or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Cylindrical A-Lens Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cylindrical A-Lens Owner's Thread - Page 15

post #421 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post


Ah!......that post was made before the new Prismasonic was announced.

So we have 3 new cylindercial lenses, The Cavx Mk4



The New Prismasonic


(BTW Alan I think the chrome bits on the stand should have a black option to reduce light reflection).....

......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....



.................wait for it......................

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
!!!!!!!!!!

That's good highjinx. Well see who comes in at a good price now
post #422 of 623
The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.

Woulb be good to see AVS sell all three...............what say you Mr. Gouger?!!!
post #423 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.

Would be good to see AVS sell all three...

You will finally be able to enjoy scope HJ?
post #424 of 623
......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....


.................wait for it......................

>
>
>

>
!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]


hahahaha...very funny. I like it
post #425 of 623
Not to get on anyone's wagon, but the 5th Element lens is also the only one of the bunch listed that can adjust roll at all. Only one that can adjust tilt and altitude independently, only one with any adjustment on the in-out axis. As shown. Only one claiming any effort at assembly in a ISO clean-room enviroment. Only one that appears to be sealed internally. In my life experience, it is rare that one doesn't get what they pay for . So if all these fall out at similar price points, I'll be looking hard at the details. If one falls out under the rest, particularly for those with middle sales people involved, then the obvious question will be how.

But, if they all perform well, even with their individual quirks, ommisions, or compromises (and I expect all will have them in one form or another) it's good for everyone who couldn't afford something before.
post #426 of 623
I'm curious to know what mount the primasonic is going to offer with there lens?
post #427 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Not to get on anyone's wagon, but the 5th Element lens is also the only one of the bunch listed that can adjust roll at all. Only one that can adjust tilt and altitude independently, only one with any adjustment on the in-out axis. As shown. Only one claiming any effort at assembly in a ISO clean-room enviroment. Only one that appears to be sealed internally. In my life experience, it is rare that one doesn't get what they pay for .

You forgot one thing it's also designed to fit your mount.
post #428 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

The Prismasonic's price point should do a lot to bring the A-Lens prices down to affordable levels.....kinda reminds of Sony's Ruby and what it did to bring projector priced down.

Woulb be good to see AVS sell all three...............what say you Mr. Gouger?!!!

Are some of these looking for manufacturing by someone else or shopping sales before manufacturing. The Prismasonic is already in production. In order for me to sell something there must be inventory. Not sure how far along the others are but I always keep the door open. It would be sad to see a lens go to an OEM channel due to lack of funding as then everyone will have to pay a premium. That would further drive the sales of the Prismasonic at least here on AVSF.
post #429 of 623
Quote:


Are some of these looking for manufacturing by someone else or shopping sales before manufacturing.

In my case, my lens is in the middle of production, privately financed at rather large expense, as a substantial first run of 50 is in progress. Really only waiting on the second run of glass to provide inventory.

Mechanicals are done and paid for. Surface finishing is in progress, ready by next week or early the week after.

Testing of production models has commenced with two lenses assembled and being used for evaluation (to check conformance with tolerances and assembly systems). So far: excellent performance.

You could put it as "8.99 moths pregnant"

This is not a DIY project. When you think about it, it couldn't possibly be, given the complexity of the build.
post #430 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

......But only Aussie Bob's CrystalMorphic 5E has.....


.................wait for it......................

>
>
>

>
!!!!!!!!!!


hahahaha...very funny. I like it [/quote]

This is like the gillete razor evolution. Just google for "onion we are doing five blades" for a hilarious read. Wonder how many are going to be enough.
post #431 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeav View Post

This is like the gillete razor evolution.

No, it's not. Adding glass to lenses isn't even sort of like adding blades to a razor.
post #432 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

You forgot one thing it's [AB's] also designed to fit your mount.

Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.
post #433 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.

Which others?
post #434 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

Which others?

Isco, Schneider, CAVX, AB's. Maybe one more
post #435 of 623
Quote:


Yes, but so are several other's. So not unique in that respect.

The last thing you want to do when you're introducing a new lens is to buck the System. GG's is as near to "industry standard" as you can get. I go with the flow.

Quote:


This is like the gillete razor evolution. Just google for "onion we are doing five blades" for a hilarious read. Wonder how many are going to be enough.

The extra glass is there for a purpose. Believe me, it'd be a LOT easier to design a lens without that middle element that has to be mounted, sealed in and independently adjustable from the outside.

In designing my lens I didn't try to match its performance to anything else. It was designed from a blank sheet of paper (so to speak) to better than Nyquist specifications that I thought would do justice to Blu-Ray and 4K movies (if the latter ever arrive).

I took the test: I looked at the "4-blade" option and it didn't give a smooth enough shave .

(Call me a perfectionist)
post #436 of 623
AB,

For clarity and the benifits of not only myself, but the other forum members, please define an 'element' Vs a lens. When I got to see your work known as HORIZON in 2008, you described it as a 4 lens system even though it appeared to have 6 elements (2 doublets and 2 singlets). The prisms based units have always referred to doublets as dual elements because even though a doublet is (lens or prism) a single unit, it is originally made from from 2 elements.
post #437 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

AB,

For clarity and the benifits of not only myself, but the other forum members, please define an 'element' Vs a lens. When I got to see your work known as HORIZON in 2008, you described it as a 4 lens system even though it appeared to have 6 elements (2 doublets and 2 singlets). The prisms based units have always referred to doublets as dual elements because even though a doublet is (lens or prism) a single unit, it is originally made from from 2 elements.

Happy to oblige.

First let me note that in the industry there is no small amount of confusion over this topic.

A "Lens" can be an entire opto-mechincal device, like a camera lens, or an anamorphic lens (with or without stand).

A "lens" may be two "lenses" (pieces of glass that share a common radius of curvature on the inside, so that they can be cemented together perfectly - a "doublet"), or a single "lens" or piece of glass (sometimes called a "singlet").

The way I (and most others) use the term is as follows:

"Element"
A ground and polished piece of glass, usually employing curvature (circular, parabolic, or aspherical), that posseses positive or negative refractive properties in a consistent manner across the face of the element.

"Singlet"
A single, standalone element, employed in an optical system for a particular refractive purpose.

"Doublet"
Two elements made of different types of glass, sharing a common inside radius of curvature, usually cemented together with clear optical cement.

Doublets may be used to correct color or other aberrations as standalone components, or may be used to provide pre or post aberrations that affect or are affected by other elements respectively.

"Triplet"
A 3-element version of a doublet. Very rare, and not usually required in a system unless it has extremely high performance specifications (i.e. much higher than projection or SLR-type camera systems).

"Group"
A fairly vague term... Usually it denotes an arrangement of singlets and/or doublets that function as a sub-system within an optical design (e.g. zoom lenses consist of "focus" orientated groups and "zoom" orientated groups).

"Cylindrical Curvature"
Curved in only one direction... a section of a cylinder, not a sphere (which is curved equally in all directions).

"Aspherical"
In one sense, cylindrical lenses are aspherical, as their curved surfaces do not represent a section of a sphere.

Usually, however, "aspherical" means a curvature that is not based on a circle, a sphere or a plane. It could be a simple parabolic surface (y = x-squared + K), or one based on a complex multi-term mathematical function of any degree of complexity.

Aspherical surfaces are usually employed sparingly in an optical system when there is no other option, because they are so expensive to manufacture. You can't use a template, or simple rotation (as with a spherical lens) to grind and especially polish an aspheric. A diamond-tipped CNC cutter is used that must not only cut out the irregular, aspheric shape, but also polish it. Aspheric surfaces refract light differently in different positions on the "sag" (or curve). They tend to correct the inherent aberrations of cylindrical or spherical surfaces and can save glass in an optical system, but at huge effort and expense. There is a lot of controversy as to whether they are really needed in a simple projection or camera system (although some higher end camera lenses do use them, also simpler systems with plastic - highly repeatable - lens elements, like CD players). They tend to be more required in areas like modern microlithography systems (e.g. microchip manufacture, nanotechnology engineering) where large basic artwork is reduced to micron and sub-micron size, requiring as close to perfection as possible in the imagery.

"Lens"
Can be an element, a singlet, a doublet, a triplet or an entire optical device, depending on context... which is why I tend to use the more precise terms unless that context is clear.

Examples
1. An anamorphic lens with only 2 cylindrical elements would consist of two singlets - the one nearest the projector being a converging (positive focal length) element, and the one nearest the screen being a diverging (negative focal length) element, separted by an air gap calculated by a function of their combined focal lengths.

This would be the simplest possible cylindrical anamorphic lens.

It could be designed to eliminate color aberration at one particular throw distance, but would be unlikely to work properly in correcting color errors at any other throw distance.

This lens will have a maximum possible 4 air-glass surfaces that can contain curvature.

These designs are rarely built, and are used mostly in textbooks to illustrate the basic principle of anamorphism, or (more generally) a lens system that has infinite focal length (parallel rays that pass through it stay parallel, they never focus. Conversely, a focusing beam will still focus, at roughly the same focal point as it would without the lens in the beam... "roughly" is the key word here... it is where "astigmatism" comes into play, because the new focus point is close but not quite the same in the horizontal direction as it is in the vertical direction). The air gap is varied to reduce astigmatism.

2. An anamorphic lens with 4 elements usually consists of 2 doublets... two elements per doublet. The function of the doublets is mostly to provide color aberration correction, when used in conjunction with each other. Refractively speaking, anything regarding "bending" the projector beam that the simple "Type 1" lens can do, can be done with this "Type 2" lens, with the added function of more universal color correction, over a wider range of throws.

3. My lens has 5 elements: 2 doublets and one singlet, arranged as three lenses (or groups, or stages). The two end lenses are fixed in place. The middle element moves back and forth along a precision (tolerance measured in microns) rail. As the air gap between the first and middle lenses decreases, the air gap between the last and middle lens increases by the same amount. The extra glass serves to both color correct and to bend the beam in a more controllable way that lenses with lesser numbers of elements cannot do, as they have less degrees of variation available to them. The extra 2 air-glass surfaces mean that each individual surface has to do "less work" to achieve the final result. Therefore, the extra surfaces allow my lens to be "gentler" on the beam, correcting or reducing some aberrations as it goes, in order to achieve different results, particularly as regards image geometry.

In Summary
To put this all into perspective, you can use a simple magnifying glass as a camera or projector lens (but NOT as an anamorphic lens - for this you need a minimum of two elements see "Type 1" lenses above). The resulting image from a simple magnifying glass projection or camera "lens" will be blurred at the edges (astigmatism) and will have severe color problems ("Newton's rainbow effect" or Color Aberration - "CA"), as well as other less well-known aberrations such as spherical aberration and coma, sometimes extending through several algebraic orders (1st order... 5th order... etc.).

Lenses can be combined as groups, doublets etc. to reduce aberrations, although they are unlikely to be completely eliminated. Sometimes correcting one aberration promotes another. Generally (and I mean generally) speaking, the more glass you use, the more you can use one refractive property in one element (or group) to correct aberrations resulting from another element, without adding too much by way of "collateral" aberration by the very act of correction. Eventually, the designer has to balance performance against cost, weight and ultimately expense, especially with such big pieces of glass as anamorphic add-on adapters employ.

There are no "1s" and "0s" in optical design, like there are in digital sound or CNC machining. Optics is all "analog" and fraught with challenges. Optical manufacture is very difficult and time consuming. The aim is to achieve performance with the minimum number of elements that deliver your specifications within an acceptable practical environment - be that cost, size, image quality, or ease of use.
post #438 of 623
Thread Starter 
Excellent Bob. Some really good product coming from down under.
post #439 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

You will finally be able to enjoy scope HJ?

I enjoy all aspect ratios, Cinemascope ratios, Panavision Ratios, Odd ball ratios, all without black/grey bars on my setup except 4:3/1.33:1 on my horizontally maskable motorised 16:9 screen.

My next move is to mount a larger motorised maskable 16:9 screen in front of the existing one at the appropriate distance, so when viewing 2.35:1 films on the larger one it will be at the same vertical viewing angle as the smaller screen (behind it)displaying a 1.78:1 image.......essentially CIH by virtue of the viewing angle. By coinsidence the larger masked(to 2.35:1)16:9 screen will be the same area as the smaller unmasked 16:9 screen. This is achieved with a screen only 15% wider!

No scaling or A-Lens will be used, avoiding any scaling introduced softening/artifacts and not using an A-lens I can avoid pincushion etc. Sure the larger image will drop the On/Off CR a tad, but not that the eye will be able to detect...as I said the screen is only 15% wider. ANSI will be maintained, possibly increased as I will open up the iris a bit on the JVC for the larger screen.

With this set up I have the option viewing Imax type 16:9 presentations, at a higher height by raising the masking on the larger screen, than if I had a dedicated 2.35:1 screen, where I would have been restricted to the height of the 2.35:1 screen.

However say I had to reinstall in a different room and due to the projector placement/throw, if the ensuing image size was insufficent and it suffered inadiquate brightness, yes I would purchase an A-Lens.

If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.
post #440 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post


If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.

It will be nice
post #441 of 623
Quote:


It will be nice

It's designed to be nice .

Quote:


If anamorphically encoded BluRays or other source material was available, yes without a doubt, I'd buy an A-Lens now!.........do like AB's A-Lens.

Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.

Sure, anamorphic encoding could be included in the same manner as "director's Cut" v. "Theatrical Cut" versions ae both present on a disk (particularly on a 50gB Blu-Ray format), but my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.

To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K) and I just don't think the market's big enough to justify the cost and the telephone hotline required when non-CIH users pressed the wrong menu button and got mad at the funny shapes on the screen.
post #442 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

hahahaha...very funny. I like it

post #443 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

It's designed to be nice .



Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.

Sure, anamorphic encoding could be included in the same manner as "director's Cut" v. "Theatrical Cut" versions ae both present on a disk (particularly on a 50gB Blu-Ray format), but my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.

To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K) and I just don't think the market's big enough to justify the cost and the telephone hotline required when non-CIH users pressed the wrong menu button and got mad at the funny shapes on the screen.

Pity!
post #444 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

Not to throw cold water over all this "anamorphically encoded Blu-Ray" business, but I think it's highly unlikely.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

my understanding was that the "release" codings are all 2K or thereabouts anyway. So all you'd be getting was the equivalent of a vertical stretch, done by the studio instead of in your projector or scaler. No increase in detail.

To present a full detail anamorphic "print" for Blu-Ray would require a wholly separate print-down from 4K to "2.56K" (and that's IF the movie was shot and processed in full 4K)

By far most movies are shot on film, which doesn't have a specific "native resolution" cause it's analog. So the question is in which resolution the film was scanned. If it was scanned in 2K then you're right and anamorphic encoding would just give us a vertical stretch done by the studio. However, newer scans are usually done at 4K+, which is then downscaled to the Blu-Ray output resolution. It would be easy enough to scale the 4K master directly to anamorphic Blu-Ray and that should produce superior results.

However, since anamorphic encoding is not part of the Blu-Ray standard, chances that studios will do that are practically zero. I think getting true 4K encoding added to the Blu-Ray standard has higher chances than getting anamorphic 1080p encoding added.

IMHO A-lenses will become (even) more attractive once we get 4K+ projectors. Because then we'll need to upscale 1080p to 4K, anyway. Which means that the vertical stretch will not cost *any* image quality. Actually it should then improve quality, because once you have to scale, anyway, the higher the upscaling factor the better image quality will be. Of course once we have 4K+ projectors, we may have to reevaluate all A-lenses to see which can pass the full 4K+ resolution through without losing sharpness.
post #445 of 623
Quote:


It would be easy enough to scale the 4K master directly to anamorphic Blu-Ray and that should produce superior results.

However, since anamorphic encoding is not part of the Blu-Ray standard, chances that studios will do that are practically zero.

On the first point that WAS my point. A new, separate scale down, with all the fuss and bother involved (more than just pressing a button, I'd assume) might be regarded as too expensive just to cater for the expectations of a little known fringe of HT CIH enthusiasts.

On the second point, I can't see how including anamorphic encoded versions defies any standard. Think of the anamorphic version as an "Extra", or an "Easter Egg", just put there on the menu for the geeks. The trouble is, in my opinion, that it might cost money to provide it and hence would make the disk more expensive.
post #446 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

On the second point, I can't see how including anamorphic encoded versions defies any standard. Think of the anamorphic version as an "Extra", or an "Easter Egg", just put there on the menu for the geeks.

Such a solution would not defy the Blu-Ray standard. But it would cut Blu-Ray disc capacity in half, possibly resulting in lower video bitrates.

If anamorphic encoding were a mandatory Blu-Ray feature, studios could decide to encode anamorphically only, without needing to store a seperate non-anamorphic encoding on the disc. That's the only way it would make sense, IMHO.
post #447 of 623
Quote:


If anamorphic encoding were a mandatory Blu-Ray feature, studios could decide to encode anamorphically only, without needing to store a seperate non-anamorphic encoding on the disc.

But wouldn't that then screw up the VAST majority of 16:9 users with flat screen TVs? I haven't seen a flat screen TV with vertical compression yet (I might have missed it though).

But I see your point... if anamorphic encoding was a standard then TVs would have had the feature built in... but then that begs the question of backwards compatibility with the first couple of generations of flat screens which had horizontal stretch built in, not vertical compression.

It's all too hard, methinks. The problem is that a HD standard that was supposed to get rid of the mess of standards we had before, is even more complicated than things used to be, due to legacy throwbacks.

I was doing some production management for an Australian firm that makes High Definition test, monitoring and standards-conversion equipment (not Black Magic, one of their competitors). One of their most successful products is a gizmo that puts out every known standard of digital signal, plus all the mainstream analog standards (excepting SECAM and the South American PAL "amigos"). There were 32 of them, right back from 480i and 480p, to 1080p 120Hz and 119.8Hz (just in case someone had an old NTSC movie with 3:2 pulldown they wanted to run in HD-3D)... and everything in-between that you could possibly shake a stick at. And this was supposed to be a reflection of the consolidation of standards! The logic was that somewhere in Patagonia or Lower-Eastern Mongolia someone was shooting documentaries or commercials in some weird standard that had to be accounted for and converted to some other standard that a few tribesmen living in mud huts in Greater Waziristan had TV sets to suit.

I don't know what was more bewildering: the number of standards, or the fact that, when I was in broadcast television last, you needed two racks full of equipment, a sub-station for excess power, and a guy in a white lab coat to run standards conversion from PAL to NTSC and vice versa, and now you could hold something that could convert anything to anything digital in the palm of you hand and pay $500 for it!
post #448 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

But wouldn't that then screw up the VAST majority of 16:9 users with flat screen TVs? I haven't seen a flat screen TV with vertical compression yet (I might have missed it though).

Well, my thinking is that if anamorphic encoding were part of the Blu-Ray standard, Blu-Ray players would be required to be able to output the image vertically compressed. That would solve all problems...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

It's all too hard, methinks. The problem is that a HD standard that was supposed to get rid of the mess of standards we had before, is even more complicated than things used to be, due to legacy throwbacks.

Yeah, I wish HD broadcasts and Blu-Ray would be identical to 2K digital cinema world wide. That way we'd have only one HD format world wide. But no, they made HD different to digital cinema. And furthermore they still maintained different refresh rates for PAL and NTSC countries. At least the HD primaries and resolutions are identical world wide now. That's at least some progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

I was doing some production management for an Australian firm that makes High Definition test, monitoring and standards-conversion equipment (not Black Magic, one of their competitors). One of their most successful products is a gizmo that puts out every known standard of digital signal, plus all the mainstream analog standards (excepting SECAM and the South American PAL "amigos"). There were 32 of them, right back from 480i and 480p, to 1080p 120Hz and 119.8Hz (just in case someone had an old NTSC movie with 3:2 pulldown they wanted to run in HD-3D)... and everything in-between that you could possibly shake a stick at. And this was supposed to be a reflection of the consolidation of standards! The logic was that somewhere in Patagonia or Lower-Eastern Mongolia someone was shooting documentaries or commercials in some weird standard that had to be accounted for and converted to some other standard that a few tribesmen living in mud huts in Greater Waziristan had TV sets to suit.

I don't know what was more bewildering: the number of standards, or the fact that, when I was in broadcast television last, you needed two racks full of equipment, a sub-station for excess power, and a guy in a white lab coat to run standards conversion from PAL to NTSC and vice versa, and now you could hold something that could convert anything to anything digital in the palm of you hand and pay $500 for it!

I'm wondering whether a $500 device can do conversions like PAL <-> NTSC with really good quality, though. I mean, for a "perfect" conversion you first have to deinterlace as good as possible (motion compensation etc), then you need great scaling algorithms and finally for perfect framerate conversion you would probably need to do some kind of clever intermediate frame interpolation. I don't think a $500 box could do any of the above in satisfactory quality.
post #449 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Well, my thinking is that if anamorphic encoding were part of the Blu-Ray standard, Blu-Ray players would be required to be able to output the image vertically compressed. That would solve all problems...

Agreed - DVD players had this (I guess they still do) so you could tell it if the tv was 4:3 or 16:9, and it would output the anamorphically encoded DVD as letterbox for 4:3 tvs. The same could be done for 16:9 tvs with anamorphically encoded BD.

Can't see it hapenning though, especially with 3D being the new thing and more money to be had from that - plenty of 3D tvs out there now, and not many 21:9 displays (even if we included projectors with A lenses).

Gary
post #450 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Agreed - DVD players had this (I guess they still do) so you could tell it if the tv was 4:3 or 16:9, and it would output the anamorphically encoded DVD as letterbox for 4:3 tvs. The same could be done for 16:9 tvs with anamorphically encoded BD.

Can't see it hapenning though, especially with 3D being the new thing and more money to be had from that - plenty of 3D tvs out there now, and not many 21:9 displays (even if we included projectors with A lenses).

Gary

Are the 3D tvs selling like hot cakes in your country Gary?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Cylindrical A-Lens Owner's Thread