AVS Forum banner

JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no?

13K views 144 replies 27 participants last post by  Christian Bergh 
#1 ·
I am looking into getting either the JVC 55U or 65U for my new home theater room that is under construction. This is my first journey into the land of projectors, and am a little confused on one thing: do I need an anamorphic (panamorph) lens for the new JVC projector, or no? From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, you can do the 2.35 wide format without it, but it will zoom in and lose brightness? How noticeable is the quality?


I am not against spending an extra bit to get the anamorphic lens, but I'm just wondering if it's worth it. If money was no real issue (hey, we can dream, right?), would you get the separate lens?


Thanks.
 
#102 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/21724848


The cinema was completed about 2 months ago, the build took almost 12 months, take a look at the CIH scope screen. Auto masking for 4:3, 16:9 and scope.


Gorgeous! I'm in awe. Congratulations on an amazing theater.
 
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray /forum/post/21725094


Beautiful job Murray. Is this the one with the XEIT lens? Can we see it's install if it was?

No Scott its not with the XEIT lens, I haven't tried one yet, hoping to oneday though.


My setup is with a Schneider M lens that Ive owned now for approx three years. This pic is taken from the auditorium through the port hole looking back to the foyer. Sorry image is with my HC9000 which was replaced about three weeks ago with the RS65.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21725113


Gorgeous! I'm in awe. Congratulations on an amazing theater.

Rich you might like to see these images,


I know you like your LED colours on your screen, I saw yours when you first posted them some time back. I modeled the cinema from a late 60's cinema that once operated in Auckland, the 'Odeon'. The design was very simple but timeless and modern, Ive also use similar dark colours to what they used.


The main curtain is almond colour crushed velvet, but the pictures don't do it justice, its very hard for a camera to pick the lighting correctly. There are RGB wall washers top and bottom of curtain, and can be set to auto change between every colour combination, which takes approx 1.5 mins to cycle through.


While we are on scope with JVC, the black masking system is auto stop CIH 4:3, 16:9 and out to ScopE. See masking pix below, plus the rack and BD library which is all housed in the small foyer at the rear of the cinema. There are two entrances to the auditorium on both sides via three steps up, it forms the start of the raised seating. Everything is automated via an ipad.


I may have to put the rest of the images on another entry, max 5 here.




 
#105 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/21726088


Rich you might like to see these images,


I know you like your LED colours on your screen, I saw yours when you first posted them some time back. I modeled the cinema from a late 60's cinema that once operated in Auckland, the 'Odeon'. The design was very simple but timeless and modern, Ive also use similar dark colours to what they used.


The main curtain is almond colour crushed velvet, but the pictures don't do it justice, its very hard for a camera to pick the lighting correctly. There are RGB wall washers top and bottom of curtain, and can be set to auto change between every colour combination, which takes approx 1.5 mins to cycle through.


While we are on scope with JVC, the black masking system is auto stop CIH 4:3, 16:9 and out to ScopE. See masking pix below, plus the rack and BD library which is all housed in the small foyer at the rear of the cinema. There are two entrances to the auditorium on both sides via three steps up, it forms the start of the raised seating. Everything is automated via an ipad.


I may have to put the rest of the images on another entry, max 5 here.

Tremendous.


I find the ability to put color on the screen via colored lights to be a hugely attractive addition to a room. The mood, vibe and decor can alter at will. I can even change the color of the screen to match the latest flowers I have in a vase, in the room. (The colors can either stay constant, or strobe, or do slow or fast dissolves through the spectrum).


Yours looks fantastic.


BTW, what system are you using for side masking? It looks like you've employed a remote controlled curtain track, which looks a lot like mine (by Goelst).
 
#106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21729310


Tremendous.


I find the ability to put color on the screen via colored lights to be a hugely attractive addition to a room. The mood, vibe and decor can alter at will. I can even change the color of the screen to match the latest flowers I have in a vase, in the room. (The colors can either stay constant, or strobe, or do slow or fast dissolves through the spectrum).


Yours looks fantastic.


BTW, what system are you using for side masking? It looks like you've employed a remote controlled curtain track, which looks a lot like mine (by Goelst).

Here are the rest of the promised pix. I use the same masking and curtain track by Goelst, highly accurate and very quiet.




 
#107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952



First: The bias/placebo effect very often results in the subject thinking "the difference is so obvious no blind testing is needed." That's what almost all the audiophiles who trumpet about the different sound of AC and speaker cables say. So the mere claim of obviousness is not good enough when we are talking about true threshold (limits of our perception) differences.

Well, Rich, the reality of using a lens is you really do use more pixels over a screen area compared to zooming, so at one point this has to be visible, and it is. Unlike AC or speaker cable claims which have in every instance been disproved in blind testing. So we can see the difference if we're close enough.


Placebo only works if you're wanting or expecting there to be a difference. If you're cynical and want proof, you use test patterns and do some testing. I wasn't convinced which is why the first lens I used was borrowed, and the next lens had a returns policy.


I've seen it said by ant-lens people that they could see the ANSI CR drop when a lens was in place, yet when tested, the ANSI drop is very small so as to be beyond the threshold of detection. Placebo in reverse I guess. They wanted to see a negative so that's what they saw.


I've already explained the visible differences but like Drexler you want to ignore them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


Ad we're not talking about instances in which differences are so obvious (and expected within what we know about human visual perception), that no blind testing is needed. Again, we are talking about seeing things - pixel size/visibility reduced even more than provided by E-shift - that would seem to be on the threshold of our perception. With your nose to the screen, pixels are essentially gone with E-shift.

That's a definite visible affect in the same way using 1080 pixels vs 817 pixels, yet you claim we need a double blind test for a lens, but not for e-shift. Art would pass a blind test from his front row.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


The claim that reducing the pixel size/increasing pixel density would make a visual difference (given the same source) is therefore made quite dubious.

It's a fact, not a claim that 1080 vs 817 means more pixels are on the screen and therefore smaller and less visible, yet you come out and say that. E-shift is doing something very similar, so therefore that must be very dubious as well...


Or are you deliberately trolling?


Do you seriously believe that having 33% vertically smaller pixels and therefore more of them on screen is never going to have a visible difference over the larger ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


No, he's not saying it IS placebo effect; he's saying it COULD be placebo, and without having taken steps to ensure it is not it's wise to not just take people's word for it. He (and I) have made that distinction a number of times. Drexler and I have never "ignored" the idea of extra pixels; just the opposite, the contention has been that it is DUBIOUS that extra pixels (via A-lens/processing) will make a visible difference from straight E-shift.


I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand this position.

And yet you want me to take your word on e-shift...


You say all that but you do seem to be ignoring the extra pixels and suggest it's placebo and nothing else (once the brightness had been debunked). Seems you're the ones not understanding. I'm not comparing to e-shift, I'm talking about A lenses and you're doing comparisons with e-shift now.


I would think that because of the overlapping of pixels with e-shift. the e-shift would have a more visible result because a lens does not remove SDE, it just reduces it because the pixels are smaller, but without seeing it I couldn't say for sure. I would have thought that some softening would be going on as well (overlapping corners), and may need some post processing to restore sharpness maybe, but that's just conjecture on my part. I'll need to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


But if you then chop those pixels into smaller pieces, resulting in 4 times the number of pixels in place of the original larger pixel, then no, you haven't made them larger, you've made them smaller.


In fact, you've made them smaller than you would have if you'd used an A-lens/anamorphic processing instead of E-shift!


I'm baffled why you seem to keep ignoring this.
(And ignoring it is precisely what your question above does).

I'm not ignoring it because you're not actually chopping them into smaller pieces, you're overlapping them at the corners. You're still only using 1080 pixels and moving them around. By overlapping you're removing the visibility of the edges. Why I'm sceptical is because it's a trick, whereas an A lens really is using more pixels.


I could say that it's placebo that you're seeing smaller pixels because there are no smaller pixels, just the quarters that are overlapping and fooling you into thinking there are smaller pixels, which is more likely to be true than placebo over seeing a genuine increase in vertical pixels with a lens.


I've not seen it and I'm open minded, but I'm curious to see the affect of zooming with the e-shift.


If you zoom the image 33% larger does it get bigger or remain the same size?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


So you seem happy to voice your caution and skepticism about E-shift, not having used it, but you have a problem with others who might have skepticism about an A-lens over E-shift, not having an A-lens. (Though, Drexler I believe has used an A-lens, and I've seen plenty of A-lenses, including on my own projector, in various locations).

All I'm saying is that if you zoom an e-shifted 1080 panel, does it become visible that the source is getting larger and more visible? I'm not saying it does, I'm just wondering what the affect is because after all, it's still a 1080 panel overlapping itself at speed to fool the eye. It seems to be a very clever idea and from the pictures I see, and very effective, but why do you have a problem with me wanting to see it for myself to alleviate that thought? I'm not going to buy blind and believe the hype until I see it. I did the same with A lenses, and I'll do the same here. I won't change that just because you now own one (and I can see why you're so defensive but don't be, it's not an attack on your pj).


I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying zooming might still increase source pixel visibility, or it might not.


It's not so much the scepticism of an A lens as the constant claim that it's brightness and placebo that are the only real reasons an A lens works. Scepticism is one thing, ignorance and false claims are another. Now that you also support the placebo affect for the first time (never seen you use the term in this context before) makes me wonder if you're trolling, anti lens or just have a personal issue with me. Which is it?


I was sceptical about lenses until I did enough testing to see the benefit. You haven't which is quite obvious although you have some experience and probably negative placebo. Having seen them in action is different to having tested using test pasterns and comparisons over time etc.


I did once use a VC A lens with an NEC HT1000, but couldn't see a difference, so sold it on (again, bought it 'just to see'). I didn't do a lot of testing with it, and the real reason I didn't see a difference was because I was sitting too far back - it was the early days when I was happy with a big screen and my seating was where it was due to what I thought were structural constraints at the time. My bad but I've learnt something from that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


That misrepresents my attitude in those previous threads, presenting me as being sold-by-hype and incautiously leaping to conclusions. Which is wrong. I was constantly re-asserting caveats, saying IF the E-shift technology works as advertised and IF initial eye-witness reports supporting that it did work were true, THEN it may be that one advantage purported for A-lenses - reducing pixel visibility/increasing pixel density, can be had using the JVC E-shift. And I NEVER said E-shift would replace A-lenses, as I pointed out advantages some may still find with an A-lens (e.g. possible increase in brightness/greater convenience).

Well you're quite happy to say I only use an A lens due to placebo and sold by hype, yet when its turned around you get quite upset about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


I didn't just jump on the bandwagon proclaiming it fact. And look at my posts on my JVC RS55: Even OWNING the unit and playing with it's E-shift, I remain cautious and skeptical about my own observations. So, please don't try to paint me as someone incautiously won over by hype.

You seemed to think it would replace a lens - you even created a thread about it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...t=e+shift+lens

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


As it turns out, it seems those initial eye-witness reports were on the money: pixel visibility essentially disappears with the E-shift.


Further, here you are still repeating the "but it makes 1080 pixels bigger" line, and for some reason never taking in that simply doesn't represent what E-shift is actually doing. E-shift doesn't leave those pixels that size - E-shift ends up MAKING VISIBLY MORE, SMALLER PIXELS from those 1080 pixels. It's a physical fact of the technology. What is so hard to understand about that?

It doesn't though, it overlaps them to give that impression. I've only wondered about the effect of zooming and source pixel size.


You seem quite upset about my comments regarding e-shift, yet you're quite happy to jump on the anti-lens placebo bandwagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect (and here I'm talking about placebo/bias/expectation effects that plague our perception).


You don't need to expect a difference or be told there is a difference per se.

You can go into a test having NO EXPECTATIONS of perceiving any differences between A and B. But you will often experience them anyway (taking, again, for example differences between wires). Because we are wired to look for differences, to think we perceive them. It just naturally happens when you start trying to see IF you can perceive a difference between A and B. You'll naturally do it, even if A and B are the same.


The misunderstanding you just gave is very often used by audiophiles to justify hearing sonic differences between amplifiers, cables etc. It's one of the most common retorts "Look, I wasn't even EXPECTING to hear a difference between the two, but I did, so it wasn't the placebo effect." That is just to be ignorant of how our perception and bias works: even when you aren't expecting differences, often you'll think you perceive them, hence...blind and double-blind testing is employed when we are at our most careful on these issues.

But you're forgetting the very real fact that there are more pixels, so it's quite believable that there is a very real affect. Which there is. You just don't seem to want to believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952


(I fell for this problem myself. I was deeply skeptical about the claims for AC cables making an audible difference in audio systems. I received a selection of expensive AC cables from probably the most lauded-of-the-time audiophile AC cable manufacturer, ranging in price from about $300/cable to about $3,000 per AC cable. I EXPECTED I'd hear no difference. And I didn't hear a difference with most of the AC cables supplied. Until I put in the most expensive cable. Then it seemed to me my system had changed it's sonic character quite obviously, becoming smoother but "rolled off and darker." It was so "obvious" it didn't seem to need blind testing. And since I didn't go into this with expectations of hearing any difference, I could have thought that the bias effect wasn't in play. But then I blind tested it against a standard $15 military grade AC cable and, guess what? Need I tell you the results and whether I could tell which was which any more?)

A lot of companies are renowned for deliberately choking their equipments' performance by including an inferior power cable....


Gary
 
#108 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/21729807


Here are the rest of the promised pix. I use the same masking and curtain track by Goelst, highly accurate and very quiet.

Lovely looking theatre - what seats are those? Argentina?


Due to width restrictions in the room I'll be using, I'm going to use genuine theatre seats as well, but with a foot rest for the front row.


Gary
 
#109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21724393


Well, it (in Rich's case) could very well be placebo - or a new bulb making the difference. However, he's not making a controversial claim. JVC has upped its contrast and brightness between the two models within what should be visible to the naked eye.

Given that an 82% drop in lumens is perceived as a 50% drop in brightness, there will have to be quite a big difference for that claim to be more than placebo. That could make the claim controversial.


Yet according to you, placebo isn't controversial for a very real affect of using more vertical pixels with an A lens.


You're willing to believe Rich's unproven possibly placebo impressions, but not those where real gains can be seen and measured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21724393


The improvement an a-lens can make to an e-shifted image is another thing entirely. You have an image that zoomed out to 2.35:1 has a pixel structure that is so fine that it can't be perceived even if you sit uncomfortably close. Then you add an a-lens to the mix to increase the vertical pixel count of the already invisible pixels by another 33% and claims it visibly improves the image quality.


Why is it so hard to see why we are skeptical about this claim? Especially since we know how bias and brightness can skew results and that no steps were taken to remove these potential error sources from the comparison.

I don't disagree that an A lens with an e-shifted image would appear to be a smaller gain and possibly overkill which would questionably be visible, but when someone did the test you immediately call them a liar and tell them they're suffering from placebo.


You also assume that everyone is susceptible to the brightness differences that may or may not exist. I've seen brighter images and I don't like them for various reasons, so in my case I would prefer a dimmer image. Your theory works the opposite with me.


I would like to see the e-shft with and without a lens for myself, because it's still a 1080 panel being used, with a trick to emulate smaller pixels. However, if I had a lens, I would probably use it anyway since then there would be no doubt that I was using all the pixels I'd bought, and they would be smaller.


Gary
 
#110 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21731328


I don't disagree that an A lens with an e-shifted image would appear to be a smaller gain and possibly overkill which would questionably be visible, but when someone did the test you immediately call them a liar and tell them they're suffering from placebo.

I didn't call anybody a liar. I have no reason not to think he was sincere. However, that does not prove there really was a difference. I'm also sure many audiophiles sincerely thought they heard differences when switching cables or that the wine experts tasted differences when drinking the same wine (which the brain scans actually showed!). Still they were unknowingly deceiving themselves.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in this case is not enough to convince me considering what we know about how bias work and what visible improvement we would expect with regard to the visibility of the e-shifted pixels.


I don't know what else to write. IMHO, seeing what you write, I think you grossly underestimate the power of bias. This is not something you can say "I'm aware of it" or "I wasn't expecting a difference" and assume it won't affect you. It doesn't work that way. As Rich already has explained in his excellent posts.
 
#112 ·
Rich, let's fantasize and say that the Schneider rig was only $2000, not $8000.

Would you buy into one ?


I have owned a couple Panamorphs in the past with previous lower-res projectors, so have experienced their merit. But I gave up on them once going to a JVC RS-1, then RS-10,and now RS-35.


I wonder at what point an A-lens will have no more tangible merit ?

To simplfy, the 2 benefits of the A-lens are added resolution and added brightness.

Let's say we are in the future days of 4K sources, and 4K or 8K panels with projectors that have TOO MANY lumens for the 8' - 14' wide screens in a typical home theatre.

At what point is the added resolution of an A-lens of no value ?

The brightness gain of the A-lens would be of no value as our PJs will have lumens to spare.


I still consider acquiring a quality A-lens but sway back & forth.

Current PJ technology is getting so damn good that spending big money on an accessory is a tough choice.

If Blu-Ray was indeed encoded anamorphically, then I would sway much more to getting an A-lens.
 
#113 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Lammer /forum/post/21733682


Rich, let's fantasize and say that the Schneider rig was only $2000, not $8000.

Would you buy into one ?

I wouldn't buy one if the only advantage was reducing pixel size even more, since even before with my RS20 that wasn't an issue, let alone with my RS55 where I can't see pixels even a couple feet from the screen.


But I would consider buying the A-lens if it were the case it would provide noticeable brightness on scope images vs not using an A-lens on the JVC (and providing I felt the need for added brightness).


Far from arguing against A-lenses, I'm still considering buying one (and may even buy a member's Panamorph A-lens). I'd do so on the basis that it could offer me something that I know I'd see, and can't get from my current set up: an even bigger scope image.


I built my screen to allow somewhat past a 124" wide image, but throw distance currently limits my widest zoomed image to closer to 120" wide (when the projector is pushed to the back wall). An A-lens would allow me to get those last bits of image size, should I desire. (I'm just not sure yet I really feel I need the added size).
 
#114 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21734034


I wouldn't buy one if the only advantage was reducing pixel size even more, since even before with my RS20 that wasn't an issue, let alone with my RS55 where I can't see pixels even a couple feet from the screen.


But I would consider buying the A-lens if it were the case it would provide noticeable brightness on scope images vs not using an A-lens on the JVC (and providing I felt the need for added brightness).


Far from arguing against A-lenses, I'm still considering buying one (and may even buy a member's Panamorph A-lens). I'd do so on the basis that it could offer me something that I know I'd see, and can't get from my current set up: an even bigger scope image.


I built my screen to allow somewhat past a 124" wide image, but throw distance currently limits my widest zoomed image to closer to 120" wide (when the projector is pushed to the back wall). An A-lens would allow me to get those last bits of image size, should I desire. (I'm just not sure yet I really feel I need the added size).

Rich Ive been thinking about this thread and I wonder if you don't see the change in image clarity/pixel size since you don't have a "constant height" screen.


Since you use "variable image size" you raise the height of the top masking for 4:3 or 16:9 higher than the scope height through zooming, (rather than an "A" lens) the pixel size could in fact be greater on the 4:3 and 16:9 image than the scope image. In a "variable image size" situation all ratios zoomed could end up looking pretty similar.


If one was to only use a CIH screen when zooming, the scope image zoomed up would show with slightly less resolution to the 4:3 and 16:9 image. It does on mine thats why I use a "A" lens.
 
#115 ·
Holy crap! Post #107 is the longest post I have seen in my 12 years of hanging out here...and probably by a multiple factor.



I'm just recognizing the fact. Congrats, Gary.



(....and well said) +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Lammer /forum/post/21733682


If Blu-Ray was indeed encoded anamorphically, then I would sway much more to getting an A-lens.

Ah, wouldn't that be sweet! We've all dreamed of that, I'm sure.
 
#117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21731789


I didn't call anybody a liar.

No, but it's very much inferred by you're telling him he can't be seeing what he's telling you he's seeing because it's placebo, or brightness, or bias...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21731789


I have no reason not to think he was sincere. However, that does not prove there really was a difference. I'm also sure many audiophiles sincerely thought they heard differences when switching cables or that the wine experts tasted differences when drinking the same wine (which the brain scans actually showed!). Still they were unknowingly deceiving themselves.

And there you go again.


As I keep telling you. There really are more pixels in use on the screen with a lens. Are you saying they will never be visible compared to zooming which is like moving your seating 33% closer to the screen?


The difference between audiophiles and a lens is the very real fact that there are more pixels being used on screen - it's a major hardware addition. With listening to cables, and wire being wire, it's much harder to determine.


Have you ever played Where's Wally?


And you keep forgetting that some of us are sceptics and less open to placebo. We're not all the fools you suggest we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21731789


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in this case is not enough to convince me considering what we know about how bias work and what visible improvement we would expect with regard to the visibility of the e-shifted pixels.

Except the very real addition of 263 vertical pixels is hardly an extraordinary claim now is it? It's actually a very real fact and something you seem to be having trouble coming to terms with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21731789


I don't know what else to write. IMHO, seeing what you write, I think you grossly underestimate the power of bias.

I think you grossly overestimate the the power of bias, and underestimate the addition of 33% more hardware/vertical pixels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21731789


This is not something you can say "I'm aware of it" or "I wasn't expecting a difference" and assume it won't affect you. It doesn't work that way. As Rich already has explained in his excellent posts.

Well, actually Rich already has - he can hear the difference between power cables, so which camp does he now fall into, in your eyes?


Yes Rich's posts are excellent, especially when he agrees with you.



Otherwise you'd be calling him a liar and a fool too.


Gary
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21732288


Well, I'm at a loss as to what to say to Gary at this point. His comments so continually miss the point, and so reliably mischaracterize what I've said, (and what Drexler has said, see above) that it seems hopeless.

I think that's unfair and a cop out. I think my comments continually make the point.


If additional pixels don't make a visible difference, why do people buy 1080 instead of 720 projectors (it's only 360 placebic pixels)?


If you think about it, 817 over 720 isn't a very big difference at all and much smaller than the 263 pixels we gain with a lens (97 pixels). So when you zoom for scope you're almost going back to 720 and according to you and Drexler, that shouldn't be visible (if it is it's placebo). So why go for 1080?


Gary
 
#119 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21735019


Holy crap! Post #107 is the longest post I have seen in my 12 years of hanging out here...and probably by a multiple factor.



I'm just recognizing the fact. Congrats, Gary.

Well, I think it looks longer than it is because I tend to leave more lines between comments for clarity. It's probably a lot smaller than it looks if you bunch the lines together and take out the quotes.



But now I'm wondering if I should bow out of this thread and take my placebo elsewhere...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21735019


(....and well said) +1

Many thanks, you're too kind.



Gary
 
#120 ·
If you are a glutten for punishment you can go over to the Sony 1000 thread and explain to one of the head Somy 1000 fanboys that the 4k pixels didn't create any detail on the from the 1080 source material that wasn't already there. You can get Amir's back on the science of it. I predict you will be just as frustrated
LOL
.
 
#122 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/21724914


BINGO!

You said it perfectly Getgrey, I would hate to go back to those old days without my lens. 1sec and it all happens perfectly and acurate,

At 1 second, your lens sled motor must be faster than mine. It's more like 2 or 3 seconds
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy /forum/post/21738410


At 1 second, your lens sled motor must be faster than mine. It's more like 2 or 3 seconds

Ha! It might take that but the "A" lens must have passed the primary lens in at least 1sec, it does however take longer for the masking to move out to scope
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy /forum/post/21738410


At 1 second, your lens sled motor must be faster than mine. It's more like 2 or 3 seconds

Well, I actually run a faster firmware than "stock"
. For stock shipping units, we slowed it down a little at the request to TUV to make them happy for European units. But for mine, from the time the lens hits the side of my light beam till it has fully engulfed it, probably less than one second.


You are welcome to load the faster firmware if you are comfortable with that kind of thing and want to try it. Assuming of course you have a CineSlide. My apologies, I forget everyone's user names. If it's a CineSlide with stock firmware, full motion (not just passing the light beam) is 1.9 seconds IIRC.
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray /forum/post/21738618


Well, I actually run a faster firmware than "stock". We had to slow it down at the request to TUV to make them happy for all the units that go to Europe. But for mine, from the time the lens hits the side of my light beam till it has fully engulfed it, probably less than one second.


You are welcome to load the faster firmware if you are comfortable with that kind of thing and want to try it. Assuming of course you have a CineSlide. My apologies, I forget everyone's user names.

Scott I would LOVE mine to go faster, can you send that to me?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top