ISCO III vs PANAM0RPH PALADIN - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 01-04-2020, 06:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Delaware
Posts: 4,592
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1136 Post(s)
Liked: 588
ISCO III vs PANAM0RPH PALADIN

I know the i3 is dated but what are the pros and cons of each?

Many here have owned both so I thought it would be a good place to start.

I’ve had the I3 for sometime and have been pondering a projector change.

Mike Miles
[email protected]
mmiles is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 01-04-2020, 07:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 20,698
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1920 Post(s)
Liked: 1181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post
I know the i3 is dated but what are the pros and cons of each?

Many here have owned both so I thought it would be a good place to start.

I’ve had the I3 for sometime and have been pondering a projector change.
I owned an i3 with my Sim2 1080p projector, and mounted at about 17.5 feet from screen 2.35 128.5" wide, I was towards end of throw range and got great contrast.

My current Sony VW5000 is much brighter and yields a much bigger brighter picture, thus I have a 2.40 14' wide screen! If I had tried to use the i3 it would have been towards the very front of the throw range, if even that, and impractical, plus it doesn't do all of the Sony's 4096 4k pixel structure, as does the DCR lens, the latter which can be mounted at a lesser ratio throw distance and with a minimum recommended throw of 1.4. My theater renovation is moving my projector back behind the back wall/cabinets so that the throw will be about 23', a throw ratio of 1.65.

Mike knowing you, you will get a top notch 4k 4096 pixel projector - so you will want the DCR.
Craig Peer likes this.

Pray for all of our healthcare providers who are doing their best at great risk to help us survive the current Covid-19 virus crisis.
Steve Bruzonsky is online now  
post #3 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 06:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post
I know the i3 is dated but what are the pros and cons of each?

Many here have owned both so I thought it would be a good place to start.

I’️ve had the I3 for sometime and have been pondering a projector change.
If you are going to get 4096 panel Projector like Sony 4K then you will need ISCO 1.25x DLP lens . ISCOIIiL won’t fit the panel as Steve said. It is much bigger and heavier than ISCO III L (I have both ) . Schneider is a 100 years old very well respected German company that makes all kind of precision optics for all kinds of industries, commercial cinema, photography etc . So you can’t go wrong with it . People who have used DCR with their Sony here have been very happy with as well . It will be very unlikely that someone has both ISCO 1.25x L and DCR so you may not be able to get the head to head comparison . ISCO however is much more expensive also . Another difference is that you can get motorized SLED for ISCO that you can incorporate in your theater automation so you can have option to have lens out of the light path if you want to .
Just my 2 cents .
mani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 11:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 20,698
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1920 Post(s)
Liked: 1181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
If you are going to get 4096 panel Projector like Sony 4K then you will need ISCO 1.25x DLP lens . ISCOIIiL won’t fit the panel as Steve said. It is much bigger and heavier than ISCO III L (I have both ) . Schneider is a 100 years old very well respected German company that makes all kind of precision optics for all kinds of industries, commercial cinema, photography etc . So you can’t go wrong with it . People who have used DCR with their Sony here have been very happy with as well . It will be very unlikely that someone has both ISCO 1.25x L and DCR so you may not be able to get the head to head comparison . ISCO however is much more expensive also . Another difference is that you can get motorized SLED for ISCO that you can incorporate in your theater automation so you can have option to have lens out of the light path if you want to .

Just my 2 cents .
All correct of course.

Keep in mind Mani go this Isco 1.25X and does not use a sled, and when he got it was a good year before the DCR lens was announced and became available. At that time Mani wanted more brightness for his 16' wide 2.40 screen and the Isco 1.25x was the only available choice.

Pray for all of our healthcare providers who are doing their best at great risk to help us survive the current Covid-19 virus crisis.
Steve Bruzonsky is online now  
post #5 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 02:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
If you are going to get 4096 panel Projector like Sony 4K then you will need ISCO 1.25x DLP lens . ISCOIIiL won’️t fit the panel as Steve said. It is much bigger and heavier than ISCO III L (I have both ) . Schneider is a 100 years old very well respected German company that makes all kind of precision optics for all kinds of industries, commercial cinema, photography etc . So you can’️t go wrong with it . People who have used DCR with their Sony here have been very happy with as well . It will be very unlikely that someone has both ISCO 1.25x L and DCR so you may not be able to get the head to head comparison . ISCO however is much more expensive also . Another difference is that you can get motorized SLED for ISCO that you can incorporate in your theater automation so you can have option to have lens out of the light path if you want to .

Just my 2 cents .
All correct of course.

Keep in mind Mani go this Isco 1.25X and does not use a sled, and when he got it was a good year before the DCR lens was announced and became available. At that time Mani wanted more brightness for his 16' wide 2.40 screen and the Isco 1.25x was the only available choice.
Hi Steve

I do you use motorized Sled
mani is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 04:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
The IIIL is NOT dated...it was way ahead of its time when it was first released over 15 years ago and it still is. I use it on my RS3000 and it looks fabulous.

You can use it at 3840 with no issues since UHDs are mastered at 3840, not 4096 so you are not losing anything. You can find them cheaper now than any other quality lens...so cheap its almost shocking.
Killroy is online now  
post #7 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 04:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Delaware
Posts: 4,592
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1136 Post(s)
Liked: 588
I have an offline discussion with a member and it appears the Paladin with a true 4K projector with true 4K content will have an edge but other than that keep the I3.

Mike Miles
[email protected]
mmiles is online now  
post #8 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 07:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post
I have an offline discussion with a member and it appears the Paladin with a true 4K projector with true 4K content will have an edge but other than that keep the I3.
Then I think you should have kept it off line . As had been explained I3 is not meant for 4096 panel
What I mean is there is no reason to start ISCO vs DCR discussion as I said there really is no one on the forum who has done ISCO 1.25x DLP to Paladin head to head comparison On same projector that I know of . There will be ownership bias in the comments people will make . If you go by pure experience and expertise in that arena and commercial cinema and industrial optics ... you can research yourself into their products and expertise . That doesn’t necessarily mean newer entrant can’t have better product .
Just my 2 cents

Last edited by mani; 01-05-2020 at 07:47 PM.
mani is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 01-05-2020, 10:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Delaware
Posts: 4,592
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1136 Post(s)
Liked: 588
Mani,

I think that is what I said in a way. The DCR will have an advantage when used with a true 4K projector like the Sony on some JVC models.

Just trying to gather info.

Mike Miles
[email protected]
mmiles is online now  
post #10 of 31 Old 01-06-2020, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post
Mani,

I think that is what I said in a way. The DCR will have an advantage when used with a true 4K projector like the Sony on some JVC models.

Just trying to gather info.
No worries
I think you will be happy with either of them . Important thing is so enjoy the projector and your theater . All I was implying was there is probably no direct technical comparison between ISCO DLP ( people have compared ISCO 3 to DLP and DLP is much sharper lens than i3 from what I have gathered) and DCR on Sony 4K .
But if I was buying again I will probably get DCR just because of cost difference as long as I didn’t want the option of having the motorized Sled .
Any way good luck with your new projector and lens
mani is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 01-08-2020, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 492 Post(s)
Liked: 202
I have an ISCO 1.25x but my room is under construction so I can't yet test this scenario properly: I see that the DCR folks use a short throw ratio of around 1.4 for maximum brightness; I wonder if it might make sense since the ISCO 1.25x is so big if using it in reverse as a vertical compression lens is viable (i.e., the "exit" aperture is large enough and the lens coatings don't work too much against it) to likewise gain the extra brightness (and ~placement) from the short throw zoom. Anyone test this out?
jjcook is online now  
post #12 of 31 Old 01-16-2020, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2853 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post
I know the i3 is dated but what are the pros and cons of each?

Many here have owned both so I thought it would be a good place to start.

I’ve had the I3 for sometime and have been pondering a projector change.

One thing not mentioned is that the ISCO is really suited for a curved screen , the DCR designed for a flat screen . The ISCO III has pincushion distortion, the paladin DCR barrel distortion. You can over scan for either to fit the image on screen, however the further back you mount the projector ( longest throw), the less the distortion .


I had the ISCO IIIL and DCR side by side , both are great product, neither seems to have an advantage for light or detail looking at 4K patterns . The one major difference is size and weight. The ISCO IIIL 1.33X is over double the weight and size of the DCR, the the ISCO 1.25 X is even bigger and heavier, you really need a separate mount for this whereas the DCR is small and light weight , in some cases, you can easily suspend this lens from the same mount as the projector.


Pretty sure only certain projectors have the ability to process the additional pixels ( 4098) from the 17:9 chip that can be used with the DCR , Sony projectors can certainly take advantage of this . Sony also has the ability to shrink the image content therefor there is no need to move the lens out of the way for 16:9 content . Hope that is right I may have that backwards This is only applicable to the DCR and ISCO 1.25X, the ISCO 1.33 lens can only utilize 3860 pixels regardless. Not sure that is an advantage except for content delivered, as most is filmed to fit 16:9 chips , scaling to 4098 ( 17:9 chips) may introduce scaling anomalies .
stef2 and Craig Peer like this.

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW5000 , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , (1) SVS PC13-Ultra .

Last edited by roxiedog13; 01-16-2020 at 03:56 PM.
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 01-18-2020, 11:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,639
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7813 Post(s)
Liked: 9892
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post

Pretty sure only certain projectors have the ability to process the additional pixels ( 4098) from the 17:9 chip that can be used with the DCR , Sony projectors can certainly take advantage of this . Sony also has the ability to shrink the image content therefor there is no need to move the lens out of the way for 16:9 content .
Hope that is right I may have that backwards This is only applicable to the DCR and ISCO 1.25X, the ISCO 1.33 lens can only utilize 3860 pixels regardless. Not sure that is an advantage except for content delivered, as most is filmed to fit 16:9 chips , scaling to 4098 ( 17:9 chips) may introduce scaling anomalies .
The Sony native 4K and the newer JVC 4K projectors can do this. The RS4500 requires a Lumagen or MadVR etc.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #14 of 31 Old 01-18-2020, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Or you can use the Paladin (non DCR) without a Lumagen with the RS4500. When you factor in the savings on the Lumagen & $2,000 on the non DCR lens difference its substantial IMO.

Last edited by RaceCarDriver; 01-18-2020 at 12:39 PM.
RaceCarDriver is online now  
post #15 of 31 Old 01-18-2020, 12:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,639
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7813 Post(s)
Liked: 9892
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceCarDriver View Post
Or you can use the Paladin (non DCR) without a Lumagen with the RS4500. When you factor in the savings not he Lumagen & $2,000 on the lens difference its substantial IMO.
That is correct. You only need a Lumagen etc. for the DCR lens ( or a 1.25X ISCO ).
Craig Peer is online now  
post #16 of 31 Old 02-03-2020, 09:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stef2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
I had tried to use the i3 it would have been towards the very front of the throw range, if even that, and impractical, plus it doesn't do all of the Sony's 4096 4k pixel structure, as does the DCR lens
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
I had the ISCO IIIL and DCR side by side , both are great product, neither seems to have an advantage for light or detail looking at 4K patterns.

I am not trying to start another discussion about Isco vs Paladin, but I am just trying to find out if my ISCO IIIL is able to fully resolve a 3840x2160 resolution. I plan to upgrade my 1080p projector to a native 4K JVC within a year. Lets say that I already have a sturdy lens slide, that brightness is not a problem and that I do not mind using or not the full 4096 resolution of my future projector. My only question is: can the ISCO IIIL fully resolve a resolution of 3840x2160?

I am having a hard time finding a definitive answer to my question, and I cannot answer it myself since I do not have a native 4K projector yet. When projecting a 3840x2160 pattern through the ISCO IIIL, does it resolve each pixel on the screen? I know the Paladin does, even 8K according to Paladin. I believe it must be true. But what about the ISCO IIIL? the test is so simple to do, the answer should be simple, right? can it fully resolve a 3840x2160 pixel structure?
stef2 is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 02-03-2020, 09:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by stef2 View Post
I am not trying to start another discussion about Isco vs Paladin, but I am just trying to find out if my ISCO IIIL is able to fully resolve a 3840x2160 resolution. I plan to upgrade my 1080p projector to a native 4K JVC within a year. Lets say that I already have a sturdy lens slide, that brightness is not a problem and that I do not mind using or not the full 4096 resolution of my future projector. My only question is: can the ISCO IIIL fully resolve a resolution of 3840x2160?

I am having a hard time finding a definitive answer to my question, and I cannot answer it myself since I do not have a native 4K projector yet. When projecting a 3840x2160 pattern through the ISCO IIIL, does it resolve each pixel on the screen? I know the Paladin does, even 8K according to Paladin. I believe it must be true. But what about the ISCO IIIL? the test is so simple to do, the answer should be simple, right? can it fully resolve a 3840x2160 pixel structure?
Simple answer... yes it can.

Long answer... using the QBF 4k test pattern I cannot see any difference on a 150" scope screen.

But I am sure someone will chime saying something differently and some will over analyze it saying that 20-year old tech cannot resolve 4k since 4k did not exist back then.
stef2 and roxiedog13 like this.
Killroy is online now  
post #18 of 31 Old 02-03-2020, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stef2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Simple answer... yes it can.

Long answer... using the QBF 4k test pattern I cannot see any difference on a 150" scope screen.

But I am sure someone will chime saying something differently and some will over analyze it saying that 20-year old tech cannot resolve 4k since 4k did not exist back then.

Thank you! this is what I wanted to know. Therefore, I see no point in upgrading my ISCO IIIL when I change my projector for a native 4K one, as I do not really care for the gain in brightness that using the full 17:9 panel would yield, and my Isco is already installed, functional, and I like to get it (or any lens) out of the way for 16:9 viewing.
Killroy likes this.
stef2 is offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 02-03-2020, 02:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by stef2 View Post
Thank you! this is what I wanted to know. Therefore, I see no point in upgrading my ISCO IIIL when I change my projector for a native 4K one, as I do not really care for the gain in brightness that using the full 17:9 panel would yield, and my Isco is already installed, functional, and I like to get it (or any lens) out of the way for 16:9 viewing.
Yeah, if you already have one installed then that makes total sense. I already had mine as well and I debated getting a DCR but I waited and when I fired up the RS3000 I was blown away at how transparent the IIIL is. I cannot tell there is any loss in PQ and I also like to move the lens out of the way when watching 16:9 material. The only way I will replace it is if I find a 1.25x DLP ISCO dirt cheap.
Killroy is online now  
post #20 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 07:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2853 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Simple answer... yes it can.

Long answer... using the QBF 4k test pattern I cannot see any difference on a 150" scope screen.

But I am sure someone will chime saying something differently and some will over analyze it saying that 20-year old tech cannot resolve 4k since 4k did not exist back then.

I did the very same comparison using the same static patterns, I also watched and compared with real dynamic content, even more important. I came to the same conclusion as you did , even on 4K material you'll be hard pressed to see any differences.



Two main differences, well, three if pricing is a factor. First of all the Paladin is less than half the weight of the ISCO IIIL also smaller , for installation and set up, the Paladin is a no brainer. The ISCO is so heavy a separate mount is really a must. Secondly, the Paladin is set up for a flat screen, the ISCO best suited for a curved screen . Personally, I prefer a curved screen matched with the appropriate anamorphic lens , however this time around I'm going with a flat screen. A curved screen coupled with angular reflective material will increase light back to the viewer , keep it from washing back off the adjacent walls, thereby preventing a loss of contrast . A flat matte white full lambertain reference screen is the very worst at reflecting on nearby walls which lowers contrast . As with most in AV nothing beneficial comes without a cost. Price wise ISCO IIIL are available used from $2500 to $5000 , just be sure to get the mounting assembly. The Paladin is the better option all around IMHO , especially if pricing is on par and you require an option for a flat screen.

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW5000 , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , (1) SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 08:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
I did the very same comparison using the same static patterns, I also watched and compared with real dynamic content, even more important. I came to the same conclusion as you did , even on 4K material you'll be hard pressed to see any differences.



Two main differences, well, three if pricing is a factor. First of all the Paladin is less than half the weight of the ISCO IIIL also smaller , for installation and set up, the Paladin is a no brainer. The ISCO is so heavy a separate mount is really a must. Secondly, the Paladin is set up for a flat screen, the ISCO best suited for a curved screen . Personally, I prefer a curved screen matched with the appropriate anamorphic lens , however this time around I'm going with a flat screen. A curved screen coupled with angular reflective material will increase light back to the viewer , keep it from washing back off the adjacent walls, thereby preventing a loss of contrast . A flat matte white full lambertain reference screen is the very worst at reflecting on nearby walls which lowers contrast . As with most in AV nothing beneficial comes without a cost. Price wise ISCO IIIL are available used from $2500 to $5000 , just be sure to get the mounting assembly. The Paladin is the better option all around IMHO , especially if pricing is on par and you require an option for a flat screen.
Yeah, the weight of the IIIL was a major obstacle when I was installing my sled. Since my projector had a pretty good ceiling drop I could not properly install a drop down support for the Panamorph sled. After several attempts I gave up and used my old Runco sled and just attached it to the floor of my hushbox. Coincidentally, I knew someone else that was having problems with his sled so I gave it to him and that solved his issues.

As far as used prices, I have been tracking ebay for IIIL auctions and I have counted no less than 10 perfect shaped IIILs that have gone for under $2000 and a few for under $1500. I actually got mine for $1500 but that was almost 2-years ago (from someone that probably did not know what he had). The prices have slowly crept down. I saw a 1.25X DLP go for just over $2250...kicked myself for a week for not trying to bid on it.
Killroy is online now  
post #22 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 09:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 20,698
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1920 Post(s)
Liked: 1181
One more difference. I had my Sim2 C3X mounted with a throw distance of 16.5 feet, about the middle of the throw range, with 128.5" wide 2.35 curved 1.3 gain screen, with 16:9 at 96" wide.

But in 2017 I changed to the Sony VW5000, 4k and way more lumens, and went with a much larger screen, 168" wide 2.40 flat 1.0 gain screen, with 16:9 at 124" wide. At the time I again ceiling mounted, this time with a throw distance of 19.5'. The ISCO IIIL simply wouldn't have been practical at this throw distance, it would have to be mounted towards the front of the throw range with resulting poor contrast. So I didn't use the lens. I was at a throw ratio of 1.39, so when the DCR came out a few months later, being at just below the minimum recommended throw and having just paid big bucks for a Ken Whitcomb setup/calibration, I held off.

But now that I am remodeling my theater, same projector and screen, and moving the projector back some behind the rear wall/cabinets, the throw distance will be about 23.08', a throw ratio of 1.65, well within the recommended throw for the DCR lens, which I will be using. The ISCO IIIL would still not have the best contrast at this throw distance, still too close to the front of the throw range as the VW5000 can support a picture several times wider/bigger than the Sim2 projector; and of course now I have a flat screen which the DCR is designed for.

Pray for all of our healthcare providers who are doing their best at great risk to help us survive the current Covid-19 virus crisis.
Steve Bruzonsky is online now  
post #23 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 11:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2853 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
One more difference. I had my Sim2 C3X mounted with a throw distance of 16.5 feet, about the middle of the throw range, with 128.5" wide 2.35 curved 1.3 gain screen, with 16:9 at 96" wide.

But in 2017 I changed to the Sony VW5000, 4k and way more lumens, and went with a much larger screen, 168" wide 2.40 flat 1.0 gain screen, with 16:9 at 124" wide. At the time I again ceiling mounted, this time with a throw distance of 19.5'. The ISCO IIIL simply wouldn't have been practical at this throw distance, it would have to be mounted towards the front of the throw range with resulting poor contrast. So I didn't use the lens. I was at a throw ratio of 1.39, so when the DCR came out a few months later, being at just below the minimum recommended throw and having just paid big bucks for a Ken Whitcomb setup/calibration, I held off.

But now that I am remodeling my theater, same projector and screen, and moving the projector back some behind the rear wall/cabinets, the throw distance will be about 23.08', a throw ratio of 1.65, well within the recommended throw for the DCR lens, which I will be using. The ISCO IIIL would still not have the best contrast at this throw distance, still too close to the front of the throw range as the VW5000 can support a picture several times wider/bigger than the Sim2 projector; and of course now I have a flat screen which the DCR is designed for.

Indeed that is one more variable I did forget . The Paladin allows a 1.4 throw ratio if I recall the ISCO is probably closer to 1.6 . The ISCO basically needs more distance for the same screen size, that has to be factored in .

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW5000 , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , (1) SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
I am at 2.44 throw ratio and I still have a bit of pin cushion on my flat screen. It took me quite a while to dial it in but the actual margin of error for +/- is less than 1/4" so I could never get it absolutely perfect. So less than 1/4" across the entire 138" width I can live with....until I can get someone with a lot steadier hands to adjust this heavy lens.

Last edited by Killroy; 02-04-2020 at 03:07 PM.
Killroy is online now  
post #25 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 03:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
I did the very same comparison using the same static patterns, I also watched and compared with real dynamic content, even more important. I came to the same conclusion as you did , even on 4K material you'll be hard pressed to see any differences.



Two main differences, well, three if pricing is a factor. First of all the Paladin is less than half the weight of the ISCO IIIL also smaller , for installation and set up, the Paladin is a no brainer. The ISCO is so heavy a separate mount is really a must. Secondly, the Paladin is set up for a flat screen, the ISCO best suited for a curved screen . Personally, I prefer a curved screen matched with the appropriate anamorphic lens , however this time around I'm going with a flat screen. A curved screen coupled with angular reflective material will increase light back to the viewer , keep it from washing back off the adjacent walls, thereby preventing a loss of contrast . A flat matte white full lambertain reference screen is the very worst at reflecting on nearby walls which lowers contrast . As with most in AV nothing beneficial comes without a cost. Price wise ISCO IIIL are available used from $2500 to $5000 , just be sure to get the mounting assembly. The Paladin is the better option all around IMHO , especially if pricing is on par and you require an option for a flat screen.
Yeah, the weight of the IIIL was a major obstacle when I was installing my sled. Since my projector had a pretty good ceiling drop I could not properly install a drop down support for the Panamorph sled. After several attempts I gave up and used my old Runco sled and just attached it to the floor of my hushbox. Coincidentally, I knew someone else that was having problems with his sled so I gave it to him and that solved his issues.

As far as used prices, I have been tracking ebay for IIIL auctions and I have counted no less than 10 perfect shaped IIILs that have gone for under $2000 and a few for under $1500. I actually got mine for $1500 but that was almost 2-years ago (from someone that probably did not know what he had). The prices have slowly crept down. I saw a 1.25X DLP go for just over $2250...kicked myself for a week for not trying to bid on it.
If you guys think ISCO IIIL is big and heavy , you should try ISCO DLP1.25x . It is much biggger and heavier and is supposed to be used with Sony 5000 as ISCO IIIL won’t cover the whole panel
mani is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 05:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
If you guys think ISCO IIIL is big and heavy , you should try ISCO DLP1.25x . It is much biggger and heavier and is supposed to be used with Sony 5000 as ISCO IIIL won’t cover the whole panel
Not exactly accurate... the 1.25X DLP stretches the 4096 properly while the 1.33x only stretches 3840 to the proper geometry. Both lenses "cover" the panels just fine. The IIIL rear element is almost 6.5" in diameter. Either way, the IIIL can be used with any 4096x2160 panel projector as long as you only use the 3840x2160 UHD in its native 1:1 format and not stretched to 4096.

Personally, and this is just the purist in me, I rather use my RS3000 in 3840x2160 as everything I will play on it will be in that native format. When we ever get real 4096x2160 media then I will worry about looking for a 1.25x lens...and yes, it will be a ISCO 1.25x DLP.
Killroy is online now  
post #27 of 31 Old 02-04-2020, 05:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
BTW... this image always blows me away how tiny the IIIL looks next to its big borther, the 1.25x DLP.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	42.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	452.0 KB
ID:	2680650  
Craig Peer and roxiedog13 like this.
Killroy is online now  
post #28 of 31 Old 02-05-2020, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2853 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
BTW... this image always blows me away how tiny the IIIL looks next to its big borther, the 1.25x DLP.

I tried to get that piece several times, always missed out . I know it was huge, likely a 25LB piece of glass at a minimum. This is required to take advantage of the full 17:9 panels ( 4096) whereas the ISCO 1.33X will not.



If it takes this much high end glass to equal the nearly 5LB Paladin DCR to do the same, you have to wonder what is the Paladin glass made from. Is it possible that vertical compression of the Paladin DCR requires that much less
glass compared to the Horizontal expansion provided by ISCO and most other anamorphic lens ? If this was the case I'm surprised other optical companies did not figure this out long ago as the savings is tremendous all around . Regardless
it would seem the DCR does the same job at a fraction of the weight , the difference is a mystery for sure, magic glass or new technology , either way it's all good.

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW5000 , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , (1) SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 02-05-2020, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,688
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
If it takes this much high end glass to equal the nearly 5LB Paladin DCR to do the same, you have to wonder what is the Paladin glass made from. Is it possible that vertical compression of the Paladin DCR requires that much less
glass compared to the Horizontal expansion provided by ISCO and most other anamorphic lens ? If this was the case I'm surprised other optical companies did not figure this out long ago as the savings is tremendous all around . Regardless
it would seem the DCR does the same job at a fraction of the weight , the difference is a mystery for sure, magic glass or new technology , either way it's all good.
Well, it would be unfair to compare the DCR to the 1.25x DLP since the DLP was never designed for home use but for commercial D-Cinema theater use. Heck, in the old ISCO specs, it sits all by itself and in a different category altogether.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-02-05 at 8.44.21 AM.png
Views:	46
Size:	210.1 KB
ID:	2680766  
Killroy is online now  
post #30 of 31 Old 02-05-2020, 10:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 4,027
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2853 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Well, it would be unfair to compare the DCR to the 1.25x DLP since the DLP was never designed for home use but for commercial D-Cinema theater use. Heck, in the old ISCO specs, it sits all by itself and in a different category altogether.

If I could have found the ISCO 1.25X , I definitely would have one in my theater now, combined with a curved screen it would have been a great set up. Have the DCR now and the flat screen , I expect this will work out just as well , should know soon enough.

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW5000 , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , (1) SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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