or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › New Panamorph Lens Coming Soon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Panamorph Lens Coming Soon - Page 6

post #151 of 163
If as John says the Cinevista is astigmatism corrected, and the MKII isn't (and you can't get the corrector element any more - pm Mark/CAVX for info), then you should have a sharper image with the Cinevista, so an upgrade smile.gif

Gary
post #152 of 163
Thanks, Gary. Yes, the CineVista is astigmatism corrected for its recommended throw range (approximately 6 - 18 feet, with optimal sharpness between 8 - 14 feet).
post #153 of 163
Took out my new CineVista last night and fired up the 8350 for a rough test (aka balancing the lens on foam blocks and projecting on the unfinished screenwall). The picture looks huge - there's definitely a fun immersion factor with scope. smile.gif

No vignetting with the full zoom I need. At a 2.5x height throw ratio, the pincushion is pretty atrocious - no surprise there - although with video content and proper masking I can see how even this level of distortion effectively disappears in a real-world viewing context. There is noticeable CA fringing at the far edges (no electronic correction on the 8350), although the middle half is laudably sharp. Fine for movies and FPS games, not so much for web browsing and test patterns.

I'm glad I decided to go with a curved screen, which will hopefully go some way towards correcting the worst of the pincushion.

I don't think the CV will satisfy demanding users, but for what it is - an entry level product for folks like me just getting started with this level of imaging and either unable or unwilling to zoom, I think it's a very nice option to have.
post #154 of 163
Hmmm. I think i will be using the MKII at first.

Maybe CAVX will chime in....
Edited by kgveteran - 7/3/13 at 12:41pm
post #155 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Thanks, Gary. Yes, the CineVista is astigmatism corrected for its recommended throw range (approximately 6 - 18 feet, with optimal sharpness between 8 - 14 feet).

What about the FVX200?
post #156 of 163
All Panamorph lenses are astigmatism corrected.

Throw distance specs for all Panamorph lenses are here:

http://www.panamorph.com/8-support/lens-comparison
post #157 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowkarver View Post

Took out my new CineVista last night and fired up the 8350 for a rough test (aka balancing the lens on foam blocks and projecting on the unfinished screenwall). The picture looks huge - there's definitely a fun immersion factor with scope. smile.gif

No vignetting with the full zoom I need. At a 2.5x height throw ratio, the pincushion is pretty atrocious - no surprise there - although with video content and proper masking I can see how even this level of distortion effectively disappears in a real-world viewing context. There is noticeable CA fringing at the far edges (no electronic correction on the 8350), although the middle half is laudably sharp. Fine for movies and FPS games, not so much for web browsing and test patterns.

I'm glad I decided to go with a curved screen, which will hopefully go some way towards correcting the worst of the pincushion.

I don't think the CV will satisfy demanding users, but for what it is - an entry level product for folks like me just getting started with this level of imaging and either unable or unwilling to zoom, I think it's a very nice option to have.

Any chance you could post an image or two illustrating the pincushion in your environment (and perhaps one showing real-world image)? I have similar setup parameters in my environment and am considering the Cinevista.
Edited by Keith AP - 7/23/13 at 6:19am
post #158 of 163
Similar in terms of throw ratio? I ask because the amount of pin cushion is strictly related to throw ratio, and is pretty consistent from lens to lens (in other words, the CineVista has no more or less pincushion than any other anamorphic lens at the same throw ratio). Shorter throw ratio = more pincushion, longer throw ratio = less pincushion. Ideally you would be at at least 3x the screen height or further back.

Good luck!
post #159 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith AP View Post

Any chance you could post an image or two illustrating the pincushion in your environment (and perhaps one showing real-world image)? I have similar setup parameters in my environment and am considering the Cinevista.

Sorry, I guess I should have taken a couple of quick snaps when I had it set up - but I was too busy watching stuff! Everything is boxed up as I am deep into construction. Probably won't have it all out again for at least a month.

I will say this though - John is spot on. I played around and anything under 3.0 on a flat surface I don't think most people would be happy with. I am not a very critical viewer - I'm in it for fun not technical perfection - and am very glad that I decided to spring for a curved screen.
post #160 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Similar in terms of throw ratio? I ask because the amount of pin cushion is strictly related to throw ratio, and is pretty consistent from lens to lens (in other words, the CineVista has no more or less pincushion than any other anamorphic lens at the same throw ratio). Shorter throw ratio = more pincushion, longer throw ratio = less pincushion. Ideally you would be at at least 3x the screen height or further back.

Good luck!

John, yes a similar throw ratio, 103" from a 41" height screen. Several years ago I had a large theater setup in Colorado using the UH480 and loved it. Since then I've moved and downsized - and am currently "room size challenged".

Another aspect that must be considered is that the lens of my current projector - the Benq W1070 - is recessed 1 1/8" from the front of the unit. What problems might this introduce if any?

What I was hoping to gather from snowkarver was a real-world image at his 2.5 TR to evaluate the effect of pincushion - and whether I might find it objectionable. From the sound of it, a projector's setup grid pattern might really look bad at 2.5 TR, but actual movie content might be passable for now.
post #161 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith AP View Post

John, yes a similar throw ratio, 103" from a 41" height screen. Several years ago I had a large theater setup in Colorado using the UH480 and loved it. Since then I've moved and downsized - and am currently "room size challenged".

Another aspect that must be considered is that the lens of my current projector - the Benq W1070 - is recessed 1 1/8" from the front of the unit. What problems might this introduce if any?

What I was hoping to gather from snowkarver was a real-world image at his 2.5 TR to evaluate the effect of pincushion - and whether I might find it objectionable. From the sound of it, a projector's setup grid pattern might really look bad at 2.5 TR, but actual movie content might be passable for now.

The CineVista has a large enough aperture that the recessed lens should not make a difference, but your short throw complicates things a bit. You might call Dave or Russell at Panamorph and give them the specifics. The possible issue would be vignetting, where the sides of the image could be cut off. Not likely, but worth a call to tech support.

Passable to one person may be unacceptable to another smile.gif
post #162 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowkarver View Post

There is noticeable CA fringing at the far edges (no electronic correction on the 8350), although the middle half is laudably sharp. Fine for movies and FPS games, not so much for web browsing and test patterns.

FYI : You can correct Chromatic aberattion from a PC on your desktop as well as movies and games (using either DirectX 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / or OpenGL). How do I know this? Because I've done it. It's rather trivial to realign the colours at the edges, the hard part was making it work for games. I have currently no incentive to share my work for free, as I don't even own an A-lens currently to test it out with, and there's a bunch more tuning to be done before it's ready for prime time. Each lens is different and you really need to be able to tune the curves to achieve what ECC does on higher end projectors. My BenQ w1070 projector only cost me 850$, I just can't justify spending double that to squeeze out a slightly bigger / brighter image. (as much as I love widescreen)
post #163 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

If as John says the Cinevista is astigmatism corrected, and the MKII isn't (and you can't get the corrector element any more - pm Mark/CAVX for info), then you should have a sharper image with the Cinevista, so an upgrade smile.gif

Gary

There was never a corrector for the MK2, only the "CAVX Corrector" for MK3 (MK3+C). MK3 was also corrected for CA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › New Panamorph Lens Coming Soon