[SCOT KENNEY]

we to at maxx products were using the lens that nec got from paul james

on our 1400 , i never made it by nec , but there engineer stopped in to talk about the lense , we were in the same boat with the same thoughts , the lenes optics were the best we've ever seen and rightfully so pual was intelligent enought to go to a medical laser optics company for the lense , i personaly talked with the president of the company and with years ago past experience with high powered krypton , argon lasers and a medical laser engineer on our staff at that time , i assure you paul made a good choose .

the lense coating is flawless , no color or brightness change and with the years of experience the lease company has i bet consistent lenses with no ghosting , yes the lenses were not set in a jig but manually and that obviously would be corrected for production , left side keystone of cut off at the top , the rest of the comments blurry ect no idea as stated i never went to nec , as for trying to set cost presidence the lense is over a $1000.00 i think i herd nec was doing some kind of promo , please remember promos are just that " promos " thank you , maxx products

 

[acaciolo]

Scott,


Did you try the optimorph out on the Maxx 1400? If so, did it look as bad as it did at NEC? NEC didn't say why they pulled it off their projector other than that it wasn't performing as expected.


When I saw it at NEC it was pretty bad. The rep even got annoyed when I asked him about the image problems.


I thought you had a Panamorph on your SX21/1400.


I wasn't too excited about the black levels over at JVC on their SX21 (I think they had some adjustments way off)...but the image quality looked very good though the Panamorph they had on display.


As a matter of fact, the chatter in the JVC booth was why anyone would buy their new Hx1 with a masked 4:3 chip when they could get the SX21 with the same chips, not masked, and put a panamorph on it. Brighter, and more resolution.

 

[SCOT KENNEY]

yes we were using paul's new lense , i spent about an hour trying to adjust the image going from right to left keystone top to bottom keystone . in order to get a square image i had to kick the lense half off the bezel and except the image with the top cropped off . in all fairness they only had a couple of hours with my unit the day before the show to install the lenses , i am not concern with there getting the alignment correct .but with the panimorph lense we could not get the consistency on the coatings which means ghosting in the video image along with a slit color change and marginal softening of the image ( with pauls lense there were no changes we could pick up with the human eye , and as prior stated we have no concerns with the optics company's capability to provide consistent coating ) with the panamorph lense maxx was over nighting replacement lenses and inconveniencing our dealers.

yes you are correct the proper way to achieve 16 x 9 is utilizing an anamorphic lense like the film industry . the purpose of the 788 x 1400 resolution maxx lcos projector is that there is no optional lense up charge , no overscan , and yes marketing , the manufactures of 16 x 9 dlp have done a very good job convincing the dealers and the public that dedicated 16 x 9 is the ticket . we too think that the mustang is a good unit for the MID-RANGE buyer , in our own maxx mustang dlp projector which i think you will find we did a rather good job of getting rid of the dithering and stair stepping in the blacks and with the 2000 contrast and deep color saturation most find it very impressive , but after all these years i still like that silky smooth , natural look the lcos projector produces. for good reading please see this months issue of wide screen review on the maxx 1400 . with all the mombo jumbo being put out into the market place it was a real pleasure to talk with someone as truly noligible as bill cushman from wide screen review . again thank you maxx products P.S. OUR 1920 X 1080 LCOS will be delivering second quarter 2004

 

[acaciolo]

Scott,


Thanks for the info. The next 12 mos should be very interesting in the projector market.


For now, I will stick with what is working very well for me....4:3 chip set projector with a Panamorph. NEC....JVC...etc. My personal favorite is a DILA with a Panamorph, but we also like the DLPs.


I have been using Panamorphs for some time, and I can't say enough about how great the solid Panamorphs work with dila and dlps.


I agree with you on the mustang...I think it is an "in between" projector. Right now, the ultimate (within reason) is a 4:3 with a panamorph.



Your experience with the current Panamorphs has be very different than mine. I have had a 100% success rate since I switched to the solids.


I guess if Paul's panamorph knock off ever goes into production, we will have something else to consider. But until he starts really producing them, I can't consider it as an alternative.

 

[SCOT KENNEY]

the panamorph lense is fine , as i said marginal color and brightness change . my complaint really steams from the inconsistent coating which we had poor luck with , when we got a proper coated lense we thought it was good

thank you

 

[albertN]

Scot,


Thanks for your comments. If you don't mind, I have two questions for you.


1) Are you positioning your upcoming 1080P projector against the Sony SXRD (similar prices)?


2) For your MAXX 1400 projector, instead of using an add-on anamorphic lens, would it be possible to have the primary lens be anamorphic? Wouldn't that be a far better solution than needing to have light pass through two lenses, while also saving on cost and distinguishing your product from the SX-21.


Thanks

Albert

 

[SCOT KENNEY]

yes were under $20.000.00 by penny's , we are d65 green now . good idea on the lense but doubtful to happen thank you