Using a Bausch & Lomb 35mm anamorphic - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 11-28-2005, 06:12 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently obtained a Bausch & Lomb Cinemascope attachment ( 2X anamorphic for 35 mm cinema projectors, 1955 manufacture) and have successfully (sort of)implemented it in a 2.35: 1 set up with my BENQ 6200 DLP.
By using Theatertek's custom aspect ratios, I am using full vertical resolution with minimal loss of horizontal resolution (thin black bars left and right sides).
The good news is that there is no noticeable uneveness in focus accross the entire screen and the picture quality is stunning compared to my old MAGANARAMA 1.75X anamorphic that I have been using in the past.
I discovered that the astigmatism adjustment on this lens could be set to closer than the minimum of 50 feet by turning it past this setting and pushing the front element housing down to it's maximum depth within the lens body. This in effect provides a projection distance that I estimate to be at about 20 feet or so.
At the moment there is some vignetting due to the projector's relatively short throw lens and that the B& L needs to be positioned closer to the projector's lens (modification required).
So, if anyone has a 4:3 projector and wants a cheap 2.35:1 CH set up, this can be done with surplus 35mm cinema anamorphics :D

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 11-28-2005, 07:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,957
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Ziggyr,

So this lens is a fix stretch of 2.0:1?

Does the lens stay in place all the time?

How you go about projecting 16:9, 1.85:1 etc program?

Before I built my diy lens, I bought a 2nd hand Prominar H16 (off a 16mm projector) but would need a scaler or HTPC to apply the required amount of horizontal squeeze, but vertically the image works fine, even with my very short throw projector...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 11-28-2005, 08:02 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mark, yes, this is a 2X lens giving a stretch of 2.0. The lens does not stay in place all the time - I move it away and replace it with the other 1.75X lens and change aspect ratio settings through Theatertek to achieve 1.78 :1/16:9.

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 Old 11-28-2005, 09:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,957
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Very cool :) So have you got them mounted side by side on a sliding rail?

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 17 Old 11-28-2005, 11:27 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ummmmmm????.........not yet.......too lazy......but will do soon :rolleyes:

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 12-06-2005, 01:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank J Manrique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Redlands, Ca. USA
Posts: 4,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think you be better off using a short throw ISCO film projection anamorphic lens attachment; far better optics than the old B&L thingies (btw, I own both brands)...

-THTS
Frank J Manrique is offline  
post #7 of 17 Old 12-07-2005, 11:06 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Frank, you may be right, but it seems to do a far better job than my other anamorphic....so I'm happy.

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 04-24-2006, 08:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CMRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyr
I recently obtained a Bausch & Lomb Cinemascope attachment ( 2X anamorphic for 35 mm cinema projectors, 1955 manufacture) and have successfully (sort of)implemented it in a 2.35: 1 set up with my BENQ 6200 DLP.
By using Theatertek's custom aspect ratios, I am using full vertical resolution with minimal loss of horizontal resolution (thin black bars left and right sides).
The good news is that there is no noticeable uneveness in focus accross the entire screen and the picture quality is stunning compared to my old MAGANARAMA 1.75X anamorphic that I have been using in the past.
I discovered that the astigmatism adjustment on this lens could be set to closer than the minimum of 50 feet by turning it past this setting and pushing the front element housing down to it's maximum depth within the lens body. This in effect provides a projection distance that I estimate to be at about 20 feet or so.
At the moment there is some vignetting due to the projector's relatively short throw lens and that the B& L needs to be positioned closer to the projector's lens (modification required).
So, if anyone has a 4:3 projector and wants a cheap 2.35:1 CH set up, this can be done with surplus 35mm cinema anamorphics :D
Ziggy,
All this sounds great to me. Do you have a few photos to share of your setup? Which B&L lens do you have? Is it 1.75x also? Can you share more details on your lens modification? Thanks, CMRA
CMRA is offline  
post #9 of 17 Old 04-24-2006, 08:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CMRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank J Manrique
I think you be better off using a short throw ISCO film projection anamorphic lens attachment; far better optics than the old B&L thingies (btw, I own both brands)...

-THTS
Frank,
Could you elaborate on this? The model number and the stretch ratio? Might as well seek out the best, right?
BTW, what if any modifications did you make? Thanks, CMRA
CMRA is offline  
post #10 of 17 Old 04-25-2006, 08:35 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi CMRA. Will take some photos when I get a chance. The B&L I have is the standard 2X one with the red threaded locking ring. Didn't have to modify the lens - focus seems fine at 20 foot projection distance. There is some cut off on the edges of the image. Better to use projectors that have a longer throw lens rather than the very short throw on my BENQ.

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
post #11 of 17 Old 04-28-2006, 07:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,957
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 182
And thats really only due to the physical size of the lens. If the lens were larger, this clipping would not be a problem...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #12 of 17 Old 04-28-2006, 08:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CMRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyr
Hi CMRA. Will take some photos when I get a chance. The B&L I have is the standard 2X one with the red threaded locking ring. Didn't have to modify the lens - focus seems fine at 20 foot projection distance. There is some cut off on the edges of the image. Better to use projectors that have a longer throw lens rather than the very short throw on my BENQ.
By any chance does it look something like this:
LL
CMRA is offline  
post #13 of 17 Old 05-01-2006, 09:19 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
CMRA, no, that's the ''jumbo'' version. Should be better than the standard one. However, the problem of vignetting also relates to the distance between the front and rear elements which is significantly more than say an Isco III.

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
post #14 of 17 Old 05-07-2006, 02:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank J Manrique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Redlands, Ca. USA
Posts: 4,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA
Frank,
Could you elaborate on this? The model number and the stretch ratio? Might as well seek out the best, right?
BTW, what if any modifications did you make? Thanks, CMRA
Boy...am I late in answering this one! :o Sorry about that...

I mentioned the theatrical short throw anomorphic lenses availability (they still have a 2x stretch factor; any Isco theatrical anomorphic series/model would do...depending on how much you want to pay, of course), but I don't use the ones I own for HT video purpose; they're solely used for film projection.

I still have and use the original ISCO I lens attachment, which is known to have an stretch factor that's over the required aspect ratio (for older 4:3 projectors); it produces some visible artifacts...like an slight bending of the top and bottom of the image (it almost looks like one is using a curved screen!) in addition to the over stretch (I have to move the Dukane 9015 D-ILA projector closer to the screen in order to contain the entire image within it).
The ISCO II and III version are supposed to take of that that "problem"...

-THTS
Frank J Manrique is offline  
post #15 of 17 Old 05-10-2006, 10:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 3,416
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 545 Post(s)
Liked: 658
So, how is a 2X squeeze cinema anamorphic going to work with a format that requires a 1.33X squeeze? It sounds to me like apples and oranges. Cinemascope/Panavision 35/all cinema anamorphic formats are 2x because that is the squeeze that the lenses have when shooting the movie. Same at the front end, same at the back end. If you use a 2x projection lens when the source material has a 1.33x squeeze, you are going to be overshooting 2.35, and geometry will not be correct.
Cam Man is offline  
post #16 of 17 Old 05-11-2006, 05:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,957
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 182
That was why we were discussing using a 4 x 3 projector not a 16:9 unit with such a lens. Whilst a frame of 1.33:1 is not quite right either, it can be made to work with minimal horizontal pixel loss where the 16:9 unit would sacrifice too many to be worth it...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #17 of 17 Old 05-11-2006, 05:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
ziggyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, West Australia
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mark is correct. I use a HTPC remember to alter the original squeeze factor plus some zoom through Theatertek to maximise the use of pixels within the 4:3 frame.

ziggy
ziggyr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread 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