AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Alan, are you saying you drive a Camero? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


I think a lot of people would like to experiment with add on products but they have real world $$$ limitaions.


when the panamorph project started, the $600 anamorphic solution sounded pretty cool. Just think if you made something for $200. It would practically be a must have item. In fact, people would probably buy them even if they didn't need or want them just to satisfy their curiosity(this already happens on ebay w/ cinema lenses). Now if the damn things worked well...


I tend to think with most products cars, planes, projectors etc you can add all the gimmicks you want, but will only marginally improve the fundamental limitations of the original product. Some people are happy with that. Don't forget, this is a hobby for many so spending countless hours micky mousing around with add-ons is fun.


With that said. I personnally would probably have more fun buying a $50 lense off ebay, discover it's limitations through experimentation, then to spend $1500 on something that's suppossed to do the job perfectly, but also has limitations.


When is the perfect projector coming out anyway?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
Grant,

I've got an LT150 and recently had the chance to borrow a Panamorph to mate with this little projector.


In my makeshift setup, I was able to obtain a pretty decent image with little or no distortion, and little to no linearity problems.


My LT150 is propped about 1 foot off the floor, pointed to a 52x124 screen (2.35:1). I maintain the constant height, variable width metaphore. This setup is used purely for DVD playback, so I haven't had the chance to try satellite or HD through this. (The HDTV in another room does this).


I found the best way to achieve the smallest distortion on the image was to point the LT150 slightly down into the Panamorph, with the Panamorph at its normal adjustment. This results in the lower portion of the desktop corresponding with the screen. In other words the top of the desktop is off the top of the screen.


Using AVIA, I couldn't perceive any non-linearity in the image, and I had a small amount of pincushion at the top of the screen (about 1 inch on either side). This did not bother me in my situation, particularly considering the screen width.


How did this compare to the LT150 without the Panamorph?

Well, you may have read my (potentially unfair) comparison of the LT150 to a G11. One of my biggest complaints in image quality over the DILA was that the LT150 looked more 'digital', was not as bright, and lacked resolution. It also had a more matte look to the image than the glossy, film-like image from the DILA.


With the Panamorph added, I reverted back to the 1024x768 native resolution instead of the 1024x576 within 1024x768 using Powerstrip. (Resolution within resolution as it's called). The improvement in image quality is quite substantial. There is increased resolution, noticeable by the lack of scanlines on text during credits. The image is brighter with increased contrast and blacker blacks. More importantly for me, the matte look of the image has now been replaced by the glossy film-like look of the DILA.


Unfortunately, I no longer have the ability to A-B the LT150+Panamorph to the DILA, but I'd say the gap has closed significantly. I'm now very happy with the image from the LT150. How well this would work in your, or anyone elses setup is open to question. I guess it depends on your room, and how flexible you can be in moving the projector. I also raise again that I have not tried this combination with a sat or HD feed.


I'm on the Panamorph wait-list too, and based on my results, I'm really keen to get hold of it. I just wish I had an ISCOII to compare it against.


For the record, the HTPC is using a Radeon with the Ravisent engine. I'll try and take some pictures tonight and post them to let you see the before and after shots.


Chivs


[This message has been edited by Chivs (edited 09-24-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
I've been contemplating purchasing an ISCO II. However, I've also heard it may soften the image. Is this so? I have an NEC LT100, and do not see pixels from my 14' viewing distance (92" wide screen). I have the screen masked so do not see a halo, and am satisfied with the light output.


Does the ISCO or Panamorph offer solutions to problems I haven't mentioned? Does it soften or increased the perceived sharpness of the image?






------------------

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
Tryg - I concur with your sentiments. Buying a device that costs almost as half as much as the projector doesn't make sense.


One would be better off buying a 16:9 projector in the first place.


------------------

Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.
MyHTSetup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Chivs,


Thanks for the reply. This is the information I have been looking for. My LT150 is floor mounted and I have as much flexibility as I need with respect to tilting the projector etc. You have given me hope - I gather from your reply that there is enough improvement to justify the purchase, at least from your perspective.


Thanks again,


Cheers,


Grant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Quote:
Just think if you made something for $200. It would practically be a must have item. In fact, people would probably buy them even if they didn't need or want them just to satisfy their curiosity(this already happens on ebay w/ cinema lenses).
My sentiments exactly! If someone could manufacture something at this price, they would capture the whole market (albeit probably very small). I would buy one! Maybe one of the large lensmakers like B&L do it at a lower cost?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
Is it possible that we all assign different financial value to the change from this product?



If you have a correctly calibrated projector, with a larger screen (90 inches and wider) the differences are not subtle. I had a Pmorph, but limitation of my installation (hushbox) did not allow for optimal reproduction of the AR. When I put the D-ILA and the pmorph on the floor and dialed it in, the difference in my image quality was worth every bit of 1500 dollars. In fact, shawn private mailed me twice to assist in my installation. In addition, at 1.9x screen width and correct height alignment I had approximately .5" of barrel distortion overscanned onto the masking of my screen. The nature of my original hush box, ceiling mount installation was such that the Pmorph could not be used optimally. BTW, I was able to sell the unit in less than 24 hours.


This is not hype, mathematics or intellectual analysis. The image is brighter, with a perceive improvement in contrast, and a big improvement toward the ultimate goal of a film-like presentation.


Grant,

I wanted to assure you that this whole conspiracy theory thing is nonsense.


Value is clearly an individual judgement, but digital projectors take on a different, and IMHO, improved picture quality with the lens.


The ISCO1 had many posts by Mark Foster, but the ISC0II has had few instructional posts. At present I am seeking advice on the possible use with my unique installation. It appears it may work.



------------------

STOP HDCP on DVI

Don O


[This message has been edited by Don O'Brien (edited 09-24-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
Chivs -


1) What kind of screen are you using?

2) I thought the Panamorph was for variable height and the ISCO for variable width. Can you explain how you accomplish the variable width with the Panamorph and HTPC?


TIA,

Kelly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts

Quote:


Just think if you made something for $200. It would practically be a must have item...
It would be a $200 paperweight. There is absolutely no way to manufacture and market a high quality optical device for any where near $200, given the market. Even if the market expanded 10x (you argue it will not with the advent of 16:9 projectors), it would still be impossible.


The anamorphic lens is and always will be a niche item, only apeal to those that are trying to squeeze the best possible picture from there fixed-panel projector, and are willing to pay the price.


Having said that, I still believe that the Panamorph will have to "street" around $1300-$1500 to be sucessful. I doubt the market will be there at $2000.


Jeff


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Grant,


I've been using the Panamorph/P752 with my DILA for almost a month now and the improvement is more than I was expecting. In order of significance (to me):


1) contrast

2) brightness

3) resolution


The perceived improvement in contrast really surprised me...I was expecting a reduction here. The increase in brightness is more than I expected...outdoor HiDef is soooooo realistic!



------------------

Randy

G20-Panamorph/CI/GrayHawk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Lou Sytsma:
One would be better off buying a 16:9 projector in the first place.
Well, that would be preferable, but then there aren't there only two on the market? All I know of are the Sony 10/11HT and the Sanyo PLV-60. Or you could get a used Sony 400Q.


Only three. Plus those are all LCD's, and all have various problems (screen door, poor black level or contrast, stuck pixels, blobs, solarization, etc.


Lots of people think it's better to scratch a 16:9 LCD in favor of a 4:3 DLP (and its other set of problems). This may change a little with the upcoming 16:9 Sharp 9000 DLP (and I assume others), but those are going to be quite expensive, probably double the cost of an LT150 with full priced Panamorph.


So a cheap DLP mated with a 16:9 lens is still a very cost-effective solution (and, I think, will be for some time), even given that it isn't quite as "plug and play" as one of the native 16:9 projectors. -- Herb

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
The Panamorph P752 is arguably more valuable with a 16:9 projector than it is with a 4:3. It depends upon what one watches the most. The majority of movies are 2.35:1 and benefit the same in a 16:9 configuration as do 16:9 movies from a P752/4:3 combination. The P752 is a viable option for both scenarios. If you are looking for a "tweek", some may argue that the P561 would be such. However, it affords a the same 33% incremental vertical improvement on a 4:3 panel beyond that which the P752 does for the 2.35:1 AR. This is decidedly not the same as upgrading audio cables by one grade (i.e., a tweek).



------------------

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts

Quote:
Grant,


I've been using the Panamorph/P752 with my DILA for almost a month now and the improvement is more than I was expecting. In order of significance (to me):


1) contrast

2) brightness

3) resolution


The perceived improvement in contrast really surprised me...I was expecting a reduction here. The increase in brightness is more than I expected...outdoor HiDef is soooooo realistic!


------------------

Randy

G20-Panamorph/CI/GrayHawk
That sums up my thoughts exactly. The only other thing I would add is that I see no softening on my DLP when using the Panamorph. I do see a big increase in smoothness due to the increased pixel density in the picture but no softening.

Even if I do upgrade to a 16:9 native projector I will use the Panamorph to give me 2:35.

If you want the best from your projector the Panamorph is a great addition.



DavidW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Thanks for the replies. Finally, some positives about these lenses! It's good to hear some members are getting good results with off axis projectors.


For me, there just seemed to be so little positive feedback, only negative. I am once again looking forward to receiving my lens.


Cheers,


Grant

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
For those that are interested, here's a shot of the LT150 with Panamorph. Screen is 52in high and ~124in wide in keeping with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I took a bunch of pictures but realized I need a tripod to stop camera shake. This one seemed fine, but could probably be better.

I'll post some more tomorrow.

http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/image_up...d-2%20copy.jpg


Chivs


[This message has been edited by Chivs (edited 09-24-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Panamorphs have been shipping for awhile now and I have only heard about the distortion problems. Many forum memebers own the ISCO I or ISCO II. Why aren't there more (there have been very few) reviews about these lenses. Is it because they don't actually improve the image and only frustate their owners who have spent a considerable amount of money for an add on lens and are embarrassed to admit they got sucked in by all the hype?


I have heard that the addition of any lens will soften the image and with the added "bonus at no extra cost" of distortion why should one bother - someone must have something positive to say about the "improvement" one gets -no?


I have a Panamorph on order - will it work with an off axis projector, well no one seems to know for sure! I realize beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but if there isn't a palpable improvement then why go through this exercise?


Cheers,


Grant
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,960 Posts
I for one could never use a 4x3 digital projector without an anamorphic lens. Period.


To me once you've tried one (as many have attested) theres no going back.


The improvements far outway the negatives.


Using a projector without one is like driving a camero with the carburetor wired with a governor.


------------------

Alan Gouger

Thanks for supporting AV Science.
www.avscience.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Hi, Grant

Love my ISCO II. I don't recall seeing any posts from dissatisfied users looking to sell theirs.

Great hunk of glass.

I'm hoping to use it with my VT540 for a few more years, and then to continue to use it to scale my next, 16x9, projector, whatever it may be, to 2.35:1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Actually, I sold my ISCO II lens last month after endless frustration with the image quality and especially pincushion distortion. I was using it with my lt150, and as some NY forum members can attest, there is absolutely no question that the lens softens the image, as well as slightly dilutes the color. "Film-like" or not, it was softer, and I therefore felt as if I'd compromised the integrity of the projector's image quality, with which I'm very satisfied.


However, it was not the image softeness that compelled me to auction it off. Rather, the pinchusion distortion in my experience was too much to bear, especially given the $1500 price tag. I tried various techniques, such as overprojecting the image on the screen, and shifting the axis of the lens in various configurations, but ultimately it was all to no avail. I just could not adjust to the distorted image. I therefore resigned myself to the "cinema mode" on the lt150, and have decided to wait -probably for a year - until prices drop on the new line of 16:9 DLPs before I get my true anamorphic fix.


James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Thanks for the response James. It was your e-mail to me about the ISCO II that inspired this thread! It is the diversity of opinion from HT enthusiasts like yourself that makes this forum work so well and gives those of us who can't see before they buy at least a chance to make an educated guess.


Wireless, any comments since you have the same combination?


Cheers,


Grant

 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top