The Official Anamorphic Research (HTB) lens thread - Page 2

[quote=CAVX;20058907]Both were sourced from 1080P (BD and projectors). The top image is from a lens with prisms. no correction.
The 2nd image is from a fully corrected cylindrical lens. See for yourself./QUOTE]

Amazing difference! I'm no videophile........don't even own a projector yet, just researching. Only seen two scope demo's with a lens (ABT and The Little Guy's in Illinios) and thought they were just awesome. This was the first comparison photos that I've seen.

The diiferences that I see:

1. Overall brightness of the real lens is greater

2. The prism lens image appears to have a slight haze or grain over the entire image

3. The most striking difference is the MUCH GREATER detail in the real lens image: night and day...........it looks like HD (real lens) compared to DVD (prism lens), maybe even worse than DVD. Most evident in the hair of the mouse and the grain in stick on the left. Many other places, as well. The whole front of the mouse is obscured in darkness.

Given the degree of difference's in PQ between these two lens and the fact that I can't afford a good lens I would just do without.........I would not sacrifice that much PQ. I would zoom (depending on how good that is in comparison), stay 16x9 or save my pennies.

What is the price difference between these two len's?

Any other comparison photos out there, not just between these lens, but others as well? Would like to see how a corrected prism lens holds up, as well as very good len's to spectacular len's. At some point the laws of diminshing returns must become significant.

Another comparison that I would like to see is a top quality lens compared to zooming (no lens).

Thanks,
Greg

Could you comment on the PQ differences that you did see or comments from the engineers? Would you rate the PQ differences, subtle, extreme, etc.? I'm assuming the lens set-up would be brighter. Hopefully, the zoomed image wouldn't destroy the PQ like the prism lens did in the comparison shots posted above.

I'm just looking to see if I would be happy with a zoomed image........at least while I save my pennies.

Thanks,
Greg

The general impression was the image from the lens was preferred when shown side by side with the same sized zoomed image. This is not to say one was noticeably better or worse.

It was my MK3 prisms lens that was used on the day as I did not have the MK4 at that time. The thing to remember about the Mk3 is that it is CA corrected and now has an astigmatism corrector as well, so if you land it in the 'sweet spot', it can look almost as good as the Mk4. The end results were that I was allowed to show the MK3 lens at the JVC stand for the 09 CEDIA and again for SMPTE 09. I was then invited to show the MK4 at CEDIA 2010. JVC have a huge reputation, so if the product did not perform, I doubt that they would have allowed it to be used on their stand.


When you have nothing to compare it to, a zoomed image or even an image using a not so good A-Lens can be fantastic. It is only when the 2 are shown side by side that one can make an informed decision.

seems like this become off-topic.. Have anyone had any review of the AR2 or AR4 lens?
BTW, the comparisons between the prism vs cylinder lens are worth even more than a thousand words... Thanks Mark!

Did they ever release the AR4? I saw an image of one of the prisms on their blog and that seemed to be the last of it.


I have a "trophy lens" sitting in my garage. Maybe when I get some time, I should do another photo shoot with both and log the camera settings.

Hmmm... interesting. I have the htb "trophy" lense and i will admidt there is a TAD bit of softening in the image. But honestly nowhere NEAR as much as the example above. Im using the benq 5000 with a 148" screen. When i compare the image with no lense vs zooming vs htb...the difference in sharpness is noticeable but VERY minor...not anything like the above example. If i put up test patterns you can see the imperfections easily but in real world watching they are not nearly as obvious. If you really look for it you can see it but it is very easy to forget the issues and just get lost in the movie. Just my 2 cents...

Randy

When I first got my BenQW5000, I was still using an MK2 (AR coating, no correction) and over the following 24 months, I up graded twice. Each time, the improvement was enough that I found myself re-watching the same films I thought looked good with the previous lens.

What makes the comparison really stand out is the fact that your eyes don't have to time to adjust from one to the next as does happen when you move a lens in and out of the light path.

Mark...i have no doubt that the isco and schneider lenses are better..much better even. But im telling you that something is wrong with the above comparison. I have Ratatouille on blu ray and its actually one of my favorite animated movies...i threw it in the oppo player last night and found the scene in the comparison and fired up the lap top....and while the image on my screen didnt look as good as the "b" image in the comparison...it didnt look ANYWHERE near as bad as the "a" image. In fact with the lap top in my lap and looking at my screen the image on my screen MUCH more resembled the "b" image in the comparison.

It looks to me like the "a" image in the comparison is of lower resolution..maybe a dvd...its not just out of focus..there are missing pixels there. I even changed the focus on my benq to be slightly out of focus and it STILL looked better than the "a" image in the comparison...

While what ive done is NOT scientific...therre is NO DOUBT in my mind that the comparison is not an acurate representation of what someone should expect from the anamorphic research products...and ill say again...The higher end lenses ARE BETTER...and some day i may shell out the silly big bucks for one. But for now i am pretty happy with the "trophy" lense....i am considering upgrading to the new glass lense offered by them with the astigmatism correction...mainly because im curious to see if it really makes that much difference in my set up.

Randy

Randy,

HERE is the link from which I got that image. I simply imported both images into Paint and reduced mine to be the same size. I added the side pillars to preserve the width. There was no tamering with the either image apart from resizing them to be the same size.

If you look at his EQ list you will see:

Jvc Rs-1 front projector
Hometheaterbrothers.com anamorphic lens.
Pioneer Elite VSX 92 avr
DVDO VP-50 video processor
Toshiba XA-2 hd dvd player
Pioneer Elite BDP-95 blu ray player
Directv HD DVR
Sony vcr(don't know why I still have it hooked up)
Harmony 690 remote control

Why would anyone with a VP50 (which I don't even have) bother capturing a screen capture of a DVD?

As I said earlier, I have no idea of how he captured the image. When I take a screen cap, generally I use the screen to white balance the camera first. I always use a tri-pod and I use a timer of no less than 2 seconds to allow any possible movement to I might cause to stop when pressing the shutter.

The shot I took was done using my Fuji FinePix S5600 5.1MegPxl digital camera on the tri-pod, the MK4 anamorphic and a JVC HD350 (RS40?). Source was from a PS3 with HDMI through an Intregra AVR. No external VP was used. Screen gain was about 1.2.

When I take a shot like this, I use the lowest ISO setting of 64. I take a few different shots at different exposure times (any thing between 1.0 and 3 seconds) and run with the brightest image without blooming. Fstop seems to be an auto setting in this camera (S) mode and seems to sit about 3.2.

A few years back, I found THIS LINK and sent it to MarkH in the UK because he has an ISCO III and a high end projector (3 chip DLP?). His feedback seemed harsh at the time - CA, astigmatism etc, however he is right. If I were to capture the same scene with my MK4, you'd have a very different result and almost the chalk/cheese we have with the rat. I use DIE HARD 4.0 as a demo disc in my theatre for clients because the transfer is so clean and I run it at 00dB for them as well.

So I am not picking on HTB per say. I am simply using the example to show the limitations of trophies when used as optical components, which whilst they gave us an affordable means to achieve an all glass anamorphic adapter, they are not optical grade and fall short.

Hopefully in a few days, I will have an MK3+C in my possession and will be able to document the difference between an MK2 (no correction), MK3+C (5 element prisms/cylindrical) and MK4 (true cylindrical).

As promised, screen shots. All three shots are taken using my FujiFilm FinePix S5600 camera set to S with a custom white balance (off the screen) and exposure set to 2 secs. I also used a tri-pod and timer.

The three anamorphic adapters I have used are the MK4, the MK3+C (MK3 with CAVX Correcter fitted) and the MK2 (Trophy Lens). To bring out the best of each, I did rock the focus before taking each shot, however the optics speak for themselves. The slight geometry shifts are due to the prisms where they may or may not be 100% correctly aligned. The point to this exercise is image detail.

With the MK4, the focus was rocked with the lens out of the light path as cylindrical lenses (once dialed in) won't change the focus. The Mk4 was also sled mounted where the other 2 were sat in a makeshift shelf.
MK4 (True Cylindrical Lens with fully corrected optics)

Mk3+C (CA corrected Prism adapter with astigmatism correction)

Mk2 (Trophy Lens, no correction)

If anyone is interested, I just put my Home Theater Brothers lens (first generation HTB-AR) on ebay. Also includes the Universal Astigmatism Correction Element! Just do a search in ebay under "Home Theater Brothers".

cheers

Does anyone know if Anamorphic Research still exist? I am after their LMAP Lens mount adapter plate. Their blog doesn't seem to have been updated since 2010.

They were still around as of a few months ago... Bought a slide and an astigmatism lens from them.

Thanks they have answered my queries