration than the FVX200, plus is not astigmatism corrected. With the FVX200 you have less than a pixel's worth chromatic aberration at the top and bottom extremes, with the HTB you have almost 3 pixels width CA at the left and right. If you had an LCOS or LCD projector that had color correction, you could dial this out. DLP models like the BenQ don't have color correction so there is no way to get rid of the aberration. While you can't dial out the aberration on the FVX200 either, it has less than 1/3 the CA of the HTB. Like I mentioned, it is less than one pixel at the extremes and almost impossible to see with any type of video content you choose to throw at it.

RE: astigmatism. The FVX200 is fully astigmatism corrected, which means that focus is corrected in both the vertical and horizontal. The HTB lens has no astigmatism correction, so sharp focus in one plane means soft focus in the other.

In theory and in practice, a vertical compression lens actually will outperform any horizontal expansion lens in terms of sharpness and brightness (compressing light is always more efficient that expanding it). This is even true when comparing the FVX200 to Panamorph's top of the line DC1, at more than three times the price (new, that is). There ARE complications, though. Since a compression lens makes the image shorter rather than wider, you will need to zoom the projector along with moving the lens into place in order to fill your larger screen (unless you want to leave the lens in place all the time, but as pointed out earlier, that means lower resolution 16:9 content). The other "complication" is that vertical compression lenses create barrel distortion instead of pincushion, so you should never pair them with a curved screen. Since you are going with a flat pull-down, that really should not make any difference.

I post all of this because many people are confused as to how vertical compression lenses work, and think that they are inferior to their horizontal expansion brethren. They are actually superior in most ways, other than ease of use.
I just got my VC lens from another forum member (a whitney model). It is incredibly clear and really nice, there is some minor CA but I'm not sure if it's worth correcting with my shader, it's barely noticeable. But anyway, the increase in sharpness and fidelity, especially when I played back the final battle scene from The Avengers, was pretty cool. I ran it through MPC-HC and used the best upscaling filters to do the vertical stretching in my HTPC instead of my cheap projector, through I suppose it'll be nice to compare the two.

VC lens' major drawback AFAIK is the fact that it's basically impractical to build a convex screen to correct the barell distortion, whereas an HE lens setup can he combined with a curved screen that you can buy quite easily (or make youself, as you well know). I'm going to also try and add barell and pincushion distortion correction shaders if I can't find any out there. It should be fairly straightforward to code that with some help from wikipedia to figure out what formula to use

Now I just have to figure out a way to build a retractable mechanism for my "supposed to be used in a fixed setup" VC lens. I watch about 50-50 16:9 to 2.35 : 1 material, plus I play games and many don't play well with ultrawide resolutions.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
post #88 of 89 Unread Today, 01:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 1,361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I just got my VC lens from another forum member (a whitney model). It is incredibly clear and really nice, there is some minor CA but I'm not sure if it's worth correcting with my shader, it's barely noticeable. But anyway, the increase in sharpness and fidelity, especially when I played back the final battle scene from The Avengers, was pretty cool. I ran it through MPC-HC and used the best upscaling filters to do the vertical stretching in my HTPC instead of my cheap projector, through I suppose it'll be nice to compare the two.

VC lens' major drawback AFAIK is the fact that it's basically impractical to build a convex screen to correct the barell distortion, whereas an HE lens setup can he combined with a curved screen that you can buy quite easily (or make youself, as you well know). I'm going to also try and add barell and pincushion distortion correction shaders if I can't find any out there. It should be fairly straightforward to code that with some help from wikipedia to figure out what formula to use

Now I just have to figure out a way to build a retractable mechanism for my "supposed to be used in a fixed setup" VC lens. I watch about 50-50 16:9 to 2.35 : 1 material, plus I play games and many don't play well with ultrawide resolutions.
Actually, the biggest drawback with a VC lens is that you need a longer throw than an HE lens.

Have you tried reversing and rotating the Whitney to see how it looks as an HE lens ?

*********************
Kirk Ellis
JVC DLA-RS1 VuTec 122" Screen
Harmon Kardon AVR 247 Parasound L&R Amp
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center
Energy Take 5 Surrounds, HSU Research Sub
dreamer is offline  
post #89 of 89 Unread Today, 07:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
Actually, the biggest drawback with a VC lens is that you need a longer throw than an HE lens.

Have you tried reversing and rotating the Whitney to see how it looks as an HE lens ?
Yeah I tried that briefly while just holding up the lens in front of my projector, I was getting some vignetting in both orientation until I put the zoom to minimum, then it was fine and crystal clear. The glass on this is great, though there was some CA.

Regarding the throw ratio, having to reduce the zoom to avoid vignetting means I do have to move my projector back a foot or two to achieve the same screen width, but that's fine since I have a huge room and lots of flexibility. Originally I put the projector at the closest zoom (greatest), so I could have the lowest throw ratio, but then I decided to just install it where I did. Now I have to drill a couple more holes in my vaulted ceiling, no biggie. At least the BenQ w1070 works with this lens, I was worried that it wouldn't work at all perhaps because it has a recessed lens of maybe just the throw ratio is too low (1.3). Also, putting the projector back a couple feet might mean I need less vertical lens shift would be needed to put the image at the height I like, which could maybe improve the situation since I was at the max. My ceiling is really high, like 13 feet, and I'm projecting currently a 138 inch diagonal 16:9 image on my wall (I prefer it to the Elite screen I had before, actually, but I might do something with painted walls eventually). I have a 12 inch extension tube to my projector mount which is really solid but I didn't want to have the projector any lower since it would stick out more. My ceiling is so high I can't even touch the projector unless I jump, I like that, since I don't have to worry about any accidental collisions since the PJ is directly over my head. Putting it back a couple feet would be a good thing, anyway, so it's all good.

But now I have to figure out how to make a sliding lens mount so I can take it out of the light path. I'm typing this in 4:3 mode just to see what the shrink method would look like, in terms of crispness, and it's not too bad but text isn't as clear. Also my image size is quite a bit smaller, although maybe I could use a bit of zoom with the lens permanently on, to get back some of the size I will lose in 16:9. What would be ideal is a motorized system, but I have no clue how to build one myself and already so many side projects that it would have to wait a while.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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