Question about 3D and anamorphic lens... - Page 6

What I mean't was a higher quality A-Lens is required for 3D to provide an acceptbly good image, where as for 2D the quality point may not need to be as high for similar results.


Re the CR remark, I notice the JVC's open up the iris to max thus lowering the on/Off CR in 3D mode so maximum light can be produced.

I was just wondering since the visual depth is created by the two frames, if a high CR is perhaps not as important for 3D(though it won't hurt!) as it is for 2D.

CR is just as important in 3D IMO. No different that 2D. The reason JVC opens up the iris is becasue they need every photon out of a relatively dim PJ. You lose a ballpark 50% equivilant lumens+ for 3D output and active glasses (may be much higher), so with an already low base, they can't afford to run high contrast mode and 3D. For the best 3D, you need a light cannon IMO. I prescribe Digital Projection for that task.

I'd be quite happy if JVC could provide 350 lumens in 3D mode from behind the glasses......that would be around 2350 lumens from the projector.

Do you think they could do it......perhaps a multiple lamp approach?

Sure, I could make a lengthy wish list of specs. But, not gonna happen. For under 6+ figures and a long time anyway.

If you intend to use and A-Lens for a 2D/3D system, then you need the best A-Lens for both not just 3D.

+1

Agree.....all I was saying that I think 3D demands better focus uniformity across the screen to maintain the 3D effect. Where as with 2D it's not as critical though desireable.

Non corrected optics of yester year that was 'ok' for 2D won't cut it for 3D?....yes?

Yet when I tested the Mitsubishi HC9000 in 3D, I found that a CA corrected prism lens (with an Astigmatism Corrector) worked quite well. I had my fully corrected cylindrical lens siting there and would have used it if the prism lens didn't cut it. It did, so I just used it for the 2 days I had the 3D projector.


Won't cut it period and the images I posted HERE (post #28) clearly show this. I only used them from 2006~2008 because at the time there was nothing in the way of corrected A-Lenses under about $10K that would work with my set up. In 2009, an ISCO IIIL was listed at $18K in AU.

Still is that price?

The last I heard they could be bought for $12K AUD.

About to run an AVS special, CineSlide and Isco 4 under $8k. PM me for details.

Not bad Scott.

So apart from size, is there any difference between the IIIL and the 4?

Yes. Slightly better.

Optically?

Maybe slightly better in it's build quality??

Come to think of it, didn't Scott have an ISCO 4 thread?

Don't remember Mark.

FOUND IT! It had slipped down to page 2 and like "the one ring", was lost

I guess it's been awhile.

Yeah and the focus seems to be on a smallish wedge shaped lens right now rather than a HUGE round lens.

I'm told that the Lumis 3D Solo is one of the few active 3D projectors that allows vertical stretch in 3D. I got to see one of these recently and it was very nice...probably the best 3D I have experienced so far. Triple flash and high brightness (along with 3-chip DLP) are differentiating factors, but they come at a premium. The silver lining: you only need one anamorphic lens.

And about $50,000.00 to blow on a projector, lol.

-Sean

I think the Runco D73 is about the same money. The DPI Titen 3D rig is right up there. You could easily spend $50K on two ISCO's, two sleds, and two so-so projectors and not get as good a result. Two Panamorphs and two entry level projectors would work, but it would be a big come down for anyone who has seen a Solo. The SXRD/LCOS active 3D projectors are way to dim and slow to project a big immersive punchy artifact-free image. Don't get me wrong. $50K is out of my range too right now, but if I could afford it, I would have great conviction as to which 3D solution currently offered the best performance and value.

At the affordable end, the Mitisubishi HC9000 also scales for CIH in 3D.

Not a bad projector, but because of SXRD it is somewhat light challenged when it comes to larger screen sizes (after 3D processing and dark glasses). My sense is that the bigger the screen, the more immersive and enjoyable the 3D experience. So it helps to start out with high brightness.

For the last two CIH demos I've run, I've used the HC9000 projecting onto a 125" screen and it seems to be OK. Your right, when you first put on the glasses, the image brightness takes a big hit, but your eyes adjust quickly and it was quite good. Even AVATAR and TRON LEGACY which are both quite a dark films were good at that size.

I guess it's a question of how one defines "larger screen size". For me that means something in the 11-12ft+ range (2.40 width).

I have a freind with a 3.6m (approx 12 feet) wide Scope 3D set up that uses the JVC X3 and Aussiemorphic MK4. I find his images to be bright enough even with the glasses. And yes the extra size makes a difference for both 2D and 3D.

I get almost 20ftL on a 11' wide (56" tall) screen. I admit it's bright but I prefer it that way. Anyone who owns a Sim2 Lumis says the same. Once you have bright you can never go dim . I can't imagine that PJ being bright enough in 2D mode on a 12' screen, and whack it by 50-60% with glasses. My eyes would protest.