or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Anamorphic lens that lowers throw ratio?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anamorphic lens that lowers throw ratio?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I need to lower the throw ratio of my projector with an anamorphic lens. The Runco Rainier and McKinley both do but I wanted to know other options, ideally a cheaper one.

I thought I read that Schneider makes the Mckinley, but on the schnieder site it says all their lenses have a magnification factor of 1.

I have a Runco Q750 projector, which is a 1.85 throw ratio. I need to get down to around ~1.50. My throw distance is 163-167 inches and I would like 110 inch wide 235 screen.

I bought a Runco RS900 that came with the Whitney lens assuming I would use the lens on my Q750, but when I looked at the throw factor chart I looked at the Rainier numbers and now my image is too small frown.gif Im selling those if anyone is interested to fund a new lens that will lower my throw factor.
post #2 of 28
I see you posted this in another thread as well.

Any of the Panamorph lens solutions other than the UV / FVX200 should work just fine with your application. The UH480 probably offers the best price to performance ratio based upon your concerns.

I believe that some others like the Prismasonic might fit the bill as well.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
None of panamorphs lenses change the magnification. I called them last week hoping they would but they only change the horizontal 1.3 for cinewide
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Let me reclarify. The panamorphs have large apertures so they support short throw. So if you have a 1.5 throw the lens will work with it. Some lenses only support long throws because of the aperture size.

I have a throw of 1.85. I need the lens to change it from 1.85 to to 1.5
post #5 of 28
I'm not sure of what it is you're trying to do. I think you want the anamorphic lens to make the picture "anamorphic" and be able to make the Runco be able to be closer to the screen.

"A" lenses do not do that. The combination is two different things.

The Q-750 would need to have a short throw "Primary" lens, to do what I think your trying to do. Then any "A' lens would do what it does. I have no idea how much a primary lens costs from Runco, but they do make and sell short throw Primary lenses that do 1.56 throw ratios { I think }. I doubt it will be cheap.

Then you would need the "A" lens. Panamorph UH-480 works well for me on my Runco VX-3000i. The Isco and Schneider lenses are adjustable to absolute perfection and the cost bears that out. The Panamorph lens is non adjustable but works great in a small specified range. 14.5-17.5 feet, with very good results.

As for the Rainer or McKinley lenses, they are most likely made by ISCO or Schneider, same parent company ,owns both companies.

To get a good price on them contact GetGray here on the forum. You cannot find them cheaper then what he can sell them for, period.
Edited by dturco - 3/10/13 at 12:05pm
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dturco View Post

I'm not sure of what it is you're trying to do. I think you want the anamorphic lens to make the picture "anamorphic" and be able to make the Runco be able to be closer to the screen.

"A" lenses do not do that. The combination is two different things.

The Q-750 would need to have a short throw "Primary" lens, to do what I think your trying to do. Then any "A' lens would do what it does. I have no idea how much a primary lens costs from Runco, but they do make and sell short throw Primary lenses that do 1.56 throw ratios { I think }. I doubt it will be cheap.

Then you would need the "A" lens. Panamorph UH-480 works well for me on my Runco VX-3000i. The Isco and Schneider lenses are adjustable to absolute perfection and the cost bears that out. The Panamorph lens is non adjustable but works great in a small specified range. 14.5-17.5 feet, with very good results.

As for the Rainer or McKinley lenses, they are most likely made by ISCO or Schneider, same parent company ,owns both companies.

To get a good price on them contact GetGray here on the forum. You cannot find them cheaper then what he can sell them for, period.

I think I figured out the difference doing some tests today.

The Runco Whitney lens I have shortens the height.

The Runco Rainier and McKinley, and I assume the Schneider and Isco, stretches the width. Therefore it is making my image bigger while keeping constant height.

If I were to keep my Whitney, it would be a smaller image then if I didnt use an anamorphic lens at all
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES View Post

I think I figured out the difference doing some tests today.

The Runco Whitney lens I have shortens the height.

The Runco Rainier and McKinley, and I assume the Schneider and Isco, stretches the width. Therefore it is making my image bigger while keeping constant height.

If I were to keep my Whitney, it would be a smaller image then if I didnt use an anamorphic lens at all

maybe this is the difference between a prisms or cylindrical?
post #8 of 28
The prism lens from Runco is a VC lens and why it makes the image height smaller and the width will remain the same. All other offerings are cylindrical HE lenses and therefore increase the picture width whilst maintaining the height. The ONLY HE A-Lens to increase the height is the ISCOII.
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
Cavx that helps thanks. My follow up question is what are other cylindrical he lenses that are less expensive then the rainier or McKinley?
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES View Post

Cavx that helps thanks. My follow up question is what are other cylindrical he lenses that are less expensive then the rainier or McKinley?

Without getting myself in too much hot water, when you are talking about A-Lenses with large optics, there are only a few (like 4 in the world) and two of them come from Australia. Both of these are way under the listed price of the ISCO III. There was also an ISCO IV, but apparently the optics are the same as the ISCO III, just housed in a larger case.

The ONLY way to get a cylindrical lens for less is to take on a DIY approach. Thing to remember is that just because it is DO IT YOURSELF and will cost way less, it is still not a CHEAP exercise as the optics are still expensive being well into the 4 figures.
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Without getting myself in too much hot water, when you are talking about A-Lenses with large optics, there are only a few (like 4 in the world) and two of them come from Australia. Both of these are way under the listed price of the ISCO III. There was also an ISCO IV, but apparently the optics are the same as the ISCO III, just housed in a larger case.

The ONLY way to get a cylindrical lens for less is to take on a DIY approach. Thing to remember is that just because it is DO IT YOURSELF and will cost way less, it is still not a CHEAP exercise as the optics are still expensive being well into the 4 figures.
Hi Mark, I currently have a DIY Prism, however, I am ready to move up to Cylinder. I have been trying to find a DIY Cylinder -- but no luck yet. Seems like you might know where DIY Lenses are available?
Thanks,
HH
post #12 of 28
I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but there's nothing inherently/magically better about cylindrical optics vs prism optics. What I mean is if you think you can buy two cylindrical glass elements (even if you could find the right ones which I don't think you can from what little I've read) and have something better than a prism based lens, I think you're wrong. It's not so much the fact that they lenses like the ISCO are "cylindrical" that makes them better than "prism" lenses, it's the fact that they are more advanced designs, using more elements to compensate for things like chromatic aberration and astigmatism. Of course John would point out that the higher end prism based lenses use cylindrical elements as well.

I guess what I'm saying is unless you're prepared to design and spec out your own lens down to multiple elements to compensate for CA and astigmatism, you're not really going to get any improvement just because your elements are "cylindrical".
post #13 of 28
Hi Stanger --- That is an interesting limb…. I am currently using the French Prisms with the AR (anti-reflective) coating. Although they perform OK, there does seem to be quite a bit of aberration and astigmatism issues. I thought I read in one of Mark’s posts a couple years back that he had much more success with the cylinder lens than the Prisms? Yes, I could purchase the additional lenses for my Prism setup that can be integrate in to help with astigmatism, and, I could probably find just that “sweet” spot to put my projector and help out with the pincushion issue, however, I was really hoping that having a cylinder lens would be more forgiving than the Prisms? Perhaps not. My main goal is to strive to get a better picture with less aberrations. I really do not want to perform the “zoom” mode and lose all those pixels. I really like the philosophy of anamorphic lens, and wish there were more options.
Thanks,
HH
Edited by harthenry - 10/10/13 at 7:02pm
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by harthenry View Post

Hi Stanger --- That is an interesting limb…. I am currently using the French Prisms with the AR (anti-reflective) coating. Although they perform OK, there does seem to be quite a bit of aberration and astigmatism issues. I thought I read in one of Mark’s posts a couple years back that he had much more success with the cylinder lens than the Prisms?

Yeah, it's a complicated subject. What little I understand is you have a bit (quite a bit) more freedom in design with cylindrical/spherical elements than you do with simply prismatic ones. There are things you just need a curve to fix and you can't get that with a prism. But my point was more that it has less to do with the fact that the "main" elements are cylindrical instead of prismatic, than it does the fact that the extra care/time/expense was taken to design all the extra elements.

IIRC the typical DIY lens consists of just two prisms. The limb I was going out on is that an equivalent lens using just two cylindrical elements (I thought I read a post where somebody specified what those had to be, but I can't find it), would have largely the same issues. You need to add the extra elements to correct CA and astigmatism.
Quote:
Yes, I could purchase the additional lenses for my Prism setup that can be integrate in to help with astigmatism, and, I could probably find just that “sweet” spot to put my projector and help out with the pincushion issue, however, I was really hoping that having a cylinder lens would be more forgiving than the Prisms? Perhaps not.

Something like the XEIT or ISCO would yes. But these are much more complicated lenses, the ISCO is (IIRC) for elements and the XEIT 5 elements, and both have mechanisms designed in for focus/astigmatism correction. I'm not sure if the threads got purged or if I just can't find them, but the XEIT Crystalmorphic lens is (it could be argued) a DIY lens. AussieBob designed and had that lens manufactured himself (going by my memory), but the result is not what I would call a "DIY" lens, he ended up with a commercial lens, and probably had to do that if only to get the order quantity high enough to make it even remotely affordable.
Quote:
My main goal is to strive to get a better picture with less aberrations. I really do not want to perform the “zoom” mode and lose all those pixels. I really like the philosophy of anamorphic lens, and wish there were more options.

Unfortunately precision optics/mechanics are expensive. The best option I'm aware of, on the "inexpensive" front for cylindrical is Prismasonic's cylindrical offering.
post #15 of 28
Hi Stanger: Thanks for all that great info – it looks as though you have been riding the Anamorphic carpet for some time as well. Let me noodle about the info you gave me and see what other nuggets of information I can find. It is too bad that anamorphic lenses have not really caught on in the mainstream – I truly believe if people had the opportunity to view a film in its actual 2.40 on the big screen, it would be as emotional experience as the first time they viewed HD.
Thanks again…..HH
Edited by harthenry - 10/11/13 at 7:02am
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but there's nothing inherently/magically better about cylindrical optics vs prism optics.

I beg to differ here. Cylindrical lenses have a focal length, prisms do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

What I mean is if you think you can buy two cylindrical glass elements (even if you could find the right ones which I don't think you can from what little I've read) and have something better than a prism based lens, I think you're wrong. It's not so much the fact that they lenses like the ISCO are "cylindrical" that makes them better than "prism" lenses, it's the fact that they are more advanced designs, using more elements to compensate for things like chromatic aberration and astigmatism. Of course John would point out that the higher end prism based lenses use cylindrical elements as well.

I guess what I'm saying is unless you're prepared to design and spec out your own lens down to multiple elements to compensate for CA and astigmatism, you're not really going to get any improvement just because your elements are "cylindrical".

Prisms can be corrected for CA. Both Panamorph and Prismasonic (and even my own MK3 was CA corrected) have done this successfully. It is the fact that prisms do not have a focal length which is their limiting factor.

The MK3 was originally a 2 prism/4 element design. The MK5 (uses the same optics as the MK4, just a better case design) is a 2 lens/4 element cylindrical design and this will produce a razor sharp image corner to corner. The prism lens simply CAN NOT do that because it does not have a focal length. Adding the CAVX Corrector to the MK3 (now becomes MK3+C) improves the image dramatically but not to the same level as the MK5 unless you happen to have the MK3+C in the "sweet spot". The MK5 on the other hand can be used at ANY throw in the operating range. You simply turn the massive focus ring to bring the vertical lines into focus which is like having a continuously variable sweet spot.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I beg to differ here. Cylindrical lenses have a focal length, prisms do not.
Prisms can be corrected for CA. Both Panamorph and Prismasonic (and even my own MK3 was CA corrected) have done this successfully. It is the fact that prisms do not have a focal length which is their limiting factor.

The MK3 was originally a 2 prism/4 element design. The MK5 (uses the same optics as the MK4, just a better case design) is a 2 lens/4 element cylindrical design and this will produce a razor sharp image corner to corner. The prism lens simply CAN NOT do that because it does not have a focal length. Adding the CAVX Corrector to the MK3 (now becomes MK3+C) improves the image dramatically but not to the same level as the MK5 unless you happen to have the MK3+C in the "sweet spot". The MK5 on the other hand can be used at ANY throw in the operating range. You simply turn the massive focus ring to bring the vertical lines into focus which is like having a continuously variable sweet spot.

Whats the history of your MK5 lens Mark, is it being sold anywhere?
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Whats the history of your MK5 lens Mark, is it being sold anywhere?

The optics are the same as the MK4 with a much better case design which allows for a greater range of throws and finer alignment adjustments.

There was a time when I would carry stock, now they are made to order.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The optics are the same as the MK4 with a much better case design which allows for a greater range of throws and finer alignment adjustments.

There was a time when I would carry stock, now they are made to order.

We seem to be seeing less and less using "A" lenses, what a tragedy!
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I beg to differ here. Cylindrical lenses have a focal length, prisms do not.

That's a difference to be sure, but not necessarily a benefit (quality wise).
Quote:
Prisms can be corrected for CA. Both Panamorph and Prismasonic (and even my own MK3 was CA corrected) have done this successfully.

Oh, for sure. I was trying to limit my discussion/description to the elements of a lens, rather than the design in total. My understanding is the "prism" lenses with such corrections are really hybrid lenses that include cylindrical elements to provide the correction. Again, my understanding is you can't have a "pure" prism lens that includes such corrections
Quote:
It is the fact that prisms do not have a focal length which is their limiting factor.

That sounds interesting.
Quote:
The MK3 was originally a 2 prism/4 element design. The MK5 (uses the same optics as the MK4, just a better case design) is a 2 lens/4 element cylindrical design and this will produce a razor sharp image corner to corner. The prism lens simply CAN NOT do that because it does not have a focal length. Adding the CAVX Corrector to the MK3 (now becomes MK3+C) improves the image dramatically but not to the same level as the MK5 unless you happen to have the MK3+C in the "sweet spot". The MK5 on the other hand can be used at ANY throw in the operating range. You simply turn the massive focus ring to bring the vertical lines into focus which is like having a continuously variable sweet spot.

Oh, I don't disagree at all. The point I was trying to get across is, I'm assuming a "DIY" prism lens would probably use two simple, single element lenses, and would thus not achieve any of the benefits of the commercial which use more complex designs. Essentially that it's not so much the type of lens elements used that makes cylindrical anamorphic lens systems better, it's their more advanced designs.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

We seem to be seeing less and less using "A" lenses, what a tragedy!

The challenge I face is that projector prices keeping dropping, and the cost of a low volume product like the MK5 can't drop. People then often can't justify spending 2 or 3 times more for an adaptor than what they just paid for their projector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

That's a difference to be sure, but not necessarily a benefit (quality wise).

Corner to corner focus is totally the benfit. Sure you may get the same from a prism based lens (when I tested the Mits HC9000 I was able to get this with an MK3+C) but it is not something you are garenteed to get. The cylindrical on the other hand allows you to 'dial' in the astigmatism correction at ANY throw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Oh, for sure. I was trying to limit my discussion/description to the elements of a lens, rather than the design in total. My understanding is the "prism" lenses with such corrections are really hybrid lenses that include cylindrical elements to provide the correction. Again, my understanding is you can't have a "pure" prism lens that includes such corrections

A doublet is simply two glass types of different refractive indices. The shape denotes the difference. A prism is a prism regardless if it is a single bit glass or multiple cemented together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Oh, I don't disagree at all. The point I was trying to get across is, I'm assuming a "DIY" prism lens would probably use two simple, single element lenses, and would thus not achieve any of the benefits of the commercial which use more complex designs. Essentially that it's not so much the type of lens elements used that makes cylindrical anamorphic lens systems better, it's their more advanced designs.

The simple DIY prism lens used trophies which were not even close to true optical perfection. They gave a pathway to CIH that previously was not possible.
CA correction and the exact radii of cylindrical lenses is what sets them apart from prisms.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

CA correction and the exact radii of cylindrical lenses is what sets them apart from prisms.

I think that is the point I was trying to get across, it's not just the fact that the elements are cylindrical, but they are cylindrical and designed/specified specifically for the application that provides the advantage. If you were to build a anamorphic lens with cylindrical elements of similar complexity to that of a DIY prism lens, I don't think you'd end up with something much if any better than a DIY prism lens.

Obviously the "commercial" cylindrical lenses like your, Bobs, and those from Prismasonic and ISCO are well designed, and more complex than a DIY prism lens and provide substantial benefits.

I don't think this is the thread I was thinking of, but this seems to have good info along the lines of what I was thinking of:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/890913/diy-cylindrical-anamorphic-lens#post_12698289

The poster talks about the results of getting some off the shelf simple (single element) cylindrical elements of the appropriate focal lengths to provide the 1.33x stretch, and comments that they cause CA.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I think that is the point I was trying to get across, it's not just the fact that the elements are cylindrical, but they are cylindrical and designed/specified specifically for the application that provides the advantage. If you were to build a anamorphic lens with cylindrical elements of similar complexity to that of a DIY prism lens, I don't think you'd end up with something much if any better than a DIY prism lens.

Obviously the "commercial" cylindrical lenses like your, Bobs, and those from Prismasonic and ISCO are well designed, and more complex than a DIY prism lens and provide substantial benefits.

I don't think this is the thread I was thinking of, but this seems to have good info along the lines of what I was thinking of:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/890913/diy-cylindrical-anamorphic-lens#post_12698289

The poster talks about the results of getting some off the shelf simple (single element) cylindrical elements of the appropriate focal lengths to provide the 1.33x stretch, and comments that they cause CA.

CA correction aside, there is surface finish and optical coatings to take into consideration as well. For DIY, you could find optics from a place like that Surplus Shed(?) and could build a DIY cylindrical lens, but you won't get doublets or optic coatings. Surface finish will be 60/40SD which is fine. Generally the radii of the lenses will be single and not multi asperic, so GD could be a problem as well. I found a plano convex lens (suitable for the rear lens of an anamorphic pair) for $15USD. It was small with no specified optical coatings. I could not find the plano-concave lens I needed to make the anamorphic pair. Ideally you would want lenses at least twice the size of this lens to be useful for HT applications or you will need TRs of 3:1 or greater which is going to be stretch for most HT projectors.

The lenses used in the MK5 are custom built and expensive (well into 4 figures for a set, no mounting hardware) and when combined with the cost of machining, why the end product costs what it does.
post #24 of 28
Well, I have been noodling about this some more -- although I purchased my prism from the Surplus Shed two years ago, I have found that the quality of my output is not much better than the poor man's version of anamorphic -- IE: zooming. Have you folks seen this post: http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/06/2-35-lens-versus-zoom-fight/ I have seen numerous posts about people comparing zoom vs. lens and unfortunately for me, the entry level version of anamorphic is starting to sway my in agreeing with their suppositions that the zooming process is as good as my DIY lens. I am certain if I purchased the MK5 or Schneider lens, this would not be the case. Although I had a lot of fun building my DIY lens system at my brothers machine shop (everything was build using a CNC machine with very high tolerances), I am just not convinced the "cheapy" DIY anamorphic lenses are any better than the zoom method. For me, this is a real bummer!
post #25 of 28
Dare I say it, zoom will be better than a DIY prism lens on a 1080 projector.
It would be cool to be able to find large cylindrical lenses. I'd like to see the DIY community move ahead here. The problem is that people think because something is DIY that it will be cheap, and that is not going to be the case here. More affordable? Possibly. Cheap? No.
post #26 of 28
Hi Mark: To close out my thoughts on this thread -- I understand that DIY does not mean cheap -- just look at the Wright Brothers! -- and you can ask my wife, many of my DIY projects are never as cheap as I want them to be biggrin.gif Anyway, knowing that a good Lens will probably set me back $5k or so, I think I am going to save my $$ and purchase a 4K projector -- something like the Sony VPL VW1000ES (which is down to 16K now, and still dropping). Then when I zoom - I should be happy -- (should be is always subjective).
post #27 of 28
These might be a good start for a DIY cylindrical anamorphic lens. You would of couse need lenses with radii of the correct diopter.

post #28 of 28
Is the calculator included in the picture to help figure out how expensive it will be to build such an animal? wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Anamorphic lens that lowers throw ratio?