AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anyone know what differences (if any) there are between the ISCO IIIL and the 4XL? The 4XL looks to have the focusing ring is a bit further back, but are there any differences optically? Or are the ISCO IIL, ISCO 4XL, and Schneider Cine Digitar 1.33XL basically all the same lens just with different cases? Searching has not turned up much info unfortunately. Thanks!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
There is an ISCO 4XL though I don't think there are many units out in the wild. It's no different optics-wise than the IIIL. The housing is just more "robust" and looks kind of similar to the Schneider version of the IIIL (long extending housing on front). Here's what it looks like (and remember the optics and internals like the orings are the exact same as the IIIL):











Source: http://www.techht.com/Photos.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the clarification Seegs108. I was hoping there was a newer alternative which was 1.33x and closer in size to the 1.25x DLP Cinema lens but sounds like the 4XL isn't much different than the IIIL.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
IIIL, XL, and 4XL are all the same glass. When early production of the XL's first came about and were running parallel with the IIIL's, those IIIL's got the better glass (per the President of Isco USA then owned by Schneider). Not much difference, but the Isco versions were reserved for the OEM customers, such as Runco, DPI and myself included. Input aperture and exit are identical in size. There are actually 2 other case designs, and technically speaking, none of these names (IIIL, XL, etc) are "official". They use numeric codes. The names are ours, although the Schneider versions were first to actually get XL etched in the lens. The current XL version, as well as 2 variants of the Isco 4 have a "tube" that sticks out of the front of the lens and does not move. The exit element moves inside this "tube". The older versions of the IIIL have no such tube and are built a little differently. Today, there is only Schneider branding, they did away with the Isco branding and separate Isco models. Not the best marketing move IMO, but they don't ask me for input like they used to (post Schneider).

The DLP Cinema lens is made to tighter tolerances and finer polish. It's bigger but the only one Isco officially blessed for 4k.

There are no new lenses from Schneider/Isco nor do I expect we will see any. They are happy with what they have.

Scott
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
IIIL, XL, and 4XL are all the same glass. When early production of the XL's first came about and were running parallel with the IIIL's, those IIIL's got the better glass (per the President of Isco USA then owned by Schneider). Not much difference, but the Isco versions were reserved for the OEM customers, such as Runco, DPI and myself included. Input aperture and exit are identical in size. There are actually 2 other case designs, and technically speaking, none of these names (IIIL, XL, etc) are "official". They use numeric codes. The names are ours, although the Schneider versions were first to actually get XL etched in the lens. The current XL version, as well as 2 variants of the Isco 4 have a "tube" that sticks out of the front of the lens and does not move. The exit element moves inside this "tube". The older versions of the IIIL have no such tube and are built a little differently. Today, there is only Schneider branding, they did away with the Isco branding and separate Isco models. Not the best marketing move IMO, but they don't ask me for input like they used to (post Schneider).

The DLP Cinema lens is made to tighter tolerances and finer polish. It's bigger but the only one Isco officially blessed for 4k.

There are no new lenses from Schneider/Isco nor do I expect we will see any. They are happy with what they have.

Scott
Could you go into a little more detail about the IIIL's getting "better glass" over the Schneider XL's? I'm assuming you'd be able to tell if your IIIL has the better glass going off of the serial number of the unit?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Ahh okay. I just assumed considering you knew about it you might have had some extra details. What constitutes better glass? Finer polish? Better coatings? Or is there something fundamental about the glass itself that differs?
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
I never could get a very straight answer on 1.25 vs 1.33 differences from the head Cinema len guy at Schneider before he left. The father of it all is Dr. Horst Linge in Gottengen, but I didn't get an answer from him either. My expectation is it's the glass quality and the polish. All that's left is the design and it's jsut a 2 doublet set like the IIIL so there really can't be a lot different there. I broached the possibility that it could have just been Germany saying the 1.25 was necessary due to the 4K chip aspect, not understanding the complexities and options we hav ein the field to scale, but I didn't get much technical info on that query either. There is some input from some of my regular calibrators that the 1.25 might be a little sharper, but the same guys are seeing just as good of a result with the XEIT 4k. As the 1.25 retails for $14k, we don't sell a lot of them, I'm not inclided to get one to do any side y sides. Personally, I would not expect much if any difference. Although we just finished a special rack and mount system for a Sony 1100 doublestack with (2) 1.25 lenses with Heavy Duty CineSlides a week or so ago. They got them aligned perfectly and it is reported to be a very, very nice picture.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
Well, it gets a little complicated but here's the basics. The native chip size of the 4k is 4096x2160. That is NOT 16:9, it is 1.8963. Take that aspect and multiply it by 1.25 (the lens expansion) and you get 2.37.

Take a normal 1080 chip, it is 1920x1080. That IS 16:9 or 1.78. Multiply that by 1.33 and you get 2.37.

So the Sony is not a 16:9 projector natively.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
No, nor does this one require it. With true 4k panels you have to workaround the not 16:9 issue if you want to watch non 4k aspect, 16:9 material. As I said it gets complicated but you just have to change how and when scale. The Sony has some sttings to accomodate this. The members in the Sony owners thread can give you the details.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
More than likely Sony will be the only manufacturer releasing 4K projectors. Other companies will be releasing UHD projectors. The difference is 4096 x 2160 vs 3840 x 2160. Do the math, the latter is 16x9 and is the true successor to 1080p in the consumer world. UHD blu-ray will (obviously) be releasing content in a 16x9 aspect ratio with letterbox black bar for scope material. So stick to getting the ISCO IIIL. Don't bother with the 1.25x lens because it's not going to be useful for the type of content we'll be playing back on our projectors. Also, the 1.25x lens isn't really that much bigger.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
I don't disagree with anything except the size. FWIW, the Cinema DLP lens is substantially bigger. Much, much heavier, almost an inch and a half larger in diameter. And not just on overall size, the input aperature is much larger.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
The difference between the ISCO IIIL and the 1.25x lens is NOT subtle - but very dramatic. After using a 1.25x lens, you cannot go back to a IIIL lens especially for 150-in. + screens.
The only problem is that you'd need to do custom scaling that alters the AR more so than the 1.33x lens to use it with consumer level video which is 16/9, not 1.89 like the 1.25x lens is meant to be used with.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Though I would imagine this just scales (and takes the video out of native aspect ratio) to a full 4K image 4096 x 2160. My personal feelings towards this would be to keep the original AR and use a 1.33x lens. That is unless you're actually watching 4K video not UHD video or 1080p video from bluray. I myself use a 1.33x ISCO IIIL. Actually I have two. I'm about to sell the extra lens. I just need to snap a few photos of it first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Slide for ISCO 1.25

I never could get a very straight answer on 1.25 vs 1.33 differences from the head Cinema len guy at Schneider before he left. The father of it all is Dr. Horst Linge in Gottengen, but I didn't get an answer from him either. My expectation is it's the glass quality and the polish. All that's left is the design and it's jsut a 2 doublet set like the IIIL so there really can't be a lot different there. I broached the possibility that it could have just been Germany saying the 1.25 was necessary due to the 4K chip aspect, not understanding the complexities and options we hav ein the field to scale, but I didn't get much technical info on that query either. There is some input from some of my regular calibrators that the 1.25 might be a little sharper, but the same guys are seeing just as good of a result with the XEIT 4k. As the 1.25 retails for $14k, we don't sell a lot of them, I'm not inclided to get one to do any side y sides. Personally, I would not expect much if any difference. Although we just finished a special rack and mount system for a Sony 1100 doublestack with (2) 1.25 lenses with Heavy Duty CineSlides a week or so ago. They got them aligned perfectly and it is reported to be a very, very nice picture.
I have the ISCO 1.25 working in Front of my VW 1100 now.
I wounder how this Cineslide works, because the Backring of the Isco match to 100% the "Lensring" of the Sony.
In fact my lens goes a little inside the sony, so in my case the lens has to remove back first, before it can slide...

Best regards Dirk
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top