Tease, new Prismasonic cylindrical lens and remote motorized sled. - Page 20

No, it comes and goes.

Any other reviews for the motorized mount? I'm a little concerned about the need for modifications to get it 'right'. Any chance these changes might be incorporated into version 2?

What is the optimum throw ratio for this lens? I have quite a bit of flexibility and could go as high as 2.6 or as low as 1.8

Did you try the calculator found here?

Pretty tempted to get this lens.

Anyone using it with an infocus sp8602?

As I understand it I calculate throw ratio from the 16:9 width. Distance from the projector lens to the screen is 16 feet. I was planning on a 9 foot screen 21:9, so it will be around 6.85 feet 16:9. That gives me a ratio of around 2.3 or so.

I will have to zoom all the way in on the infocus sp8602 to get a 6.85 feet wide 16:9 screen from 16 feet throw distance. Will a benefit from this in regards to focus on the edges and the other geometric disadvantages from using an A-lens?

I'm considering the lens without a lift and leaving it in place all the time. Advice? I can accept the pixel loss from 16:9 content.

Should I get the lens with the electric focus feature?

My setup will then be a 117" 21:9 screen with a seating distance at around 3.5x screen height.

i have the new prismasonic with motorized lift and find i usually leave it in place out of laziness..its a great lens but i will be selling it since i have a sony 1000 on order and won't need the extra light and pixels. it does make quite a difference with my jvc though,

I wouldn't exactly say that there is rush to buy this lens. This sounded promising, but interest seems that it has kind of faded away. What has happened? Has the zoom method put the brake on A-lenses?

Projector prices have fallen considerably but the prices of these lenses has not and allot of that is simply because of small volume turn over Vs projectors which sell in their thousands to every A-lens.

I use a BenQ projector and the way this company has been able to reduce the price of their product is to strip away features.

If you compare the W1000 to the W5000, the lenses (the expensive part was changed out for a much cheaper version and hence all the varying stories you hear about them) are not the same and all the electrics (zoom and focus) is now manual.

People are struggling with the idea of spending as much if not more on an accessory than the actual projector they'll use this accessory with.

Mark, all that makes sense. I just kind of hate to see CIH suffer a slow death or become more a niche market than it is...if that is what is in store.

For us it seems that the zoom method has not put the brake on A-lenses, but rather it has brought more publicity to the whole cinema scope concept. The activity in internet forums may confuse, but it is good to remember that this is a pretty small community after all.. and most of those visitors at forums are 'quiet' readers.

From us there are some new lens models and mount available, as well as the updated features in older models.

Briefly:
---------
HD-6000R/RX (with motorized lift) has now adjustable stops for both 'in' and 'out' positions.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000r.shtml
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000r_manual_web.pdf

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000rx.shtml
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000rx_manual_web.pdf

As new models there are HD-6000M/MX. They are like HD-6000R/RX, but instead of the motorized system, the lift is now manually controlled. The lens is very light and easy to lift aside by hand since the lift system uses the same constant force spring system for neutralizing the gravity force as HD-6000R/RX.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d..._hd6000m.shtml
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000m_manual_web.pdf

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...hd6000mx.shtml
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/hd6000mx_manual_web.pdf

The new mount, CB-300 is a bit hybrid of CB-200 and CB-500. It uses the same mechanism to attach the projector body as CB-500, which is more developed and easier to setup compared to the discontinued CB-200 mount.

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/d...on_cb300.shtml
http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/cb300_manual_web.pdf

These will be available at AVS store. Please contact AVS guys for pricing.
I can answer to technical questions here.

Thank you,

It is simply because how people look at the A-Lens. It is an 'add on' instead of looking at the whole package as CIH solution.

I have moved to a Sony VPL 95es. The lens is more recessed than the RS20 and my 1400/FE is right at the ragged edge of being too small. (2.1 throw ratio). There is very little room for error when positioning the lens to the projector, tilt, etc.

But - I really do not want to invest in the new lens if I do not see a marked improvement. Can anyone comment who has compared these two? (HD 6000 and 1400/FE)

I haven't yet got my hands on an HD6000, but I have a gut feeling from what I read that it is probably a very good lens. If nothing else, I wanted to bump the thread back to life.

I don't think that's much different than it ever was. But in any case our sales of Isco lenses is up substantially for 1st quarter. Can't explain it as I really expected to take a hit from the auto-zoom. I think Annsi may be right that the technology gives some more visibility. And then those who can afford it upgrade to a lens solution.

I have a Benq W6000 sitting right here beside me now that we had to make a mount kit for with a lens and transport that was substantially more expensive than the PJ, and an Epson on the way for the same activity. Stupid BenQ manual's dimensions for the ceiling mount wasn't even in the ballpark. Had 2 drawings with conflicting dimensions, both wrong! But I digress .....

I can't comment on the two lenses you have mentioned, but I can give a generalization about the technology - prisms + corrector Vs cylindrical where the prisms + corrector have no focus adjustments and the cylindrical lens does. That is why the cylindrical lenses have traditionally always been more expensive. They feature complex mechanics to move one of the lenses in or out allowing true corner to corner focus.

I can tell you that my hd6000r, which i have for sale due to purchase of sony 1000 was noticeably sharper than my panamorph 480 which is a pretty good prism lens..

Congrats on the Sony. Was it a close call on abandoning the HD6000 with the Sony, or did the Sony just slam dunk it out of the equation?

Thanks Mark. No one seams to know.... Annsi didn't even respond to an email request I sent him. I think I'll put the 3 grand somewhere else.

I have not received an email from you. I reply to all emails I receive, usually within the same day +- time difference.

About the difference of corrected prism lens and cylindrical lens. As I have earlier posted in this thread; according to simulations the difference in corner to corner shrapness is around 1 to 10. Also my experiments agree this. Also the CA performance is much better compared to your fe1400.

cam man..still have the prismasonic and haven't even tried it with the sony yet but the sony is so good i figured i'd save myself the trouble of all that pesky button pressing..

Then humor us (the forum) and give it a go. You might be surprised yourself.

I'll send it again. What do mean by "1 to 10"? Ten times better"
?

I agree. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't coddle those button-pressing pinkies! Inquiring minds want to know!

Yes

Sorry boys..lens is gone and didnt get a chance to try it

Do I understand you correctly that the zoom method with the 1000 expands the image to scope better than an A lens with vertical stretch?

It sounds like he didn't use the lens so couldn't do the comparison to come to that conclusion.

There is a guy with a 4K Sony on another thread that does use a lens with it though because he feels it gives a better picture.

Gary

So using vertical stretch and A lens, you use all the pixels of the pj. If you zoom , you are only using a portion of the pixels for scope aspect, right? It seems counterproductive to spend the extra $ on 4K, then throw out the extra pixels that you bought 4K for. I guess you still will have more pixels without the stretch/ A lens and zooming than a 2K, but still.

Yes that's right.



There are different ways to look at it, but if you have the pixels there are advantages to using all of them, but as you say, with 4K, no matter what you do, you're still using more pixels than the source and if the scaling is good, you have a few more options on how you do things.

Gary

So then it would be even more so when 4K source material is used to best view the benefits of 4K is to use stretch/A lens. I'm guessing the use of an additional lens can introduce its own issues, but it would seem if using one of the better lens that those issues would be overridden by the benefits of true 4K viewing? Obviously without Bluray 4K movies yet, that answer would only be conjecture at this point. But I won't be selling my A lens until I try it with my 4K laser pj, whenever that happens.