ISCO 3 Anamorphic Lense. - Page 3 - AVS Forum
1  2  3
Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP > ISCO 3 Anamorphic Lense.
elmalloc's Avatar elmalloc 06:23 AM 11-18-2009
I also recall GetGray saying the ISCO3 would not work with my Sim2, yet many others on the forum said it would...lol. Everyone's opinion is respected, just have to be careful passing opinion as fact...

We're always stuck in the upgrade game, projector technology changes yearly (if not faster). Be glad you stuck yourself to the ISCO3 now, doubt you will need to change that for a long time. That's a shame to box an ISCO3 when there are many of us who would gladly use it, LOL!

-ELmO

Jason Turk's Avatar Jason Turk 08:23 AM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

Thanks Jason and coldmachine...it's good to know there's still a interested in lenses given the zooming following that's building. How do you think the new panny ae4000 would work with a IIIL? To do or not to do...that is the question?

Well it certainly wouldn't hurt the image! Seeing as you own the ISCO and the Panny, I would use it. It overall (and I do understand the pros and cons to zooming vs. lens) would yield a superior result.
gpshumway's Avatar gpshumway 01:23 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

As Mark says, the ISCO is the single piece of your home theater that you will never have to upgrade.

Buy it once, and keep it forever.

Contrast this to the constant upgrades of the other components in your HT that are required to maintain technical currency....

Vern

That's what I thought when I bought my ISCO II. Then they came out with the ISCO III. Diminishing returns perhaps, but there will always be something better coming out. Lenses are more durable than projectors, but forever is a long time.

Off the top of my head, a lens with a compact pass-through mode like the Prismasonic combined with the quality of an ISCO III would be a compelling product. I find the sled systems inelegant and preposterously expensive.

How much will an ISCO III be worth on the used market the day after a PJ manufacturer announces a 1080x2560 projector?

Kevin1965S -
Was it my ISCO II that you bought perhaps? Did you get a free T-Shirt with purchase? It's good to hear you're satisfied with it in any case.
Kelvin1965S's Avatar Kelvin1965S 02:06 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post

Kevin1965S -
Was it my ISCO II that you bought perhaps? Did you get a free T-Shirt with purchase? It's good to hear you're satisfied with it in any case.

Hi, the lens I bought was owned by a chap over on the UK Avforums, he bought it about 5-6 months ago from 'Bert Coules' and I missed out on buying it that time....so I jumped in quickly this time. I'm very pleased with the lens, though my very long throw certainly helps to get the best out of it.
tbase1's Avatar tbase1 03:33 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Well it certainly wouldn't hurt the image! Seeing as you own the ISCO and the Panny, I would use it. It overall (and I do understand the pros and cons to zooming vs. lens) would yield a superior result.

Jason...I'll very pleased that you think my new setup will net superior results and I'll be sure to post some pictures or thoughts when I get it setup. Thank you...as I said before I value your direction.
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar JOHNnDENVER 04:36 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

John, remember we had this same argument when HDTVs first started rolling around.

"Well I'm buying the Toshiba because it displays stretched out low-res 4x3 content better than the rest, but it's HD content is not completely up to par with this hitachi."

Do you choose having the best for the best (a minority of the time, for you maybe) - or the best for the worst (a majority of the time). I presonally am striving for the best for the best.

It's a different argument but when we had worries of displaying 4x3 low res content and stretching it to be watchable, some of us (myself included) opted to care more about the best signal instead of the worst.

-ELmO

Well, I am and always have been an OAR guy... My wife and are old movie buffs, 4:3 just happens to be native on those titles. My thinking is, try to get the overall best that suits your viewing habits best.

I am width limited as well in my theater, I mean I can't go any wider than I am now with a 16:9 screen anyways.

I did do a workable masking system. I can mask 2.35 as well as 4:3....
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar JOHNnDENVER 04:43 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Of course BluRay can benefit from using a lens.....that's 95% plus of my PJ viewing.



Maybe it's less critical for your viewing if it's only 1/3, whereas I find my taste in films seems to mean that I'm watching maybe 90% 2.35:1 content when I use my PJ. Hence I prefer to prioritise getting maximum quality for 2.35:1 viewing by using the lens and scaler.



That's alright......watching any films on an AE1000 drove me bonkers. There are workrounds, such as some players that allow subtitle shifting, but I agree that it could be an issue.

At this point, I am just glad I have not had any issues with my AE1000... Knock on wood.
gpshumway's Avatar gpshumway 09:40 PM 11-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Hi, the lens I bought was owned by a chap over on the UK Avforums, he bought it about 5-6 months ago from 'Bert Coules' and I missed out on buying it that time....so I jumped in quickly this time. I'm very pleased with the lens, though my very long throw certainly helps to get the best out of it.

Wow. I think you do have my old lens. I sold it to Bert about a year ago. That lens is now on its 5th owner!
Kelvin1965S's Avatar Kelvin1965S 01:59 AM 11-19-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post

Wow. I think you do have my old lens. I sold it to Bert about a year ago. That lens is now on its 5th owner!

Blimey.....I ought to hang onto it for a while as it's probably feeling a bit unloved.
elmalloc's Avatar elmalloc 03:48 AM 11-19-2009
He said BLIMEY!
Jason Turk's Avatar Jason Turk 08:04 AM 11-19-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

Jason...I'll very pleased that you think my new setup will net superior results and I'll be sure to post some pictures or thoughts when I get it setup. Thank you...as I said before I value your direction.

Please do! Thanks!
tbase1's Avatar tbase1 07:29 PM 11-19-2009
I get my 4K tomorrow. I think I might move the projector closer then where my ruby was (17') to 14' before adding the 3L.
Jason Turk's Avatar Jason Turk 07:31 PM 11-19-2009
Closer means more light, but it also means a larger exiting light path, so potentially more pincushion. You'll have to experiment.
mark haflich's Avatar mark haflich 09:37 PM 11-19-2009
The fall off in light intensity is expotential as one moves away fromthe closest throw. Once one moves back say a few feet from the closest throw the light intensity is almost as low as it would be at the longest throw. Moving the projector from the longest throw will quickly increase pin cushioning. Its not a potential. It will happen as anyone whohas installed many anamorphics surely knows. But you can simply overscan to hide the pin cushioning as well as those portions of the picture residing within the overscan. Nofree lunch/.a curved screen willdoa lot toreduce pincushioning.All in all, one really needs to place a projector with an anamorphic at close to the longest throw. Miid throw placement simply won`t gain enough additional illumination to offset the additional pin cushioning. My 10 pennies. Blackjack.
Deja Vu's Avatar Deja Vu 08:16 AM 11-20-2009
I've got 2 anamorphic lenses. They're both for sale cheap - just PM me. What a complete waste of money these things are unless you have a 15 to 20 foot wide screen (and then it's a maybe).
bgosselin's Avatar bgosselin 02:12 PM 11-20-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I've got 2 anamorphic lenses. They're both for sale cheap - just PM me. What a complete waste of money these things are unless you have a 15 to 20 foot wide screen (and then it's a maybe).


What lens do you have.
ilsiu's Avatar ilsiu 02:28 PM 11-20-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I've got 2 anamorphic lenses. They're both for sale cheap - just PM me. What a complete waste of money these things are unless you have a 15 to 20 foot wide screen (and then it's a maybe).

What a sales pitch
tbase1's Avatar tbase1 03:45 PM 11-20-2009
Jason, Is a 25' throw on a 8' wide screen using a isco 3L through a panny 4K doable? My throw currently is 17' from the screen. My thought is to mount my lens in the back wall of my theater, but don't have to if it does look like it would work.
mark haflich's Avatar mark haflich 04:07 PM 11-20-2009
Its a screw ball fork slider change up. At least he didn`t offer anyone money to get then off his hands.
tbase1's Avatar tbase1 02:20 PM 11-21-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Please do! Thanks!

Oh well....I finally got around to setting up my isco 3L and my 4k....and all I have to say is WOW Right out of the box with no adjustments what so ever to the 4k and it looks pretty good. The below is my setup right now and scaler question.

samsung up5000 > onkyo sr605 > VP50 > panny 4K > isco 3L > 8' wide stewart videomatte 200 scope screen @ 17' from face of 3L to screen.

I built a lens sled, but reallly want a fix setup. My 16x9 to scope screen material fits great, however, my scope material is what I need to adjust to fit the screen with the lens on using the scaler. I would rather use the scaler instead of the zoom of the panny to fit the scope material to the scope screen....If you guys could help in anyway that would be great. I'm still playing so who knows I might have this within the hour. The 4K lens fits like a glove in the back of the 3L ( 1/2" from lens to lens ). I'll post some pic.'s before Cal. and after Cal.
elmalloc's Avatar elmalloc 04:58 AM 11-22-2009
I remember reading that post in the other forum did you copy and paste the same reply LOL!
tbase1's Avatar tbase1 09:45 AM 11-22-2009
Wanted to make sure It got wide coverage.
GetGray's Avatar GetGray 05:09 PM 11-23-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

I also recall GetGray saying the ISCO3 would not work with my Sim2, yet many others on the forum said it would...lol. Everyone's opinion is respected, just have to be careful passing opinion as fact...

We're always stuck in the upgrade game, projector technology changes yearly (if not faster). Be glad you stuck yourself to the ISCO3 now, doubt you will need to change that for a long time. That's a shame to box an ISCO3 when there are many of us who would gladly use it, LOL!

-ELmO

I haven't read the whole thread, just saw this post. My apologies in advance if this is out of context. What I remember was based on a TR you gave me in a PM and I SAID that it would not work well at your short throw ratio and that PJ. Not that it woudl not work with that PJ. We sell a lot of them, I've fairly reliable as a SME on the lens. I can send you to someone with a longer TR and a similar Sim2 who is had vignettinng problems with a T1 lens and a short TR if you like to arrange to go see it yourself. Now if you have revised your TR it's a new ballgame.
elmalloc's Avatar elmalloc 05:19 PM 10-07-2011
I know this thread is old, but I'm surprised I didn't mention I successfully use the Panamorph UH480 with the projector. Temporary setup below, 180"+ 2.37 image from 17 ft away, there is pincushioning. Hard to convince myself to lose half a ft of width to clean up the geometry...


misterkit's Avatar misterkit 06:20 PM 10-07-2011
Very nice...very nice indeed
edfowler's Avatar edfowler 12:09 AM 11-07-2012
I think the pincushioning looks pretty cool
Glenn Baumann's Avatar Glenn Baumann 09:28 AM 11-07-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

I know this thread is old, but I'm surprised I didn't mention I successfully use the Panamorph UH480 with the projector. Temporary setup below, 180"+ 2.37 image from 17 ft away, there is pincushioning. Hard to convince myself to lose half a ft of width to clean up the geometry...


What projector are you using? confused.gif


...Glenn smile.gif
1  2  3

Up
Mobile  Desktop