JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 145 Old 02-24-2012, 12:48 PM
Member
 
boothman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Well aware, I have owned both. Craig would not have a problem lighting up a 120" diagonal 2.35 Enlightor 4K screen with his RS55, especially when he uses the A-lens.

Do you think 133" diagonal 2.35 Enlightor 4K would also work well on the JVC's or is that pushing it, especially for 3D?
boothman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 145 Old 02-24-2012, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

a higher gain screen would be nice, but i'm not willing to give up acoustic transparency to get it.

Craig

+1
Cam Man is online now  
post #33 of 145 Old 02-24-2012, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post


A higher gain screen would be nice, but I'm not willing to give up acoustic transparency to get it.

Craig

There is always high lamp mode.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #34 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 01:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Obviously, neither an A-lens nor lens memory can "add" any brightness or image detail to the original image. Both an A-lens and lens memory will negatively impact the image for both brightness and detail. The A-lens + anamorphic scaling will have *less* of an impact on brightness and detail than lens memory with zooming.

How on earth could zooming have a negative effect on detail??? Compared to what? And how could an a-lens have less of an impact on detail compared to zooming? The best thing an a-lens can ever hope of achieveing with regards to detail is not to subtract any compared to zooming. It can never add detail.

Pixel visibility is another thing that might be an advantage in a particular setup.
Drexler is offline  
post #35 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 08:51 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

How on earth could zooming have a negative effect on detail???

Whenever you make an image bigger, you loose brightness. With less brightness, you loose detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Compared to what? And how could an a-lens have less of an impact on detail compared to zooming? The best thing an a-lens can ever hope of achieveing with regards to detail is not to subtract any compared to zooming. It can never add detail.

Less subtraction is *not* addition. The A-lens retains more of the original brightness. Along with that brightness, the A-lens retains more of the original detail. It doesn't "add" anything. It subtracts less.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #36 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Whenever you make an image bigger, you loose brightness. With less brightness, you loose detail.


Less subtraction is *not* addition. The A-lens retains more of the original brightness. Along with that brightness, the A-lens retains more of the original detail. It doesn't "add" anything. It subtracts less.

Craig

Not if you have decent brightness to start with. If you're really starved for brightness you might have a point. But with a decent set-up this is absolutely a non-issue. And just to point out - you don't really loose any detail, it's just harder to make out in a dimmer picture. But I contend that the difference in brightness is negligible.

Zooming vs. a-lens doesn't make that much of a difference to start with. The lens gives you 33% more lighted pixels, but zooming in gives you more light as well. In the end you might get an addition 0-20% from the lens depending on set-up. However, your eyes react on a log scale so the perceived difference is minuscule. In my setup I couldn't tell the difference in brightness with or without and isco lens. What I could see was the pincushioning from the lens.
Drexler is offline  
post #37 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:31 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Not if you have decent brightness to start with. If you're really starved for brightness you might have a point. But with a decent set-up this is absolutely a non-issue. And just to point out - you don't really loose any detail, it's just harder to make out in a dimmer picture. But I contend that the difference in brightness is negligible.

Zooming vs. a-lens doesn't make that much of a difference to start with. The lens gives you 33% more lighted pixels, but zooming in gives you more light as well. In the end you might get an addition 0-20% from the lens depending on set-up. However, your eyes react on a log scale so the perceived difference is minuscule. In my setup I couldn't tell the difference in brightness with or without and isco lens. What I could see was the pincushioning from the lens.

I am only reporting what the 3 of us saw. We all saw less of a decrease in brightness, and a concomitant reduced reduction in detail. If you see differently, that's great.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #38 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Well, a/b it and don't give your eyes time to adapt and you might see a small difference. However, shift to a High Power screen and you would see a MUCH bigger difference than any lens will give you. And nobody is saying that the high power screen gives you more detail than for instance a Studiotek...

Therefore I think it is wrong to state that the lens gives you more detail. It doesn't. It might give you slightly more brightness and less pixel visibility, but that's it. Any difference in visible detail is solely a factor of brightness and shouldn't therefore be differentiated from the brightness. IMO
Drexler is offline  
post #39 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:57 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Well, a/b it and don't give your eyes time to adapt and you might see a small difference. However, shift to a High Power screen and you would see a MUCH bigger difference than any lens will give you. And nobody is saying that the high power screen gives you more detail than for instance a Studiotek...

Therefore I think it is wrong to state that the lens gives you more detail. It doesn't. It might give you slightly more brightness and less pixel visibility, but that's it. Any difference in visible detail is solely a factor of brightness and shouldn't therefore be differentiated from the brightness. IMO

Are you saying we didn't see what we saw?

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #40 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I think pincushion is so negligible with an "A" lens if its setup correctly and a long throw. Remember all scope films are first shot with an "A" lens in front of the camera, they too add barrel distortion to the print anyway, its still there even if you don't use an "A" lens to project.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #41 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I think pincushion is so negligible with an "A" lens if its setup correctly and a long throw. Remember all scope films are first shot with an "A" lens in front of the camera, they too add barrel distortion to the print anyway, its still there even if you don't use an "A" lens to project.

Anamorphically shot films(with an A-Lens) are few and far between, less than 600 or so have ever been shot this way.

Most modern wide screen films are matte shot with less detail density than their 16:9 counterparts based on projected image size(CIH for example)

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #42 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Anamorphically shot films(with an A-Lens) are few and far between, less than 600 or so have ever been shot this way.

Most modern wide screen films are matte shot with less detail density than their 16:9 counterparts based on projected image size(CIH for example)

I wonder what your countrymen directors of photography what they think of that (Pete Menzies, Dean Semler, Don McAlpine, etc). There has been a big surge of anamorphic shot features over the last decade, and they are extremely popular right now. If you walk into Panavision Woodland Hills, you won't find many anamorphics on the shelves; they're all out on shoots. It is the "cool" way to shoot these days. Strangely enough, some TV commercials are being shot anamorphic. Panavision has had to add two new series of anamorphic lenses plus special versions of them (high flare, etc) to meet the demands of directors who want to exploit the unique optical characteristics. Personally, I think they get carried away with it, but that's the way it is right now.

Yes, the majority of films to be released anamorphic are shot Super-35. And you would think that the advent of digital cinema cameras would put anamorphics to bed, but not so. Hawk makes a line of 1.3x anamorphics, and Arri (and others) are introducing 4K (or more) sensors that have an aspect ratio that will support traditional 2x anamorphics.

So, anamorphic content is here and is going to keep coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I think pincushion is so negligible with an "A" lens if its setup correctly and a long throw. Remember all scope films are first shot with an "A" lens in front of the camera, they too add barrel distortion to the print anyway, its still there even if you don't use an "A" lens to project.

With all due respect, this is way too generalized to be accurate. Anamorphics are very complex lenses with things going on mechanically and optically that do not happen in spherical lenses. All of that complexity is necessary to make sure that (for all normal focal lengths) what you describe does not happen in a camera lens. It is reflected in their cost/value. Take a look at the cost (or insured value in the case of Panavision) of a set of good amamorphic lenses (Hawk or Panavision) compared to sphericals. They are spectacularly expensive.

That said, anamorphics are inherently inferior lenses compared to spherical lenses. A couple of decades ago when I was about to work with anamorphic the first time, I went to Panavision and they gave me a wonderful education. Many of the lenses from the 80s and 90s still used today struggle to maintain sharpness to the edges of the screen. The Panavision Primo Anamorphics are engineering marvels as they go a huge way to overcome the weaknesses of those earlier designs and rival many fine spherical cinema lenses. The newer anamorphic series have continued that, but the Primos still reign supreme. The Hawks are also very good.

Anamorphic projection lenses don't ever have to change focal lengths or distance, so they are far less complex. Really good glass and coatings are needed. If they don't breath significantly when focused, that is a very good thing, too.

You are right in that pincusion is not really a factor with the long throws in a commercial cinema. Obviously, if the available real estate in a home theater room drives a short throw, there is going to be more pincussion.
Cam Man is online now  
post #43 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 08:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I was only ever referring to spherical lenses when chatting about an "A" lens. My throw is 6M, if there is any pincushion its absolutely impossible to tell 100% when playing a movie.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #44 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I was only ever referring to spherical lenses when chatting about an "A" lens. My throw is 6M, if there is any pincushion its absolutely impossible to tell 100% when playing a movie.

That's about mine (a Panamorph HE), and I find it the same as you describe. What lens do you use?
Cam Man is online now  
post #45 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 09:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I wonder what your countrymen directors of photography what they think of that (Pete Menzies, Dean Semler, Don McAlpine, etc). There has been a big surge of anamorphic shot features over the last decade, and they are extremely popular right now. If you walk into Panavision Woodland Hills, you won't find many anamorphics on the shelves; they're all out on shoots. It is the "cool" way to shoot these days. Strangely enough, some TV commercials are being shot anamorphic. Panavision has had to add two new series of anamorphic lenses plus special versions of them (high flare, etc) to meet the demands of directors who want to exploit the unique optical characteristics. Personally, I think they get carried away with it, but that's the way it is right now.

Yes, the majority of films to be released anamorphic are shot Super-35. And you would think that the advent of digital cinema cameras would put anamorphics to bed, but not so. Hawk makes a line of 1.3x anamorphics, and Arri (and others) are introducing 4K (or more) sensors that have an aspect ratio that will support traditional 2x anamorphics.

So, anamorphic content is here and is going to keep coming.

Good information, thanks.

What percentage would you say as to modern film/digital anamorphic productions being true Anamorphically shot vs Matte shot?

Does one refer a matte framed 2.35:1 as an anamorphic production?

Thanks.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #46 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

That's about mine (a Panamorph HE), and I find it the same as you describe. What lens do you use?

I used to zoom before buying a Schneider Cine-Digitar 1.33x M
RapalloAV is online now  
post #47 of 145 Old 02-25-2012, 10:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Putting an A-lens into the light path of your projector will add geometric distortions, chromatic aberrations, decreases ANSI contrast and MTF which results in a softer picture.

Any gain in light output will be very small and easily countered by a slight increase in iris opening. Since JVC's E-shift effectively eliminates pixel structure the finer pixel structure provided by the upscaled anamorphic A-lens picture is negated.

If the viewing angle is large enough for the pixel structure of a normal 1080 LCoS projector to be visible image quality will be soft and compromised, there is just not enough resolution in the source to support such a wide viewing angle no matter what projector or lens is used.

Any direct comparison of A-lens to a zoomed image is very difficult and would really require two identical projectors as each will need to be set up differentially to attain optimal performance. I would want to add upscaling followed by downscaling into the processing path of the zoom system to get the smoothing effect the upscaling provides in the A-lens system. Simply sliding an A-lens into the light path and switching the projector to anamorphic mode does not provide a valid comparison of zoom to A-lens performance so should be ignored.
Owen is offline  
post #48 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 02:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Those are all theoretical cons for having a lens, and aren't perceptible in real terms. With a good lens, none of those cons are visible and when measured are very small to make them inconsequential.

However, zooming does have a visible affect which is like moving your seating 33% closer (none of the A lens 'cons' make a 33% difference to any part of an image). If you already like to sit at THX recommended seating distances (2.4 x SH = 53 degree viewing angle for scope), or even as close as SMPTEs minumum (2 x SH or 61 degrees for scope IIRC), then zooming those pixels 33% larger has a visible degradation in image quality compared to using an A lens.

When you use the zoom on a projector, you reduce on/off contrast just like you do with an A lens, so that cancels out. CA is also very small and invisible on a good lens, whereas zooming can also highlight any CA that exists in the primary lens. MTF is also very small. Using more of a prime lens may also have impact on the image (ANSI) depending on the lens and which parts of it are being used. Good A lenses are of higher quality than many prime lenses, that's why they often cost more than the projector they're being used with (which means the prime lens is very cheap, not ignoring the fact it is comparatively 'mass produced' compared to an A lens)

So, both methods have pros and cons, and when compared back back, quite often you'll find people prefer the A lens. That's why they spend the money on the extra lens - they see an improvement when compared to zooming.

One guy I know with a JVC bought an ISCO II second hand out of curiosity just to see what it was like. He had no real intention of keeping it and intended to sell it on afterwards, but he also found the image to be better then the zoomed image he was used to, so he kept the lens.

Most people who are anti A lens usually have never seen one in action and (like myself before I borrowed a lens to test with, then bought one with a 14 day returns policy) can't see how a perfect pixel mapped image can be improved on using an external lens along with some scaling. Having done the comparison myself (I too used to zoom), I would rather use an A lens.

Do you really think that after doing a comparison, people will spend thousands of dollars on something that they see degrade image quality?

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #49 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 09:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Are you saying we didn't see what we saw?

No, I'm saying you are using any brightness advantage you saw twice in your comparison. You claimed 1) Brighter image and 2) more image detail compared to the zoomed image. However more detail can only exist in the eye of the beholder due to higher brightness since it's technically impossible for the image to obtain any additional detail from the lens. So your statements becomes, the a-lens is better than zooming because it 1) gives you a brighter image and 2) gives you a brighter image...
Drexler is offline  
post #50 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 09:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

However, zooming does have a visible affect which is like moving your seating 33% closer (none of the A lens 'cons' make a 33% difference to any part of an image). If you already like to sit at THX recommended seating distances (2.4 x SH = 53 degree viewing angle for scope), or even as close as SMPTEs minumum (2 x SH or 61 degrees for scope IIRC), then zooming those pixels 33% larger has a visible degradation in image quality compared to using an A lens.

But the JVC with its e-shift (this thread is about the RS65) already has invisible pixels even when pressing your nose to the screen. Thus rendering that advantage moot.

Quote:


Do you really think that after doing a comparison, people will spend thousands of dollars on something that they see degrade image quality

Yes, that's why snake oil, $1000 speaker cables and whirled water exist on the market
Drexler is offline  
post #51 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 11:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

So your statements becomes, the a-lens is better than zooming because it 1) gives you a brighter image and 2) gives you a brighter image...

Well that's not necessarily true either, and due to inexperience, you've come to the wrong assumption.

In the case of the JVC with the ISCO II A lens vs the same pj with zooming, the zoomed image had the same brightness as the the image with the A lens, so in both cases image brightness is equalised, yet the owner chose the image with the A lens due to improved image quality. The owner owns a light meter and was surprised to see the lux levels were the same in both cases. With brightness being equalised, image quality was the deciding factor.

There are also cases where due to closer seating distances (as described earlier but you choose to ignore), pixel size/visibility is an issue, and the A lens offers the better image quality in those circumstances. One owner sees pixels at his normal seating position, and has to move to the 3rd row before the image becomes acceptable unless he uses an A lens (ISCO III with 3 chip DLP).

What isn't snake oil is the fact that zooming increases pixel size by 33% and using a lens/scaling alleviates that. Or are you saying zooming doesn't visibly increase pixel size?

It's quite obvious that you have either not seen an A lens and done the testing/comparison that others have, or you have an agenda. Or both.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #52 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

But the JVC with its e-shift (this thread is about the RS65) already has invisible pixels even when pressing your nose to the screen. Thus rendering that advantage moot.

Possibly, but that wasn't the argument here - inaccurate comments regarding A lens was, and now you're changing the content. 4K may also eliminate the need for A lenses because 1080 and zooming increases pixel size. E-shift gives the impression of smaller pixels, 4K has smaller pixels and an A lens allows people to use 1080 rather than 810 pixels, so again, smaller pixels compared to 1080 zoomed. I think you can see where the advantage really lies. Zooming still increases pixel size so then it comes down to how much the larger pixels affect what an individual sees even with e-shift and 4K.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Yes, that's why snake oil, $1000 speaker cables and whirled water exist on the market

Well that's insulting to lens owners, many of which have a lot of experience here and are quite knowledgeable in the field. More so than you appear to be in this particular field

You're not the first to troll these kind of arguments, and you won't be the last, it's just a shame you have to prolong it.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #53 of 145 Old 02-26-2012, 03:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

There are also cases where due to closer seating distances (as described earlier but you choose to ignore), pixel size/visibility is an issue, and the A lens offers the better image quality in those circumstances.

I did not ignore that. If you'd care to read my posts before responding you might not have to attack strawmen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Therefore I think it is wrong to state that the lens gives you more detail. It doesn't. It might give you slightly more brightness and less pixel visibility, but that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Pixel visibility is another thing that might be an advantage in a particular setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

What isn't snake oil is the fact that zooming increases pixel size by 33% and using a lens/scaling alleviates that. Or are you saying zooming doesn't visibly increase pixel size?

It's quite obvious that you have either not seen an A lens and done the testing/comparison that others have, or you have an agenda. Or both.

Gary

As I stated in my previous posts I acknowledge that it can give an advantage with regard to pixel visibility.

I have owned an ISCOII together with a Sony VW85. I thought the image had more clarity/punch without the lens so I sold it on.

It might have been that my lens was below par and I'm sure an ISCOIII would be more transparent. However, I remain very skeptical about the claims of significant improvements to image quality with a lens. Yes, slightly less visible pixel structure, but only in the vertical dimension, and a slight increase in brightness depending on throw. But other than that I find it hard to believe there are any benefits.

I don't see what possible agenda I could have? I just believe people overrate the benefits of lenses which can make other people splash out a lot of money for something they will not gain any tangible benefit from. I totally agree that with for instance a DLP or other PJ with limited zoom it might be essential with an a-lens for CIH. However, if you have autozoom and an LCoS with invisible pixel structure (this thread) I'm very sceptical of any real benefit.

And the snake oil part was a joke but also a way to point out that the fact that people are willing to pay a lot of money for a product, doesn't always make the product claims true. Moreover, the placebo effect is very strong and I honestly think that is what people are seeing both with regards to expensive speaker cables and in many cases also a-lenses. Put a several thousand dollar lens in front of the projector and tell them that they will see an improved more refined image and they will think that they are. It's very easy even to fool yourself unless you do double blind tests. (no pun intended)

"In 2007, Hilke Plassmann and a group of CalTech and Stanford economists ran an experiment. A group of expert wine tasters were told to try five different wines and rate their enjoyment. The catch was that the researchers actually only gave them three wines to taste. For one tasting, a duplicated wine would have a $10 price tag and for a second, it would have a $90 price tag.

First, it was notable that the experts couldn’t tell that they were being given the same wines twice. They always rated the $90 bottles superior to the $10 bottles, even though they were actually the same wine. But even more notable, when the researchers scanned the pleasure centers of the tasters’ brains, they found it became more stimulated when the tasters tried the $90 bottle. It turned out that the tasters got pleasure not just from the actual taste of the wine, but from the expectations that sipping from a $90 or $10 bottle gave them.
"

http://www.popeconomics.com/2010/04/...yond-medicine/
Drexler is offline  
post #54 of 145 Old 02-27-2012, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post


As I stated in my previous posts I acknowledge that it can give an advantage with regard to pixel visibility.

I have owned an ISCOII together with a Sony VW85. I thought the image had more clarity/punch without the lens so I sold it on.

Sounds like a set up issue rather than an image quality problem going on my own (and others) experience. But without seeing it your comment below may be the reason. It could simply be that you preferred the non lens image which is fine. I know other people with non coated prism lenses that were used for a 720pj have been put aside once they bought a 1080 pj and preferred to zoom. Usually ISCOs fair much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

It might have been that my lens was below par and I'm sure an ISCOIII would be more transparent. However, I remain very skeptical about the claims of significant improvements to image quality with a lens. Yes, slightly less visible pixel structure, but only in the vertical dimension, and a slight increase in brightness depending on throw. But other than that I find it hard to believe there are any benefits.

Well those are the main benefits, and that's why people choose a lens over zooming.

As I explained in my last post, pixel size for closer seating distances is a real issue for some people and I gave examples. The RS55 may well indeed alleviate the need for a lens, but I would have to compare the two to see if that's the case for me - I don't believe the advertising blurb until I see it. Zooming an e-shifted image still gives 33% larger pixels, but the affect of the e-shift may make the point moot as you say. I'd have to see for myself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I don't see what possible agenda I could have? I just believe people overrate the benefits of lenses which can make other people splash out a lot of money for something they will not gain any tangible benefit from. I totally agree that with for instance a DLP or other PJ with limited zoom it might be essential with an a-lens for CIH. However, if you have autozoom and an LCoS with invisible pixel structure (this thread) I'm very sceptical of any real benefit.

Historically anti lens posts are by those who haven't seen them, can't afford them or who want their choice of presentation to be 'the best' so have to quote theoretically about the potential negative attributes of which they have no real experience. This thread may be about the new JVCs but that still didn't stop you inaccurately posting about A lenses. Some of your info may be true, but in real terms an A lens is a necessity for some people. It could be you want to feel that your pj is 'the best' so will denounce anyone who uses an A lens as a means to realise your belief. I don't know you so I could be wrong.

Zooming is good with some projectors, such as the JVCs due to the LCoS technology, but those who have tested with a good A lens have seen the difference and bought one. I quoted you an example of someone who intended to sell it on but ended up keeping it. He was open minded and wanted to know for himself. You may not feel the difference is worth the cost (some lens owners rely on second user units so the cost isn't so great), but for some the image can be improved upon so for them the cost is all part of the aim for the best picture they can get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

And the snake oil part was a joke but also a way to point out that the fact that people are willing to pay a lot of money for a product, doesn't always make the product claims true. Moreover, the placebo effect is very strong and I honestly think that is what people are seeing both with regards to expensive speaker cables and in many cases also a-lenses. Put a several thousand dollar lens in front of the projector and tell them that they will see an improved more refined image and they will think that they are. It's very easy even to fool yourself unless you do double blind tests. (no pun intended)

Well it's after the fact you've pointed out it was a joke, which is a bit late isn't it.

As for placebo, I quite agree it's a very real affect but many here are quite aware of it. Many years ago I myself was caught out by a magazine article which made me think I was seeing something I wasn't. Once I realised and believed my own eyes, I'm more than aware and will make sure what I see or hear is genuine.

Some people believe all the marketing hype of new projectors so could be accused for believing that. It's a similar thing - someone believes the marketing hype and then comes here to 'educate' those people who didn't by their pj because they realise it's hype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

"[i]In 2007, Hilke Plassmann and a group of CalTech and Stanford economists ran an experiment. A group of expert wine tasters were told to try five different wines and rate their enjoyment. The catch was that the researchers actually only gave them three wines to taste. For one tasting, a duplicated wine would have a $10 price tag and for a second, it would have a $90 price tag.

....snip...

I can quote you many examples of audio tests with the same results, many of which have been posted here - cable comparisons etc, and the results are always the same; under test conditions they couldn't tell the difference. Do a search in the high end forum and you'll see a few examples. People are more than aware of things like that here.

This forum is avscience and many here tend to want to know the science part of what they're seeing and quite often they will go out their way to do some testing to try and prove what they think is happening really is (ANSI tests, MTF tests, how much contrast we can see at once for example - there are lots more).

You're quite new here so I can see why you're jumping to the conclusions you are, but I think you'll see that many here are more informed than you give them credit for.

I'm also interested to see if the new JVCs will benefit from an A lens or not, and some are asking the question of the new 4K Sony; W Meyer has both the pj and an A lens and has posted here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1389225

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #55 of 145 Old 02-27-2012, 01:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Well it's after the fact you've pointed out it was a joke, which is a bit late isn't it.

Did you miss the "" I put just after that very sentence? That's an indicator of a joke.

It would be very interesting if you, or anyone else, could take a close-up photo comparing zooming and an a-lens of a detailed scene that you feel is benefiting from a lens. Or maybe you can post a link to post where somebody has?

In that case people who are contemplating buying a lens or others who are just curious about them would get a chance to understand what kind of improvements that is possible to get from a lens?

By the way, here are photos taken from cine4home comparing the JVC RS55 with e-shift turned off and on. The pixels just disappears completely. Still people recommend an RS55 buyer to pair it with a lens because it will bring him a superior image compared to zooming... I believe this is misleading and that is why I started to write in this thread. And I don't think I have been unfair or misrepresented lenses. I have all the time acknowledged that they are very useful in many setups and that they can give very slight advantages in pixel visibility and brightness depending on setup. However, in this case I'm VERY, VERY skeptical that they can and that the OP might unnecessarily waste a lot of money on a high quality lens that in the end gives him no discernible improvement.
LL
LL
Drexler is offline  
post #56 of 145 Old 02-27-2012, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I have tried my RS65 with and without my Schneider. If the RS65 with e-shift looked just as good without the Schneider I would surly sell the lens, but sadly the image does look better with the lens in place. Thats a real shame as the money for the lens would come in real handy.

Theres something really hard to explain to people that are not in your room to see the difference with there very own eyes, they will never want to believe it. Whenever I have showed friends (with and without) everytime they all say the very same thing, gee it does look much better with the lens. This doesnt take them long to discover, changing back and forward a few times they shout out, yes thats the best one, Stop!

e-shift removing pixels isn't the whole answer, zooming a picture up larger from 16:9 will never improve the image, e-shift, 4k, or whatever.

No one here is actually telling anyone they need a "A" for the new JVC's remember Panasonic and JVC bought out lens memory for those that couldn't afford an "A" lens, or were looking for a cheaper/easier way to screen scope correctly.

Some of the "other" reasons why I prefer using a lens are:
The ratio of all scope films are all over the place and never fit the top/bottom masking correctly, some maybe too small or up higher not centred etc etc...., the only way you can tidy that up is to zoom up more and crop the edges. An "A" lens is simple to make all films fit perfectly within the boarders of the masking.

Without the lens, the players functions, start, stop etc show up over the top masking, presentation wise its not clean looking, an "A" lens removes all this.

At the end of the day Im not here to tell anyone that an "A" lens is a must for everyone that wants scope, its just one way, thank God we finally have more ways than just one.
The best thing from all this is finally with lens memory, we see many more people watching scope the way it was meant to be, larger (not smaller) than 16:9, long live CinemascopE
RapalloAV is online now  
post #57 of 145 Old 02-27-2012, 05:08 PM
Member
 
sebis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Without the lens, the players functions, start, stop etc show up over the top masking, presentation wise its not clean looking, an "A" lens removes all this.[/i]
At the end of the day Im not here to tell anyone that an "A" lens is a must for everyone that wants scope, its just one way, thank God we finally have more ways than just one.

I am watching this thread as I am planning to get a RS 55 and at least in the beginning I will run it without a lens due to the cost. Question: how are the subtitles displayed when zooming without a lens? Oh, and how much is the price for a good lens to the paired with the RS 55.

TIA
sebis is offline  
post #58 of 145 Old 02-28-2012, 01:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I have tried my RS65 with and without my Schneider. If the RS65 with e-shift looked just as good without the Schneider I would surly sell the lens, but sadly the image does look better with the lens in place. Thats a real shame as the money for the lens would come in real handy.

Theres something really hard to explain to people that are not in your room to see the difference with there very own eyes, they will never want to believe it. Whenever I have showed friends (with and without) everytime they all say the very same thing, gee it does look much better with the lens. This doesnt take them long to discover, changing back and forward a few times they shout out, yes thats the best one, Stop!

e-shift removing pixels isn't the whole answer, zooming a picture up larger from 16:9 will never improve the image, e-shift, 4k, or whatever.

That has to be the brightness advantage you see. A/B two identical images where one is brighter and everyone will choose the brighter image as being better. A and B with high or low lamp and ask which they prefer. If it's not the brightness, you should be able to photograph a close-up with the same camera settings adjust for brightness and still see a difference.
Drexler is offline  
post #59 of 145 Old 02-28-2012, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Did you miss the "" I put just after that very sentence? That's an indicator of a joke.

Not really - an unfortunate side effect of the net is things get lost in translation. It looked like you were telling us something we didn't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

It would be very interesting if you, or anyone else, could take a close-up photo comparing zooming and an a-lens of a detailed scene that you feel is benefiting from a lens. Or maybe you can post a link to post where somebody has?

In that case people who are contemplating buying a lens or others who are just curious about them would get a chance to understand what kind of improvements that is possible to get from a lens?

Well, in theory, if the extra pixels give the impression of a higher resolution and smaller pixels, it would seem than an A lens is no longer needed. It still doesn't remove the potential comparison between zooming and using an A lens which may improve the image further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

By the way, here are photos taken from cine4home comparing the JVC RS55 with e-shift turned off and on. The pixels just disappears completely. Still people recommend an RS55 buyer to pair it with a lens because it will bring him a superior image compared to zooming... I believe this is misleading and that is why I started to write in this thread. And I don't think I have been unfair or misrepresented lenses. I have all the time acknowledged that they are very useful in many setups and that they can give very slight advantages in pixel visibility and brightness depending on setup. However, in this case I'm VERY, VERY skeptical that they can and that the OP might unnecessarily waste a lot of money on a high quality lens that in the end gives him no discernible improvement.

I've seen various images posted and the do look impressive. Still doesn't help with the fact that pixels zoomed 33% larger may still produce a less pleasing image when compared to an A lens, but we'll have to wait and see.

You seem to have made your mind up about the benefits of using a lens with e-shift without seeing any evidence either way.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #60 of 145 Old 02-28-2012, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

That has to be the brightness advantage you see. A/B two identical images where one is brighter and everyone will choose the brighter image as being better. A and B with high or low lamp and ask which they prefer. If it's not the brightness, you should be able to photograph a close-up with the same camera settings adjust for brightness and still see a difference.

Well without measuring, you don't know if the brightness advantage exists or if it's enough to be visible. Don't forget we don't see linearly, and we need to reduce image reflectance by 82% to perceive a 50% reduction in image brightness. If there is a brightness advantage, it's probably not enough to make a visible difference.

The fact you're dismissing people who have done the back to back testing (including the one where the reflectance levels were identical for both zooming and lens), seems to suggest you don't have a particularly objective view. Hence my earlier comment regarding agenda etc.

Gary.

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off