New 8k and 4k a-lens from Panamorph - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 4Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 35 Old 10-05-2017, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 1482
New 8k and 4k a-lens from Panamorph

How long have these new 8k and 4k a-lens from Panamorph been released?
Any reviews on them yet?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mtbdudex is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 35 Old 10-05-2017, 03:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bass addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A padded room
Posts: 4,630
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 629
I'd be curious also to see what improvement are claimed (or realized) compared to their older lenses (all things being equal). I know my 5 year old lens was able to work with up to 4k material, according to Panamorph.

The purpose of listening shouldn't be to respond as much as it should be to understand.
bass addict is offline  
post #3 of 35 Old 10-06-2017, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,552
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3827 Post(s)
Liked: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post
I'd be curious also to see what improvement are claimed (or realized) compared to their older lenses (all things being equal). I know my 5 year old lens was able to work with up to 4k material, according to Panamorph.
I recall Panamorph stating that the older lenses were fine for 4k. From the text in the ad, I assume that this has the same optics as a UH480 but a new physical build holding them?

A lens for 8k seems like overkill. Realistically, when is that ever going to be needed? It's vertical compression too, which will rule it out for a lot of people.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 35 Old 10-20-2017, 05:12 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
chipvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 924
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I believe I have the UH480 lens but I just took it down and decided to use the zoom feature on my JVC 520 and the picture looks much better. Clearer and darker blacks. Is it possible that the light is bouncing off inside the lens and causing it to make the blacks lighter? Also for some reason the picture was not as crisp using the UH 480. I also noticed with the lens in place durring the credits rolling you can see the credits from the top going back down very faintly. It makes me assume there was some reflection going on inside the lens.
mbw23air likes this.
chipvideo is offline  
post #5 of 35 Old 10-23-2017, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipvideo View Post
I believe I have the UH480 lens but I just took it down and decided to use the zoom feature on my JVC 520 and the picture looks much better. Clearer and darker blacks. Is it possible that the light is bouncing off inside the lens and causing it to make the blacks lighter? Also for some reason the picture was not as crisp using the UH 480. I also noticed with the lens in place durring the credits rolling you can see the credits from the top going back down very faintly. It makes me assume there was some reflection going on inside the lens.
I've seen a number of the UH*80 lenses although haven't tested them side by side. Do you have the version that has a black fabric liner on the inside and also with the rear glass element set at an angle to mitigate reflection back into the projector lens?
jjcook is offline  
post #6 of 35 Old 10-25-2017, 04:53 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
What the heck are they thinking pushing a VC lens for 8K/$7000?
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 35 Old 11-29-2017, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Hello all,

There will be more info coming soon in a dedicated Q/A post on the Paladin, but the primary reason for a VC lens is higher brightness and performance over HE but yeah, it costs more to make the way it needs to be made to combine cylindrical surfaces onto relatively thin prismatic shapes.

Sorry I've been away for quite a while but I'll try to get back on a more frequent basis.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #8 of 35 Old 11-29-2017, 04:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Good to see you back Shawn. I'd love to see a VC cylindrical for UHD. With HDR requiring 30FL for projection, a VC design could be useful.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 35 Old 11-29-2017, 06:26 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Thanks Mark. To be clear, it's a hybrid cylindrical prism system Kind of a new concept for the market but doing very well with lots of industry support.
CAVX likes this.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #10 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 01:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
I'd still like to see a true cylindrical VC with will full CA correction, adjustable astigmatism correction, made in glass with proper optical coatings.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #11 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 05:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
No offense (especially as I'm sure you've done more market research than I have, which is none ), but I just don't see the point of a VC lens, especially not with 4K projectors. You can't easily do a CIH setup with it, since it needs to be in place all the time for such a setup. And in such a setup, there's no benefit to light output over an HE lens (same light output over the same area), which would fit the use pattern of a CIH setup much better.

And in a CIW setup, it seems like an enormous cost for a relatively small increase in brightness (~33% is just not visually significant), and probably little to no perceptible increase in resolution as with 4K you're already pretty much at the limit of human vision.
stanger89 is offline  
post #12 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 09:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
And in such a setup, there's no benefit to light output over an HE lens (same light output over the same area), which would fit the use pattern of a CIH setup much better.
Presumably this allows one to use the VC lens at a throw ratio of ~1.4x instead of a HE lens at typical ~2x, where at short throw projectors are 10-20% brighter (something like that) than long throw.
jjcook is offline  
post #13 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 09:38 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcook View Post
Presumably this allows one to use the VC lens at a throw ratio of ~1.4x instead of a HE lens at typical ~2x, where at short throw projectors are 10-20% brighter (something like that) than long throw.
Maybe, but I see a lot of folks using HE lenses at quite short throws.
Dirk44 likes this.
stanger89 is offline  
post #14 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcook View Post
Presumably this allows one to use the VC lens at a throw ratio of ~1.4x instead of a HE lens at typical ~2x, where at short throw projectors are 10-20% brighter (something like that) than long throw.
No way. To do that, this unit would have to be almost as big as the projector it sits in front of.

The benefit of the VC here is less astigmatism Vs what is seem from a prism based HE lens across the screen. Any visible artifacts will now be seen top and bottom. Most people probably won't even notice them unless they know what they are looking for.

Only true cylindrical lenses can be ground to virtually eliminate that. And only true cylindrical lenses have the ability to be moved in or out to bring vertical lines into focus at the same point as the horizontals are. There is still GD to contend with.

I leave my HE cylindrical lens in the light path all the time at close to no zoom. I have enough zoom range to be able to use a VC lens, but the beam angles get really big, really fast. As big as my optics are, they are not big enough to turn the lens (+flip it 90 degrees) to make a VC lens.

The ONLY benefit to me would be the ability to do a CIH + IMAX set up like I described back in 2008 when THE DARK KNIGHT first appeared on BD with the dual AR. As I don't really believe in that format ever becoming mainstream, I will stay with CIH and Scope.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 08:00 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Hi Mark,

I respectfully disagree with the statement that only true cylindrical lenses can be ground to virtually eliminate astigmatism. A prism-based system with the inclusion of cylindrical correction surfaces creates a superior point spread function over purely cylindrical HE elements, especially in the VC configuration. In addition, the depth of focus of a hybrid system is huge compared to that of cylindrical-only elements. A cylindrical-only lens definitely needs the separation adjust (ie astigmatism adjust) because the depth of focus (technically the depth of astigmatism correction) is much shorter so the adjustment is required for various throw distances. There is no such thing as totally aberration free but we've analyzed both approaches way back when we started making anamorphics and, given the ability / opportunity to make either form we've gone with the hybrid purely from the performance standpoint.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #16 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 08:28 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Stranger,

You bring up a number of good points in your posts. Regarding brightness and resolution: it's certainly true that at a certain image size and in certain theater configurations the brightness and detail of projection is more than sufficient. it's really the case of big screens or HDR or more limited projector outputs or ALR screens or a combination of the above that drive people to want more brightness (primarily) and/or more detail (as a bonus). If a projector puts out 2,000 calibrated lumens in 16:9 that's only 1,500 lumens for 2.4:1 movies. Typically HDR also reduces that impact as well. Getting roughly 30% more brightness at least brings the lumen count back up. There are still plenty of people here on the forum that want more brightness. Even many of the Sony projectors today are primarily differentiated on their lumen output so there is clearly a market for those that want more. A 30% bump in brightness is a very noticeable increase. Certainly the added potential upconversion detail of the 2+ million extra pixels with anamorphic 4K is also dependent on the algorithms used and the seating distance from which it can be percieved, but again most of that is gravy compared to brightness bump.

There is certainly a transmission advantage of a relatively thinner lens over a thick lens, especially when chromatic correction elements are considered, but the primary reason that a VC image is brighter than an HE lens is not as much from the lens but the projector. A VC lens allows the projector zoom setting to fill the width of the screen whereas HE has the zoom setting to fill the height. The larger zoom setting with VC allows the projector's lens itself to let more light out of the projector (basically it opens the aperture of the zoom lens). This is the same rationale as why shorter throw ratios for a given screen size mean more light on the screen. Because of this the projector itself is putting out about 10% more light with VC over HE.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #17 of 35 Old 11-30-2017, 08:35 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcook View Post
Presumably this allows one to use the VC lens at a throw ratio of ~1.4x instead of a HE lens at typical ~2x, where at short throw projectors are 10-20% brighter (something like that) than long throw.
FWIW, we recommend the UltraWide throw ratio (throw distance divided by UltraWide screen width) to be 1.6:1 or above for both our VC and HE lenses. Yes, some people use HE lenses at lower throw ratios but that's where you get into issues of heavier distortion, more chromatic aberration and even possibly cutting off the beam with some projectors (especially with recessed lenses). But in the spirit of your comment, a VC lens does indeed provide a greater light output compared to an HE lens at the same throw distance because the projector is zoomed out more (ie the projector throw ratio is smaller) so the projector itself is putting out more light.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #18 of 35 Old 12-07-2017, 02:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 630 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn Kelly View Post
FWIW, we recommend the UltraWide throw ratio (throw distance divided by UltraWide screen width) to be 1.6:1 or above for both our VC and HE lenses. Yes, some people use HE lenses at lower throw ratios but that's where you get into issues of heavier distortion, more chromatic aberration and even possibly cutting off the beam with some projectors (especially with recessed lenses). But in the spirit of your comment, a VC lens does indeed provide a greater light output compared to an HE lens at the same throw distance because the projector is zoomed out more (ie the projector throw ratio is smaller) so the projector itself is putting out more light.
It is unlikely that one considering both lenses would also consider mounting them in the same place. Claiming a benefit of being zoomed out more is also inconsistent with requirements of for a minimal throw ratio that are already inefficiently far from the closest possible mount position due to distortion concerns. How much light was already given up by moving the PJ back to accommodate those distortion issues?

Are people going to make vertically curved screens to address barrel distortion?
ScottAvery is offline  
post #19 of 35 Old 12-07-2017, 08:22 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
If someone is at say a 1.2:1 throw ratio (which most projectors won't go down to anyway) and they have the room to move the projector back to a 1.6:1 ratio they will loose around 10% of the projector output from the throw ratio against the roughly 30% brightness gain from using a Paladin lens. However, most theaters are designed at higher throw ratios anyway to keep the projector from being right above the seats. We're actually not saying to move a projector as much as if you're designing a theater then, if you can, position the projector throw distance at least 1.6 times the screen width if you want to use an anamorphic lens. Just some basic design guidelines.

At even the 1.6:1 minimum throw ratio the distortion is less than about 3/4" on a 12' wide screen. That's not really enough for people to look at a different type of screen to cancel it when it can be masked on the sides. Most Sony 4K projectors and many of the DP projectors also have distortion correction if it's really wanted. But in reality it's so hard to see in actual content that's it's typically not worth the effort. User choice.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #20 of 35 Old 12-13-2017, 09:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jim Parys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 49
So for someone that is not as technical knowledgeable as the experts on this forum, my simple question is:


Is it worth an upgrade from my current Panamorph DC1 lens/JVC 990 combo to the new Paladin lens instead for 4k UHD and regular 1080p bluray. Is there that much of a "noticeable" difference?


thank you.

Jim Parys is Living the dream...
La Sirena III Theater
Jim Parys is offline  
post #21 of 35 Old 12-13-2017, 10:13 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Hi Jim,

If your theater is in the recommended range where throw distance is at least 1.6 times your UltraWide screen width, then the Paladin will work and will provide >10% more light on the screen than the DC1 setup with higher clarity as well. But that clarity will primarily be important for UHD content. The difference will definitely be noticeable but the DC1 is still a great lens for up to and including 4K.

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #22 of 35 Old 12-13-2017, 10:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jim Parys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn Kelly View Post
Hi Jim,

If your theater is in the recommended range where throw distance is at least 1.6 times your UltraWide screen width, then the Paladin will work and will provide >10% more light on the screen than the DC1 setup with higher clarity as well. But that clarity will primarily be important for UHD content. The difference will definitely be noticeable but the DC1 is still a great lens for up to and including 4K.


I have to do some measurements when I get home, but I don't believe I am 1.6 times the width. I have a 240 inch diag 2.35:1 aspec screen and I don't think my back row seating (which is where I normally sit) is 1.6 times that. With that being the case is my DC1 worth keeping?

Jim Parys is Living the dream...
La Sirena III Theater
Jim Parys is offline  
post #23 of 35 Old 12-13-2017, 10:44 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Shawn Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 968
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Let me know your actual measurements from screen to projector for a best response. That's a huge screen!

Shawn Kelly
Panamorph, Inc.
www.panamorph.com
[email protected]
Shawn Kelly is offline  
post #24 of 35 Old 12-14-2017, 01:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Parys View Post
So for someone that is not as technical knowledgeable as the experts on this forum
If the optics are polished to at least commerical optical grade (scratch and dig of 60/40), then your lens will be OK with 4K.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #25 of 35 Old 01-12-2019, 11:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jim Parys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 49
back again. Will the DC1 work with the new JVC NX9? for both 4k (assuming yes) but how about the 8k eshift?

Jim Parys is Living the dream...
La Sirena III Theater
Jim Parys is offline  
post #26 of 35 Old 03-31-2019, 11:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jim Parys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Anyone?

Jim Parys is Living the dream...
La Sirena III Theater
Jim Parys is offline  
post #27 of 35 Old 04-01-2019, 07:12 AM
Senior Member
 
microwiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 193
I can't see why not, eshift alternates two 4k patterns, it never shows them all at once like a native 8k projector would (if they existed) but it's so fast it tricks your brain. So long story short it's still just a 4k image passing through the lens at any one time.

Pioneer SC-95, Axiom M80, VP180 Dual EP500 all V4. ISCO III, RS540 + Stewart Cima Neve 133
microwiz is offline  
post #28 of 35 Old 04-04-2019, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,769
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6612 Post(s)
Liked: 7676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Parys View Post
back again. Will the DC1 work with the new JVC NX9? for both 4k (assuming yes) but how about the 8k eshift?
It will work. The only thing you leave on the table vs a new DCR lens is the new DCR lens is designed to use the full 4096 x 2160 panel, which gives you about 6% more light ( and pixels ).
Craig Peer is online now  
post #29 of 35 Old 04-07-2019, 04:46 AM
Member
 
ask4me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by microwiz View Post
I can't see why not, eshift alternates two 4k patterns, it never shows them all at once like a native 8k projector would (if they existed) but it's so fast it tricks your brain. So long story short it's still just a 4k image passing through the lens at any one time.


That seems to be a logical conclusion, but it is actually not the correct one....

There was an eShift thread earlier about this

Think more of this like the 2K or 4K eShift projector is displaying details that are smaller than a native pixel, so the requirements for the lenses and prisms are higher when these smaller details is to be projected correct onto the screen.

When it comes to the resolution in an anamorphic lens the amount of setup area of the projected picture beam trough the a-lens will play a role in this too.

Last edited by ask4me2; 04-07-2019 at 10:36 AM.
ask4me2 is offline  
post #30 of 35 Old 06-07-2019, 09:01 PM
Senior Member
 
jabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
........the new DCR lens is designed to use the full 4096 x 2160 panel, which gives you about 6% more light ( and pixels ).
Hi, I don't get this and I have seen it a number of times, I'm sure its due to my limited understanding however would appreciate someone explain it. I have a Prismasonic Cylindrical lens, which I am using with my Sony 520ES 4K Projector. How is my lens not using the full 4096 x 2160 panel vs a DCR lens which claims to?

Sony VPL-VW520 | Elitescreens TT 135" 2.35:1 | Elitescreens TT 120" 16x9 | Prismasonic HD-6000F | Onkyo TX-RZ3100 | Oppo UDP-203 | PS4 PRO | ATV4K | LG OLED 65 C7 | Klipsch Reference RP-280 | Klipsch Reference RP-280C | Klipsch Reference RP-250S | Klipsch Reference RP-150M | Klipsch Reference R-115SW | Klipsch Reference R-140SA
jabz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off