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 19

post #541 of 623
I was discussing convergance of the new JVCs on another thread and ended up taking some pictures last night with and without my Isco II in place. I thought that they may also be of interest to viewers of this thread. I've often seen it said how using a lens will soften the image, but as you can see from these (admittedly poor) photos that doesn't seem to be the case here.

FWIW My projector is a JVC HD350 at very long throw (approx 2.7 IIRC) minimum zoom on the projector for 2.35:1. The camera was my OH's Pentax Optio 5i in auto setting, with the flash off...it was late and after 2 films and a bottle of wine. The non lens one isn't great but it's focused higher up, but..I'll try to get two matching sides with and without the lens later if I fire up the projector tonight.

I hope they're of interest.

EDIT: The non lens one is brighter as I forgot to change the projector setting (I have a 4 clicks difference for the iris between the two ARs). I'll try to remember to fix this tonight as well...we're out of wine, so should be better.
LL
LL
post #542 of 623
If anything, the ISCO looks sharper.

Gary
post #543 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

If anything, the ISCO looks sharper.

Gary

Yes, but I think that's down to my camera skills really. Point is that it's no worse with the lens in place even close up. Here's a better one of without the lens, plus the same with lens for comparison.

Also, as it's Christmas, I've added the one screenshot of a film that seems to have come out well...enjoy (I certainly did, if only for the picture quality, but my Son enjoyed the film anyway ).
LL
LL
LL
post #544 of 623
Of course but if it had looked softer, we know what would have happened!

Gary
post #545 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Of course but if it had looked softer, we know what would have happened!

Gary

Shhh! it's the scaling that causes the softness.
post #546 of 623
Mr T Stark looks pretty sharp in my screenshot though.
post #547 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Mr T Stark looks pretty sharp in my screenshot though.

He does!......but he may look even sharper not being put through a pixel shuffler!
post #548 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

He does!......but he may look even sharper not being put through a pixel shuffler!

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the pictures I posted earlier in the thread.

I did try zooming for a while...I got better though.
post #549 of 623
Any news on the lower cost cylindrical lenses being discussed a few months ago?
post #550 of 623
There are 4,
CAVX's - Limited Availability
The XEIT - Limited Availability
THe Prismasonic - Not avail yet.
And a plastic "entry level" from Schneider - not avail yet.

Which one?
post #551 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

There are 4,
CAVX's - Limited Availability
The XEIT - Limited Availability
THe Prismasonic - Not avail yet.
And a plastic "entry level" from Schneider - not avail yet.

Which one?

GG,

So was that EL lens shown at CEDIA just a prototype?
post #552 of 623
Well, it's not in production, so technically I'd say prototype. But they thought it would be ready before now. The fact that it's not indicates problems on one type or another. Quality issues I expect. I'm sure they'll sell like hotcakes when (if) they get them going, but I think I'll pass.
post #553 of 623
i was not referring to any specific one - you provided exactly what i was looking for. I recall discussion around 3-4 different lenses and do intend to upgrade from my current Prismasonic 5000R. waiting on releases / reviews.

Thanks!
Mike
post #554 of 623
Thread Starter 
I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.
post #555 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.

The transport your referring to is the new one from Prismasonic. I'm not sure how practical it is given the height it needs.
post #556 of 623
This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?
post #557 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?

If Prismasonic are as smart as we hope they are, it will
post #558 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The transport your referring to is the new one from Prismasonic. I'm not sure how practical it is given the height it needs.

It works both ways for those who mount their projector right to the ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

This new Primasonic lens also can work with GG cine slide?

Yes it is machined for Scotts Cineslide as well so you have a choice.
post #559 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post


It works both ways for those who mount their projector right to the ceiling

Excellent!
post #560 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Yes it is machined for Scotts Cineslide as well so you have a choice.

Thanks Alan looks like this lens will be able to cater for all. Cant wait to read the reviews.
post #561 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I'm interested in a vertical Cineslide(is it possible), GG. Been thinking of this for six months then I saw one somewhere. Love the symmetry.

Not sure what you saw. But, no the CineSlide cannot be oriented vertically if that's what you mean. The motor is intentionally minimized in size and only has enough torque to accellerate (and decellerate(brake)) the 10lb+ lens horizontally. It would take a huge motor to lift that much weight and hold it under the power of the motor alone.

In order to go vertical there are only a couple of conventional ways to drive it. Neither work very well for this application IMO. A belt driven device would need a big motor or the thing being lifted would have to be counterweighted. Big motors are power hungry and ugly, counterweighting is not very practical in this case due to aesthetics and headroom. Constant tension springs have short life cycles so they are out for reliability reasons. And unless they were very large, they don't have nearly enough pull to offset the weight of a 10+ lb lens anyway. Next are screw drives. Screw driven mechanisims are what put me in business becasue of the long term issues the other manufacturer was having. My first year of sales, several years ago, probably went 25% to replacing those devices where they had failed out of warranty. And those were the ones running in the easy direction (horizontal). Still replacing them.

In the end there's only 3 directions to go with a lens, sideways, vertical, or away (swing out). We could easliy design a device to go in any direction. I chose the direction that fits the most installation scenarios, keeps the device small, light and compact, but still allows for a quick move (aspect change in 1 sec). And allows for a reliable design tested and documented to a 30 year life under normal use (actually double that with no wear evident but I'm being conservative lest I invoke some bad Karma ). The other movement directions had interference issues in the majority of the installations I encountered. Whether it was a port wall issue for swing out designs, or headroom problems for ceiling mounts. Add to that lowered ceilings, projectors that require the unit be no higher than the top of the screen, and theaters with risers (effective lowered ceilings), and the headroom issues are compunded. Installers occasionally whine about how tall the CineSlide is and it's only 3" thick (including the motor).

So while I could make another device, the problem with selling such a device is they all have microprocessors in them (for IR, RS232, and motor controllers). And even little bity motors like the one on the Cineslide (1.3"^3) are EMI (electromagnetic interference) BOMBS. Very hard to contain. If it has a microprocessor, even a little one, it has to pass FCC EMI regulations(and CE for europe and most of the rest of the world). The lab tests for that start at $14,000. If you fail the test (easy to do), you go try to fix whatever is bleeding EMI, come back and plunk down another suitcase of $$ and the lab is happy to test it again for you. Not a fun process. One of the most stressful weeks of my life. If I so much as change a capacitor in the CineSlide it voids it's certifications and it has to be retested. The certification documentation is an extensive report, a good 3-4" thick. They record every component down to the resistor part number, photograph every circuit board in high resolution closeups, document every part. Sometimes people think that having a FCC approved power supply covers it. It does not. That helps becasue otherwise they have to be tested independently (and then you get into UL and TUV safety certifications). No, the whole thing has to be tested as used in the home, including the power supply, and any cabling that *could* be used (RS232, RJ45, triggers, etc.). All in place at the time of the test. The power supply wires alone are like great big EMI antenna. The RS232 and triggers, even though they are opto-isolated, act the same way. Huge PITA to get compliant. And expensive.

But, it's against the law to sell non compliant devices, and the fines for selling a non FCC certified device (the FCC calls the "unintentional radiators" under part 15 of the FCC rules), are astronomical. If it had meant a slap on the hand or ticket for $1000, I might have considered trying to "cheat" with the CineSldie and taken my chances. But the fines in the USA are more like thousands, per day, per device sold, to people caught selling them . They get surprisingly serious about it. Bankrupt in a day scenarios were not worth the risk.

So the point is, even if I could make a different device, I wouldn't. At a few hundred per year, the market is just too small. It takes a long time to break even on that FCC/CE certification. But not having it is not an option, in the US at least. It's a major stumbling block to import or design a masking system. I can do it easily myself, I can import a nice one easily, but the payback on the regulatory certifications weighs heavy against either in a small market product.

Sorry, probably more than you wanted to know .
post #562 of 623
So Franin, you appear to be looking forward to swapping lenses. Are you not happy with your Cinedigitar anymore? Any particular reason or more than one? I don't remember, don't you have the Kino Torsion too? Or their linear transport?
post #563 of 623
For those interested, I looked it up:

Failure to Comply with the FCC’s Regulations
Under section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act, the FCC has authority to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of continuing violation of its rules, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. 47 U.S.C §503(b)(2)(C). Under Section 1.80(b)(4) of its rules, the FCC has established a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment. “Marketing” is defined as selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease, importing, shipping, or distributing for the purpose of selling or leasing. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.801 et seq.


Stinks for low volume products like mine and Annsi's (understatement).
post #564 of 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

So Franin, you appear to be looking forward to swapping lenses. Are you not happy with your Cinedigitar anymore? Any particular reason or more than one? I dont' remember dont you have the Kino Tortion too? Or their linear transport?

No who says I'm swapping lenses very happy with mine I just think it's great to see more lenses released.

It's great to get more members into scope.
post #565 of 623
You just seemed more anxious about this particular lens, that's all. Just came across as more than cheerleading. You know how email goes, hard to read intent sometimes.
I agree, more the better. But of course I would say that .
post #566 of 623
Wow! Thats a chunck of change! You weren't kidding about not wanting to flirt with the idea of not having the product certified; that kind of fee would not only put one out of business but bankruptcy would be the only option out.

-Sean
post #567 of 623
Yep. It stinks. I was almost 2 years into the project (1 year of developent and testing, the rest ramping up) when this requirement was "brought to my attention" by some serious folks. I had some misconceptions about waht was required for sure. I was straightened out. Got a short time frame to get'er done. I about had a heart attack when I found out what the testing cost. But I was too far into it to quit then. After a very stressful and expensive time later, I was thankfully compliant and just barely. I assure you it was no cursory test, rubber stamp, had me your money thing. They put it throughthe EMI testing ringer with more scopes and types of antennae than I'd ever seen in one place.

It stinks, but on the other hand, you'd be ticked if every time your neighbor activated his CineSlide all your TV's and radios went sshshshshsh with a snow screen. Or it casued your cell phone or wireless network to hose, etc.

The fact that there are many, expensive testing labs in the US and EU that do the testing points to the fact that it must be done and they are serious about it. Otherwise, those places would not exist.

Don't even get me started on the TUV testing I went through in Germany. TUV is like our UL, those are 3rd party safety certifications and not required by law like FCC compliance is (And CE for EU contries). But it's made it through that, too.

But I guess I'm getting way OT, sorry.
post #568 of 623
And why I never bothered with an automated slide for the Mk4. Better to align the stand to work with one that is already certified.
post #569 of 623
And we are proud and grateful that you did. Thank you.
post #570 of 623
I hope the guys at Prismasonic already have their lift certified, I don't want anything to hold up the release, I feel like I've been waiting for forever already!

-Sean
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