Originally Posted by sciacca /t/1522260/any-first-hand-experience-with-panamorph-dc1-lens#post_24479114
Hi, Jim! I lived with the UH480 for several years and finally upgraded to the DC1 about 6 months ago...
I have a Marantz VP-11S2 projector shining onto a Draper screen (92-inch 16x9, 115-inch 2.35) (Here is a link to a video of my theater: http://johnsciacca.webs.com/apps/blog/show/25528464-a-video-walk-thru-of-my-home-theater I can't remember if I shot the video before or after upgrading to the new lens...)
Any how, I always felt like the UH480 was a bit of a compromise as the Marantz has a terrific, hand-selected Konica primary lens. With the lens out of place, the video quality is razor sharp, and bright and looks terrific. When switching to the UH480, it always looked soft, and just ever slightly out of focus. In fact, I went back to check that I hadn't accidentally left the protective plastic film on the lens. I also had to readjust the brightness and contrast settings to account for it as the light output was so different and it just looked like it took a real quality hit when engaging the lens. However, I loved the anamorphic, larger experience, so it was worth the trade-off for me.
The DC1 is totally night-and-day better. It is crystal clear and there is no visible difference in the light output or image quality when it slips into place. When it engaged for the first time I couldn't believe how much better it looked. The picture is razor sharp and detailed with the lens, and the edge-to-edge geometry and focus is better. Now I get the very best images whether the lens is in place or not.
I couldn't be happier and would absolutely recommend the DC1 100%.
Originally Posted by Seegs108 /t/1522260/any-first-hand-experience-with-panamorph-dc1-lens#post_24479417
I am extremely impressed with my particular UH480 in terms of image sharpness. I see no loss of resolution with pixel delineation until you get to about 85% to the edge of the image and then it tapers off slightly but nothing I would call significant. It matches the ISCO IIIL that I also have in that regard minus edge resolution (the ISCO is basically perfect). Though with the UH480 you lose about 12% overall brightness when the lens is in place and it's noticeable. With the ISCO there is no perceived loss (about 3% is truly lost). It's good to hear the DC-1 is better in this regard. There was some added CA from the UH480, does the DC-1 do better?
Originally Posted by John Schuermann /t/1522260/any-first-hand-experience-with-panamorph-dc1-lens/0_50#post_24494955
Interesting here too. The 480 and the Isco should be roughly equivalent in terms of CA (as should the DC1). One of the things we have noticed, though, is that the 480 / DC1 can exaggerate projector lens CA more than the Isco. Can you check to see if it is the same CA as in the projector lens solo, only "spread out" a bit more?
Just about any lens (including - and usually especially - the projector lens) is going to have some kind of aberration so it is possible that these are strictly production variances. You say it is not significant. Would you say considerably less than a pixel? Also, has any horizontal lens shift been applied? It would also be interesting to know your throw ratio / distance specs.
RE: light output. The DC1 should have the greatest light and contrast retention of any lens on the market. The 480 should be *really* close to the Isco, though, essentially indistinguishable. As in my previous post, there could be some dust contamination. Have you compared the Isco and the 480 in this regard?
Originally Posted by Seegs108 /t/1522260/any-first-hand-experience-with-panamorph-dc1-lens#post_24495062
Light output through the lens has been measured before and the ISCO is a lot better than the UH480. A few members here have posted roughly 12% light loss through the lens and only 3-3.5% through the ISCO. I haven't measured myself, but from what I see on screen that amount seems about right. Visually the ISCO image is brighter. CA is definitely better on the ISCO. The UH480 shows more, but from a normal seating distance it isn't visible. I'm using no lens shift at all on my projector. It's "lens center". There is a small amount misconvergence on my JVC DLA-X90 but what I see when using the UH480 is more CA/misconvergence compared to the ISCO. For the price and size of the ISCO optics I'm not surprised that the UH480 can't keep up.
Originally Posted by sciacca /t/1522260/any-first-hand-experience-with-panamorph-dc1-lens#post_24555320
Sorry for the late reply!
I returned my lens directly to Russell W at Panamorph, so it would be back in house. I could go back and retrieve tracking if need be, but asking Russell directly would probably be a faster result. Nothing changed with the projector position. I would guess that it is probably 13-ish feet from the screen, 92-inch when in 16x9 mode. There is no electronic lens shift on the Marantz, just a physical vertical lens shift. Also, no one has ever smoked in our house. It is near the kitchen, but the stove is like 13 feet back from it and separated by a small drop down wall area. If you saw the video I posted, that will make more sense...
To me there was *always* an immediately noticeable quality diff between the Marantz main lens and the UH480, both in terms of loss of light and in sharpness/focus. Just a generally softer -- say "more film-like" -- image. The DC1 is visually identical and I would never be able to go back!
Maybe I got a less than perfect UH480 and a factory terrific DC1 and I'm noticing the extremes in performance. Either way, you have one super happy DC1 user here!