ISCO 3 Anamorphic Lense.

Less than what can be done with a good masking system. I still think the cons (added scaling, additional lens artifacts) outweigh the pros (more chip resolution, albeit with inherently false detail).

By having a larger screen and doing a masking system you can have your cake and eat it, without the unnecessary crumbs.

I thought along similar lines to Kris after 2.5 years of zooming and laterly shrinking. I picked up a lower spec Isco II secondhand for a price that meant I could sell it on at little or no loss if I wasn't impressed. In short, I plan to keep the lens as the overall result is an improvement IMHO.

Some of this may be due to peripheral reasons:Using the lens means I've had to reduce my zoom from approx 1.5 to 1, which puts me at the higher contrast end of the zoom. Plus the extra brightness (for 2.35:1 content) has allowed me to close my iris a couple of stops, which in total has maybe gained me 10-15% CR improvement. I'm too far back (112" wide 2.35:1 screen at 12' viewing distance) to actually see the pixels when zooming, but I never noticed before that scenes with the sky in really looked like they were 'distant' and not just an image on a screen....the screen really has disappeared. That is compared to straight zooming.

Sure there is a little pincusion, but having invested in a good quality tab tensioned electric screen I have no intention of going for a curved screen and I don't think that such a screen is available anyway. My Lumagen helps me to trim the borders exactly and my screen has very dark edging too. The theoretical drop in ANSI contrast doesn't seem to be noticable (though my room isn't perfect, as I only have a 'Bat tent' over the first 2 metres or so from the screen). In short it would be better for me financially if I'd found the lens wasn't worth the cost as I could spend elsewhere on my system, perhaps improving the audio side with a separate pre pro combo. However, I've deceided to keep the lens.

For reference my system is: JVC HD350, ISCO II, 2.35:1 112" wide Tab tensioned Beamax 1.5 gain Matt White, Lumagen HDQ fed from a Sony BDP-S350.

OK, so I'm a recent convert, but I was pretty sure that zooming/shrinking was the best way forward in my setup, I'd convinced myself that zooming is great and that I didn't want or need a lens. I figured that until I'd actually seen one in my own home I couldn't truthfully argue against one.....now I'm a lens club member.

There was a long thread on it the 2.35 forum. I still think like everything in life it's application dependent and each person needs to weigh the pros and cons and see how it applies to their particular setup.

If you're fighting throw distance, don't have enough brightness, or sit so close that SDE becomes an issue then an extra lens makes sense.

If you have bright corners, noticeable misconvergence towards the edges, or uneven screen focus/uniformity then using a smaller, but better portion of the chip is advantageous.

The negative effects of scaling haven't been documented to my knowlege. People will cite DVD as an example, but the case is different with DVD. It's upsampling more than 2x both directions (exactly 6x more pixels). That gives the scaling algorithm a lot more to work with than scaling by 0.3x. Prevailing wisdom on scaling is even multiples are best and you're better off not scaling at all vs trying to gain slightly more resolution.

There's also the extra glass. Anything short of perfect degrades the image, and as good as the ISCO III is, it's not perfect.

Proponents will argue all the negatives are imperceptible while all the advantages are readily apparent. I think it depends. Neither solution is ideal.

I am a happy ISCO 3 lens owner now for about 3 years, but if I had a choice, I would rather not use a lens for the following reasons:

1. Cost!! (these things are expensive!)
2. Reduced lumens when watching 16X9 material (I am way too lazy to move the lens out of the way and I have no room to accommodate a sled).
3. Extra glass is extra glass - the less glass in front of my image, the better.
4. Slight pincushioning - as has been mentioned, there is a slight pincushioning, but I don't notice it on anything but test patterns.

That being said, in my situation I have found the lens to be a wonderful addition. My room is height limited, but I have all the width that I want, so I built a 2.35:1 screen that used all of my available height. The lens allows me to stretch the width to fill up the entire screen when viewing widescreen material. The degradation from adding the extra glass is minimal with the ISCO 3, as it is a very high quality lens, and my projector puts out enough lumens to offset the loss due to the lens. Also, my projector does not have enough zoom range to use the zoom method of CIH.

The biggest plus about the ISCO 3 is that I have changed projectors 3 times, yet I have not seen any reason to change lenses even once. When you have the best there is (arguably), there is nothing to upgrade to. Also, since the ISCO 3 is a very LARGE lens, it can be used as far as 12" away from the projector lens without any issues, so projectors with recessed lenses can still work with the ISCO 3. In this hobby it has become the single best "investment" I have made, as it is the only piece of equipment I own that has actually appreciated in value...

Are you really saying that 16:9 CIW is a "have you cake and eat it" substitute for CIH?

You post seems to be a classic example of one of the big misconceptions about CIH and anamorphic lenses (especially in this day of HE lenses). CIH is not about eliminating black bars. CIH is about maintaining the cinematic relationship of aspect ratios, ie constant height.

Lenses are a means to that end. Masking on a larger 16:9 screen is not.

Unless you're zooming (which lets not forget is impossible with a lot of very nice projectors) you're permanently throwing away 25% of your projectors's resolution, 44% of it for 1.78:1 material.

Now if you're talking the "old" idea of a VC lens being used to increase brightness and reduce black bars on a CIW screen, then I agree, masking is probably better, but this is a CIW config.

Bob. Twelve inches away with no problems? A statement like that is totally irresponsible, something I know you are not. Any anamorphic lens should be mounted as close as possible to the primaryl ens, meaning ideally within about 1\\2 inch. The Isco III is so large in diameter, it has a larger sweet spot than the beer budger anamorphics permitting a further away placement say up to a few inches with minimal adverse effects. Remember the further the anamorphic is from the primary, the larger will be the image size on the entry glass of the anamorphic and the more vertically the lens vill have to be displaced vertically to center the entry image on the anamorphic. There is no excuse for mounting up to 12 inches away or suggesting this is OK. It isn`t.

If the back surface of the Isco was mounted about 1\\2 inch in front of case (to allow some tilt to the lens) how far would that surface be from the front of the primary lens/ something like 3 1\\2 inchs? not ideal but it would work very well.

I use a Panamorph 480 in front of a Sim2 ht380 and I see no degradation in the resolution at all. You will see no increase in performance replacing a Panmorph 480 with an ISCO 3 none nada but you will spend a lot more money.

I agree with Bob Sorel and Greg Rogers that the best way to get a 2.35 image is just use the zoom feature to overfill the screen.

Mark, 12" was what I was told when I bought the lens 3 years ago, though I have personally not tried it. I have personally used it at 6" with no issues whatsoever. I agree that I prefer to use it as close as possible, but it most certainly can be used at a distance greater than the 1/2" that you mention. In fact, I used it with a Sim2 HT-380, with its recessed lens, for about a full year, also with NO ISSUES whatsoever. To the best of my recollection, 12" was the limit I was told back then, and from my personal experience, that seems like a reasonable limit. Of course there will always be issues of getting the lens in line when the image is offset, but as long as the person can get the entire image into the lens before vignetting (is that the correct term?) starts to occur, then the ISCO 3 can do its thing. Again, the further the lens is away from the PJ lens, the more opportunity there is for stray light to enter, as well as reflected light to bounce around and degrade the image, so keeping the lens as close as possible certainly is optimal.

My point here actually is that there is a lot of talk in the forum about recessed projector lenses and how they can not use anamorphic lenses with those projectors. While this *may* be true with the prism type devices (I don't think those units actually qualify as lenses at all, but I don't know for sure), I have found no such limitation with a large, TRUE lens such as the ISCO 3.

I'm sorry if you find my reporting irresponsible, but I am simply calling it the way I see it, as well as repeating information that I got when I bought it.

Ditto when I had my HT380 (Short throw at that).

Elmo, that statement from Schneider leads me to believe that their lens is significantly smaller in diameter than the ISCO 3. I just did a quick and dirty measurement of my ISCO 3 and it is roughly 5" in diameter (glass diameter, not lens diameter). IIRC, one of the main improvements between the ISCO 2 and 3 was the significant increase in lens diameter - the ISCO 2 and ISCO 3 are very different beasts, so don't make the mistake of thinking that if you find an ISCO 2 at a good price that you are getting something similar to the ISCO 3. If Schneider lenses are smaller than the ISCO 3, then personally speaking I would not consider one, as I never know how far back my PJ lens may be the next time I upgrade...

Oh yeah, that's right....throw ratio needs to be considered as well because the smaller the throw ratio, the quicker the image becomes larger. All of my usage has been at a throw ratio of about 1.8X. YMMV.

Edit: Corrected typo...throw ratio, not through ratio...

One wants to use a anamorphic at long throws. The whole idea is to have the image entering the back surface of the anamorphic as small as possible and to have it centered. You guys are bright enough to figure out why. It isn`t to prevent a loss of resolution. If you think there isn`t a hugh difference between using a panamorph, a schneider, and an ISCO III, think again. Not that a panamorph is bad, its just that the Isco is better, especially if used correctly. And this is unbiased. I don`t own one myself. I use a 1.78 screen with no anamorphic. I don`t zoom. I horizontally mask from 1.78 to 2.35 or 2.40. But I have installed many and the Isco III is the performance champ when used at long throw and placed close to the primary.

Oops, I just did that. I thought that an ISCO II was simply a smaller ISCO III for those at a very long throw like me. However, I can only imagine what a 'III' must look like as I'm very impressed with my lowly 'II' (maybe the very long throw of near 2.7 helps?).

I've checked mine carefully and it's definately a 'II' (was hopeing there had been some mistake ).

It might very well be. Let me clarify - They are very different beasts in size and therefore in flexibility of setup and usage. I have no idea of how the 2 lenses compare quality-wise. If you can use the smaller lens of the ISCO 2, my thoughts would be that it would be a fantastic deal if you could get your hands on a used one at a good price. I have never personally used an ISCO 2, but my *assumption* would be that the optics quality would still be top notch.

"but my *assumption* would be that the optics quality would still be top notch."

The II is good enough that I see SDE in my front row with the II in front of the RS-1. The biggest difference is the II is smaller (your III is a giant) so you have to get it close to the projector lens and has a long enough throw ratio. The II was much better then the Prismasonic I replaced, that had a lot of CA.

The other difference as I recall is the II ever so slightly zooms the image while the III doesn't. That makes the III better for a sled type arrangement.

Shawn

Hi Shawn! Gee, I was just thinking of you when I posted about the ISCO 2...

The last I heard you were using it with a JVC RS-1. Is that still the case or have upgraded since then? As I remember, you loved your ISCO 2. Is it still working out as well these days? And you are using the ISCO 2 at a very short throw, right?

ditto Mark, I've owned 5 anamorphic lenses in my time and all the companies I message board with told me that beam spot is key to a good setup. i.e zero zoom You let the anamorphic lens do the work. My reason for getting the 3L is to try to project a 8' wide image from 25'....now this might not happen with my ruby, so I might have to try a longer throw projector to make it work.

Hi Bob,

Still using the Isco II. I don't have a reason to change it out and at the $500 it cost me it was a steal. My throw is about 1.5x which is pretty much the limit with the ISCO II. It has to be positioned carefully to avoid vignetting.

Shawn

"I doubt I could use an ISCO2 with my recessed lens?"

To get my 1.5 ratio to work the lens on my RS-1 is within a hair of touching the ISCO.

Shawn

The smaller beam spot the sharper image is why I use very little if any Zoom. Zooming the way I see it is for fine tuning...albeit it can be used to make the image larger. Try looking at a 12' image then zoom in an look at a 8' image and you'll have your answer.