New Panamorph Lens Coming Soon - Page 2

I have your back dropzone... I watch all the time also and as soon as I see something worthy I will notify you via PM!

PM me your preferred e-mail address so I can notify you that way also!


...Glenn

Thanks, I appreciate it! PM sent.

The fact remains that this is not a routine adjustment that your newbie adopter is likely to be able to accomplish, or even really understand. And what happens when you remove the lens? Your "corrected" colors now become "uncorrected". As a substitute for correcting color aberration in the optics, twiddling with some maintenance menu leaves a lot to be desired. You rely too much on other people (projector manufacturers, for Pete's sake!) to do your work for you.

As for this:

... it implicitly trash-talks all your upmarket products. They use doublet prisms, don't they? So how can they be as sharp as the much less expensive Cine Vista, then? That quote doesn't make sense.

By all means provide an inexpensive entry-level product with no CA correction, but getting projector manufacturers to conjure up elaborate pixel manipulation mechanisms to compensate, while claiming that single glass prisms actually deliver a sharper image, sounds like the tail wagging the dog.

The fact remains that this is not a routine adjustment that your newbie adopter is likely to be able to accomplish, or even really understand. And what happens when you remove the lens? Your "corrected" colors now become "uncorrected". As a substitute for correcting color aberration in the optics, twiddling with some maintenance menu leaves a lot to be desired. You rely too much on other people (projector manufacturers, for Pete's sake!) to do your work for you.

I totally agree that this is not an adjustment that a "newbie adopter" is likely to attempt, however, as I stated previously, my honest thought about this is that the typical "newbie adopter" would never even notice the chromatic to begin with. If they did see it - and were bothered by it - they have a way of correcting it. My own personal experience with the public - and even dealers and industry professionals - has shown me that the vast majority of people are so involved with the actual experience of watching a widescreen movie on a huge screen without black bars that they never even notice the chromatic aberration. However, we feel that those that do desire to perform this fine tuning of the image for optimum performance be able to do so. The type of people who would be likely to do this - and understand the benefits - are right here on this forum. It's an added benefit for those that a) care, and b) don't mind taking an hour or so to do the adjustment. After all, it's one time only.

RE: what happens when you remove the lens. First of all, we are expecting that the vast majority of CineVistas will be used in a fixed configuration, so of course dialing out the chromatic becomes a one time operation and therefore a non-issue. However, the Epson 5020 and 6020 (for example) allow you to easily turn the correction on and off so it is a simple matter to program a macro for correction on when the lens is in place, correction off when the lens is out of place. In fact, the Epson stores the settings in memory so again, a one time operation. We are testing other projectors for this same capability. Next up - the Sony 50ES.

Lastly, I honestly don't see what the downside is to what we are doing here. The projector manufacturers are all game, since they genuinely see the CineVista / projector combo as a real differentiator for them from flat panel. It's not as if we are "burdening" projector manufacturers with this idea. In fact, the opposite is true. The reason we have such good relationships with just about every projector manufacturer on the planet is because we see them as partners, and they see that we are dedicated to helping build the projection industry as a whole. One of the things we have heard repeatedly from our projector manufacturer partners is that they wanted a low cost anamorphic option. Well, now we are providing one AND a way for the lens / projector combo to work together to improve picture quality. Personally, I am proud of the fact that we are working on ways to make anamorphic more affordable and improve quality at the same time.

BTW, the adjustments in at least the Epson are not buried in the maintenance menu, they are in the main consumer accessible menu. One of our goals is to create support materials (videos, etc) that explain the process and illustrate exactly how to perform the correction for those that desire the best possible performance from their system.

As for your other comments about the sharpness of the 2 element design, I did not make the statement you are referring to.
Edited by John Schuermann - 11/7/12 at 11:57pm

Working on it

Unfortunately, the Epson has already gone back, but we will be working with the Sony over the next few days. If all goes well we'll post pictures here.

OK, here are some down and dirty pics of the Electronic Color Correction in action on the Sony HW50ES. I corrected the lateral chromatic on the right side of the screen. The pics - 1 through 5 - show me correcting each zone one at a time left to right. You can see that the aberration increases as you move out to the right side of the screen, just as expected, and that I was able to variably correct for the aberration using the controls on the Sony. From the time stamp on the pics, you can see that the whole process took twenty minutes, and that was including the time taken to snap the pictures. I did not correct the vertical aberration, as that is actually aberration already present in the projector itself. I think that this shows pretty clearly the value of having correction in the projector. As with the Epson, the settings are easily accessed from the main projector menu.

The before and after pics were taken by me simply turning the color correction function on and off after I had done all of the right hand zones.

Click on the pictures to make them bigger

Those C-stock chipped in the corner lens display perfectly on the screen and are guaranteed to by seller. You are right they didn't come with a transport but for $650 shipped(I think they have gone up) mine does exactly what I expected it to and I'm thrilled with my purchase. You are going to have to put out quite a bit more to get a lens like a UH480 that is cosmetically perfect with a transport.

Mike

They show you attempting to correct each zone. Picture #5 shows that at the end of the process there's still about a pixel's worth of CA left.

It sure does

Sophistry... The source was quoted as an (apparently) official Panamorph email.

I've lost count of the number of threads here endlessly discussing Chromatic Aberration, to the nth degree. Ditto for screen size, distortion and pincushion. There are probably dozens of them, with hundreds, if not thousands of posts attached. Many end-users do care.

There are anamorphics about that have virtually zero Chromatic Aberration, don't claim less glass equals a sharper picture, that don't underestimate pincushion, and that don't assert one fixed focal setting is good for 6-16 feet. They don't need to form partnerships with projector manufacturers. In fact, they work with any projector out of the box. Some of them even publish specifications, in detail.

Impressive results......What projector throw distance and screen size were those pics taken at ? I would also like to see a focus pattern before/after pics if possible?

I'll have to figure out how I can post some similar pictures using a used Isco II lens that I picked up for similar money to this new lens. I think you would be blown away by it if you consider that these are impressive results. I don't need to adjust any pixels on the projector either (I only have 1 pixel steps anyway on my HD350 and my soon to arrive X35).

I'm split between admiring that they are trying to produce a cheaper lens to appeal to those who don't want to spend as much again on their lens as their projector, but also concerned that some will try these lenses and be put off using an A lens altogether if they have similar quality expectations to me. It just seems counter-intuitive to buy a product that visibly worsens the picture clarity and resolution as using the sub pixel zone adjustment controls on a projector will reduce resolution which for me is the opposite of what I want from HD video.

Are the pics pixel level sharp, with excellent exposure, focus and framing? Admittedly, no. I was simply trying to illustrate - if crudely, with mediocre pics - that CA could be dialed out to a large degree using the ECC on certain current projectors. The Sony HW50 does not have the correction level adjustment range of the Epson we tested previously, for example, so yes - there is some residual aberration in pic 5. This is why we are working with our partners to tweak the technology for maximum effectiveness. However, despite the crudeness of the pictures, you can see that I was able to dial out a large degree of the aberration.

Hardly "sophistry." You had quoted two different people in one post, and I did not want to leave the impression that I made the original quote. Since I had taken the time to respond, I thought just ignoring that section of your post could be misinterpreted.

Totally agree! And for those that do, they can choose from one of your lenses, our own UH480 and DC1, the Schneider, the Isco, etc. They also can choose the CineVista and do the adjustments that I suggest. Is the latter the very best solution regardless of price? No. And it was never meant to be the "best solution." As I said before, the UH480 and DC1 are not going away. There is a reason for this.

Yes - like the Panamorph UH480 and DC1. And yours and the Schneider / Isco, I am sure

We are working in good faith, for our customers and our projector partners. We see having partnerships with projector manufacturers as a good thing. For example, it is largely through our partnership efforts that almost every projector manufacturer in the world has the proper scaling modes for anamorphic projection. I know because I was directly involved in those efforts. We are also working right now with Hollywood studios to develop anamorphic Blu-ray under the Folded Space banner. This is the value of seeing others as partners. The entire projection and anamorphic lens industry benefits from the time we put into these projects.

Your last quote above is mostly directed at Russell again, but this time I will take a moment to address the issues even though I did not make the claims. The CineVista will likely be sharper than most other lens types in the center of the picture. As one moves away from the center, you are correct that the sharpness will be reduced by the chromatic aberration in the horizontal direction. This can be pretty effectively compensated for with the chromatic correction we have been discussing. Yes, it is true that other than in the center of the image, lenses like our own UH480 / DC1 (and others, such as your own, I imagine) will have a sharper overall image and therefore are more desirable if one has the money to spend on them.

I would imagine that Russell took a guess at the amount of pincushion he was seeing and did not measure it precisely (hence his use of the term "about."). You suggested he re-measure. That's fair.

Yes, it's true that the CineVista will work at its absolute best in a narrower sweet spot than 6 - 18 feet. What was said was "the focus range can go down to 6 feet and up to 18 feet without any noticeable blurring or diminishing of the image." While I would have included the modifier "with normal video content," the statement is essentially true. Unless one is bringing up test patterns, the image does not start to look noticeably blurry until one gets beyond those recommended throw distances.

Thanks for your comments!

The screen is 125” dia 2.35:1. 48.5” high and 115 wide. Throw was 12’ so we were on the close side at about a 1.6 throw ratio.

I was deliberately trying to exacerbate the issues by using a short throw ratio, which as most of us know creates more problems for an anamorphic lens. Yet I was still able to dial out most of the obvious chromatic.

Very important - I also want to point out that we were using test optics only for these pics. No lens housing, no fine tuning of position, just two optical elements literally affixed to a table using double sided tape. For that reason, I don't want to post any more pics until we actually have a production lens here at the lab. The point of my pictures was to demonstrate how multi-zone electronic chromatic correction could be used to dial out a large degree of chromatic aberration, and not to try and illustrate the performance of the lens definitively.

I appreciate your fair-minded assessment of the pics, comments, and our efforts to bring a lower cost lens to market. Please see my comments above re: Kevin 3000's questions about test conditions and intent of the pictures.

As you know, our UH480 and DC1 lenses do not need any pixel adjustments either, just like your used Isco. The CineVista was created for a different category of consumer.

The Forum is host to a bunch of regular posters that have quality concerns way above that of 95% of the population. In most ways, this is a good thing, as it keeps manufacturers on their toes and constantly striving for higher and higher performance products. That's great. But we are wrong if we think that the things that concern us are important to the average person totally thrilled with a 55" Westinghouse flat panel and a sound bar. And those folks are not wrong for enjoying what they have. It's all about the experience. And we think of selling the CineVista as selling the experience.

Since we are posting about the CineVista on the forum, we are addressing Forum-type concerns by showing how those who care about price and performance can achieve good results. As good as flagship products from ourselves and others? No. But that is why they remain flagship products. IMO, it's kind of like worrying that those who buy a sub-$1500 home theater projector will be turned off of projection because they didn't buy a $30,000 3 chip DLP The CineVista fits within a "good, better, best" product mix and is represented this way.
Edited by John Schuermann - 11/9/12 at 10:40am

I see where you're coming from, but there is a difference comparing lenses and projectors: If you are on a budget you don't have much choice but to buy a cheaper projector. However, if you are on a tight budget and want a scope screen, you can always just zoom, even use some of the lens money saved to buy a better projector in the first place. So it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Sure my own tag line shows that I prefer a lens to zooming, but I did try a cheaper lens first and went back to zooming until I found a better lens. Had the timing been different I may have used the extra money to upgrade my projector and then possibly not gone and tried another lens as the first one nearly put me off...hence my comments about putting lens buyers off if it's not upto their expectations.

I can see that it's kind of an odd niche that this product is in: On the one hand many 'non forum' users won't even know what an A lens is so it may be hard to market to them. On the other hand those that do know, may well have researched the pros and cons of a lens and know that there are some compromises with 2 piece models, such as less uniform focus caused by chromic aberration. Not all of these will have a projector that allows the zoned adjustment of sub pixels either, so it seems a very limited market to me. Perhaps allowing some kind of upgrade path whereby a corrector lens could be added later as funds allow might be worth considering?

Once again, thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my post. I of course understand your points as well.

Where I disagree is that I think your point of view is limited to the world of the home theater enthusiast and the typical AVS Forum poster. We are the kinds of people who notice things like chromatic aberration and take the time to mess with things like zoom settings and picture calibration. The average consumer who shops for a home theater is not even thinking about such things. They are simply looking for an experience. The vast majority of people out there don't even realize that anamorphic projection is an option, which is exactly the problem we are hoping to solve. Of course, you are correct in pointing out that most of these people don't even know what an anamorphic lens is. My point is that they don't have to. Where we have been successful marketing is the "experience based" concept, not in promoting a lens as a projector accessory. Our entire marketing message is contained in this picture:



Those dealers who are successful selling anamorphic simply ask the above question. Once almost every single consumer picks the image on the right, what follows then is a discussion about how to get that experience. The CineVista becomes the least expensive way to do that, with better performance available as one moves up the Panamorph line.

That's a good sales pitch with the added possibility of up selling one of the higher tier lenses too. I guess I'm not the target buyer (assuming I hadn't already got a lens) so my views probably aren't so relevant, but the company I work for is mostly a high tier manufacturer, but we have introduced a low tier range as selling a low tier model is better than a competitor getting the sale, so I see where you're coming from.

Sorry for my n00b question. But what's the advantage (and/or disadvantage) on using this setup than set the zoom feature of the latest projector? (JVC, Panasonic)

It sounds interesting especially I'm on the wait list of the new JVC RS4810, but if this setup has a certain advantage over zoom method on the projector, I might just get a Sony HW50 NOW instead of wait for the JVC till x'mas time.

The advantages of anamorphic lenses are three-fold:

First of all, with an anamorphic lens setup you use all of the 1920 x 1080 available pixels in your projector to create the image on your screen. Using the zoom method, you are only using 1920 x 810 pixels (typically) to create the 2.40;1 image, with the extra 170 rows of pixels shut off to create the black letterbox bars. When you use an anamorphic lens, you engage a vertical stretch scaling mode (known as V-Stretch on the Sony you are considering, Anamorphic A on the JVC) that lights up all 1920 x 1080 pixels by vertically stretching the image. The anamorphic lens then corrects the vertical stretch by expanding the image horizontally.

Secondly, as a result of the above process you end up with a considerably brighter picture than you do by using the zoom method. Think of it this way. By using zoom, you are asking your projector to create an 80% larger image while at the same time reducing the light output of the projector by 25 percent (the amount of light lost to those black letterbox bars). When you use a lens, you are still creating that larger image but at the same time using all of the resolution AND light output of the projector.

Lastly, it is important to remember that when you zoom, the black bars do not actually go away - they simply fall above and below the screen where they are sometimes visible. This is due to the fact that most projectors are not capable of perfect blacks, and what you will actualy see is dark grey bars above and below your screen when you zoom. If you have light colored walls, this can become a particularly obvious problem. This is also clearly seen with subtitles, where the subtitles in some movies end up being projected onto the wall. In fairness, subtitles can be an issue for anamorphic lenses as well, since the vertical stretch process can push them out of the picture area. For this reason, most folks here with anamorphic or zoom setups but an Oppo Blu-ray player to go with their system, since it allows you to move the subtitles into the picture area. For most films this is a non-issue, since the subtitles "live" within the picture area anyway.

There are also arguments in favor of zoom, as zoom does not require scaling the image to a non-native resolution, and of course, cost. It is also true that at certain throw ratios and zoom settings the light lost to zoom is not as dramatic.
Edited by John Schuermann - 11/14/12 at 10:09am

+1

And, if you have a good lens transport, you get near instant, always repeatable, perfect aspect ratio changes. Panamorph, as well as Isco, Schneider and XEIT all have this advantage, too. In the home theater convenience and reliable automation is worthy of consideration.

I was a lens designer for 30 years and designed both projection lenses and camera lenses and two very large telescopes. In a projection lens the major Chromatic aberration is lateral color. All the other aberations introduced by an anamoprhic system are minor (astigmatism.,spherical coma) because the Fnumber from the exit pupil to the screen is greater than 200 and the aberrations are inversly proprotional to the Fnumber to the 3rd 5th and 7th powers. Lateral color is caused during manufacturing because of the residual difference in edge thickness produces a wedge which deviates the axial ray. The individaul lens element can be regarded as a spherical centered element plus a thin wedge of glass. The wedge acts as prism which deviates light as a function of wavelength. The devaition of a projection lens as a function of color is the vector sum of the individual element deviations. This angular deviation as a function of color is lateral color and increases as the field increases. Lateral color is a major problem in home projection lenses because the throw distance is so large typically10 ft to 30 ft

I drove down to Colorado Springs to to see if the zonal correction of the Sony HW 50 could eliminate the lateral color aberration inherent in every inexpensive projection lens. John Shuerman, with the new Panamoprhic system in place, projected the typical white cross hatched test pattern without correction and the lateral color was so bad that at the edge of the field ,standing 15 ft away, I could see 3 seperate lines. In just 20 minutes, using the Sony's zonal correction, almost all the lateral color aberration was eliminated. I say almost because when I walked up to within 1ft of the screen I could barely see a faint blue shiimer at the very edge of the field.

Theory is wonderful but in image design the eye rules and my eyes told me the zonal color correction with the Panamoprhic lens works and eliminates lateral color to the point it does not significantly effect the resolution of the image

Could you please be more scientifically specific....

Thanks for the detail answer.

Chipped glass? Do they actually state the glass is chipped? I bought a c stock and was assured it is optically the same as A stock... There are some slight scratches on the case, but other than that it appeared (to my naked eye) fine.

I'm reading up on this forum in preparation to set up a CIH setup with a mits hc9000d I ordered yesterday, soninhave not actually tried the lense yet.

When I bought my c-stock, I was told the same. What they mean is that any chips or imperfections are not in the light path used. So there may be something on the edges of the lens that may be hard to see but it would not degrade the image as it's not in the area of the lens used to project and stretch the image.

I am a longtime lurker at AVS, and I have finally decided to stop waiting and build what I would call a dedicated media room, on a limited budget when compared to what most AVS members do. I think I am probably the target audience for a lens like this. I will be using a relatively inexpensive projector (Viewsonic Pro8200) and I'm intrigued with the idea of throwing a 130" dia 2:35 image with the use of a $1k lens. I cannot use zoom to increase 2:35 material for a variety of reasons including the fact that I am height limited to 8' ceilings and the large offset of this particular projector.

I've read through the posts, and I'm a bit concerned about the color aberration issue. This projector will be used for 2:35 movies, watching 16:9 HDTV and also 16:9 gaming. While I don't think this issue would be an problem for me when watching 2:35 Movies and HDTV (I am by no means a videophile), I'm a bit concerned as to how obvious this color shift issue will be when projecting an image from an XBOX where you have relatively small text around the edges of the screen. I assume that the color shift gets progressively worse as you move out from the center of the screen to the edge. So therefore the color shift issue becomes more apparent at the edges of a 2:35 image, and the misconvergence will be relatively small at the left and right edges of a 16:9 image? Is this a correct assumption?

You have essentially nailed it. The aberration increases as you move to the extreme left and right of the screen. Yes, you may notice it around small text, but that will also be affected by how close you sit to the screen. The aberration is difficult to see even with a test pattern if you are more than 3 screen heights back. Whether it will be objectionable to you or not I can't predict. Many projector lenses already have chromatic aberration in them to begin with.

A good analogy is the old CRT rear and front projection sets. Even the best of these had color mis-alignments far worse than what you would see with the CineVista lens, however, most people were never even aware of this.

Thanks for your quick answer to my previous question.

I'm just in the early planning stage now, and my seating is planned to be a little over 3 screen heights back so I'm less worried about it now.

As I have a relatively short throw planned at about 13', I have been going back and forth as to whether I would build a DIY AT flat or curved screen. I may be overthinking this, but is this color misconvergence issue related to the wavelengths of the different colors as they are bent through the lens and then projected over a slightly longer distance as you move from the center of the image to the edge? Will a properly calculated curved screen help to mitigate this? I'm not looking to 'fix' the problem ( I know the easy fix is to buy a better A-lens, unfortunately that doesn't fit within my current budget), I'm just trying to do everything I can to minimize this issue during the planning stage before actual building starts.
Edited by DonInTn - 12/2/12 at 2:25am

Your understanding of the aberration is pretty accurate, however getting a curved screen will do nothing toward minimizing it. It will, however, help overcome pincushion distortion common to all anamorphic lenses.

Figured as much. WIth my short throw and it's associated pincushion, I've pretty much decided on a curved screen is the way to go.

Spent some time reviewing posts regarding using an A-lens this weekend and I noticed that most setups appear to have a pretty significant downward angle to the A-lens in relation to the projector. I couldn't find a post that explained why this is. Is this due to the built-in offset of a given projector? (ie That even though the projector is mounted level, the light path when ceiling mounted is at some downward angle so therefore you need to angle the A-lens to be perpendicular to the light path?) Was just wondering as my planned setup I'm going to have to be a little creative as I have an 8' ceiling and a large offset projector. Even before considering an A-lens setup, I had already determined that I'm probably going to have to mount the projector as close to the ceiling as possible and probably angle the projector slightly upwards and tilt the screen slightly in at the top to keep the screen perpendicular to the projector, and get the screen further up on my screen wall to allow for xbox kinect gaming in the room also. Will having a setup like this cause any problems using an A-lens like the CineVista?

Thanks again for your help.

This is because the projectors in these set ups are mounted above the vertical centre of the screen.

This means the beam has to be angled downwards, via lens offset.

The proper way to mount an anamorphic lens is to have it angled so that the center of the beam passes through the center of the anamorphic lens.

Hence, the lens is tilted downwards, to properly align with the beam.

Q.E.D.