or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Aussie Bob II

Optical engineer here. Not from MIT.There is a LOT that is fundamentally difficult about lens processing. To get it right - combining sharpness with low color aberration, no ghosting, high contrast and all the rest - takes good design first and then money, lots of it.The 3 lenses (comprising 5 elements) in Xeit optics are ground for a total of 54 hours on machines that cost $1 million apiece, in clean rooms that cost ten times that. They are quite large, but must be...
Don't sweat about exact ratios. I design and make anamorphic lenses, and even I don't obsess about it. I just use my old JVC's "2.5% crop" feature to level everything out. 2.4:1 movies aren't cropped much because they're not tall enough. 2.35 movies are cropped more, 2.37 a little less. 16:9 is cropped too. What you end up with is everything basically the same height and the same width. Sure, you lose a few pixels, but not as many as in commercial cinemas where masked...
Go with Get Gray's suggestion. You'll lose some pincushion. Better some than none.
There is some amazing snake-oil being presented in this thread as fact.
I've manufactured and calibrated many dozens of cylindrical anamorphics at this stage of my career and have definite views and experience on how they work, and how they can serve 4K systems. Firstly, by zooming you lose 25% of the pixel density straight off. Considering a 4K image, 25% of the pixels of a 4K image equals an *entire* Blu-Ray image's worth of pixels, about 2,000,000 of them. Gone. To me this makes the case for anamorphics with 4K systems even more...
This is a forum for people who like to project Constant Image Height movies. As far as I can see there's no requirement for them to be cameramen or otherwise involved in the film industry, or to have lugged Mac Pros around on their back to prove their cojones are bigger than anyone else's. And there's no need to look back to the theatrically orientated cinematographic origins of anamorphosis to justify today's Home Cinema projection applications, digital or otherwise. As...
You don't get it.Using a sled with a vertical compression lens results in constant width, not constant height.That is why the manufacturer recommends using digital cropping from 16x9 to 4x3 and keeping the lens in place.
So it's the "crispest and brightest on the planet" AND a "compromise" conpared to other products at the same time? Illogical. Can't be both.
An un-corrected system that exhibits "only" a 1 pixel(!) color smear, and that has astigmatism built-in cannot possibly be as good as a color corrected system with astigmatism control. Color correction in any system, particularly a cylindrical system (which is what Isco and my own systems are), should be (and is) measured in small fractions of a pixel, the smaller the better. A 1-pixel aberration would get me hung from the nearest lamp post if I tried to pass it off as...
Oh please...
New Posts  All Forums: