[emillika]

I am considering purchasing the NEC HT1000 and the rebate/lens deal comes to an end at the end of Sep.


Can someone tell me what the lens would be used for? I currently have rear projection tv's and this is my first foray into FP's?


Thanks.


Elmer

 

[vinjou]

The lens is to compress your 4:3 image to 16:9 image. You can use it on a 16:9 projector as well to get a perfect 2:35:1 image.


I chose the 500 rebate, FYI.

 

[guitarman]

You add 8 or 10" to the offset with the lens.


Don't forget to check with AVS for their price, they're very competitive. Hit the little AVS power Icon up at the top of the forum.

 

[WanMan]

Three feet of additional offset? I don't know what NEC was thinking, but my guess was they were thinking 'cheap lens', and certainly not one worth $1895.

 

[guitarman]

I know someone here is getting, or got one to try out. But not hearing from him isn't a good sign.


Some definite info on the lens is needed, the rebates about to run out.

 

[Bytehoven]

I say take the cash.


Since the word is now as long as 12 weeks until we would see the Optimorph lens, that's too long to wait.


With the $500 in hand, you have a couple of other lens alternatives.


The Panamorph PSO which does not induce any additional offset.


Then there is the less expensive Prismasonic V-200 lens, which has a little softer focus out toward the edges. The focus difference is very slight and hard to see unless you are looking at a complex grid pattern.


I have the Panamorph PSO- UNI universal bracket mounted lens on my HT1000 and it is an excellent addition.

 

[Rich4av]

Bytehoven,


Is the Panamorph PSO-UNI oil-based as well? I own an oil-based Panamorph and would only consider a new one if it were non-oil based. The web site says nothing about how they're made. I would consider an optical glass/acrylic unit as a replacement.


If the Optimorph is oil-based as well, I will go for the rebate.

 

[Bytehoven]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich4av Bytehoven, Is the Panamorph PSO-UNI oil-based as well? I own an oil-based Panamorph and would only consider a new one if it were non-oil based. The web site says nothing about how they're made. I would consider an optical glass/acrylic unit as a replacement. If the Optimorph is oil-based as well, I will go for the rebate.

The Panamorph PSO series and the Prismasonic V200 series lenses are both solid optics, non-oil filled designs.


I believe the Optimorph is also non-oil filled.


It's the pre-PSO series Panamorph lenses that were oil filled. The PSO design uses medical grade solid prisms with special surface coatings.

 

[mike.armf]

Bytehoven, 'xcuse the interruption, but I just searched both these anamorphic lenses - the Panamorph is double the cost of the Prismasonic -at least as listed on the manufacturer's web site. Is the Prismasonic just as good when used with the HT1K?


Or is it wiser to say, "I'm going to spend the $3K+ on the HT anyway, so lets not pitch pennies and go with the superior Panamorph lens?"


I am hovering on the verge of shooting a huge hole in the Visa and ordering the HT, so your opinion here would be very helpful.


thanks.

 

[ckolchak]

i'll be sending mine in today.

i'm going for the cash.

 

[Bytehoven]

Quote:

Originally posted by mike.armf Bytehoven, 'xcuse the interruption, but I just searched both these anamorphic lenses - the Panamorph is double the cost of the Prismasonic -at least as listed on the manufacturer's web site. Is the Prismasonic just as good when used with the HT1K?

The Panamorph and Prismasonic V200 are both great lenses. However, they have a slightly different list of pros/cons, so I'll try to sum them up for ya.


The V-200 is also a solid prism lens with adjustable upper and lower prism plates. As a s result, you can adjust the amount of vertical compression from 1.33 to 1.78, 1.85 & 2.35 film formats when stretched by the HT1000 or an out board scaler. As you go from the an uncompressed 1.33 setting, all the way to 2.35 aspect ratio, you induce more artifacts across the image area. The main image artifacts are slightly softer focus and color fringing as you move away from the center of the image. These artifacts are not visible at 1.78 compression, but start to show up a bit more at 1.85 compression. They are most apparent at 2.35 compression, and some might argue the artifacts too apparent at this point. IMHO, they are very hard to see on program material as the affected areas tend to be outside the eyes primary point of focus. But you can clearly see the artifacts when looking at a projected grid pattern. I really liked the V200 lens, as it was very flexible to work with a wide range of movie aspect ratio formats. Tweaking the lens for these aspect ratio variations, did make for the screen being taller or shorter on the vertical. That was my main reason for skipping the lens, as I wanted to run a constant height screen, and in that regard the Panamorph was a superior lens at a fixed 1.85 compression.


The Panamorph, while less flexible in being able to make lens adjustments for various aspect ration material thru the HT1000 or a scaler, it's image at the fixed compression ratio is stellar. A perfect image edge to edge as far as focus, geometry and color alignment.


If given the chance, I would have like to have a Prismasonic V200 with the image quality of the Panamorph. Then I would chose the Panamorph, then the V200. Since a better V200 did and does not exist, the Panamorph was the best choice for me.


I figure the V200 was just under $600 at the time I bought the Panamorph. And the Panamorph was just a little less than 50% more.


The current $150 discounted "experimental" grade Panamorph is just a little more than the V200, and I would probably buy the Panamorph over the V200 today. Although I miss the flexibility of the V200.


Prismasonic makes a horizontal compression version of the V200, but I don't think it is a good fit for the short throw HT1000 lens. But I have not tried it.


You could always try the V200 with your new HT1000, as they have a return period. Had the Panamorph PSO series not come along, I would still own the V200 today.


Happy shopping

 

[TonyG]

I think that the 3 feet offset statement may not be accurate in some circumstances. The panamorph FAQ indicates the offset is 7.5% of the throw distance. At an eleven foot throw distance, the additional offset would be less than 10". On an 80" wide screen, the HT1000 offset is 12". Add in another 4" for a flat mounted HT1000 projector height and that totals 26".


If the top of an 80x45 screen were 26" from the ceiling, the bottom would be 25" from the floor of an 8' ceiling. A 40" seated eye level would leave precisely 1/3 of the screen below eye level in this scenario--a ratio that many on the screens and theater builder forums have found to be highly desirable.


Reasonably short non-flush projector mounts could be accomodated in this scenario with a slight projector tilt with standard screen masking. Longer mounts would require additional masking or minor keystone correction.


For some folks given the considerable HT1000 offset, the additional anamorphic lens may still be a deal breaker. For other folks with smaller screens and a very specific desire to view a full resolution 16x9 image that starts ~ 1/3 below eye level, it may be just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Bytehoven]

Quote:

Originally posted by TonyG [BFor some folks given the considerable HT1000 offset, the additional anamorphic lens may still be a deal breaker. For other folks with smaller screens and a desire to view a full resolution 16x9 image that starts ~ 1/3 below eye level, it may be just what the doctor ordered. [/b]

Tony...


... consider, living with just a tad of keystone from raising the projected image and then masking the projected image on the screen.


... or raising the screen, using the HT1000 3D reform to tweak keystone, and then masking the projected image to the edge of the screen.


IMHO, there are planty of options for living with the HT1000 offset issues, both raw or thru an anamorphic lens.

 

[TonyG]

I agree Bytehoven. I edited my post before reading your spot-on comments. This PJ does work quite well in a variety of different situations.

 

[Grampa]

Bytehoven,


If I understand correctly, by allowing the projector to use all of its resolution/pixels to produce a 16:9 image, these lenses improve the image quality compared to what the projector produces otherwise in displaying wide material. Are you saying that this improvement more than makes up for the softening in focus you report when using the Prismasonic V200? The answer is probably obvious, but I'd just like to confirm that the overall improvement is noticable. Thanks.

 

[acaciolo]

there were a bunch of threads about this lens a week ago....


search optimorph and you should find them.


A few of the tidbits:


NEC had the optimorph on the HT1000 at CEDIA, it looked so bad, NEC decided to remove it from the show floor.


The optimorph is apparently much, much cheaper than the panamorph. NEC will give you $500 or an Optimorph...obviously, this means the lens cost NEC around $500


The production version of the Optimorph is supposed to be better, but no one will know for 8-12 weeks


Panamorph is running a special (I think $800-$1000) for their new, solid lens for the HT1000.




My suggestion...take the Cash from NEC....add about $300 to it, and get a proven Panamorph. I have one on my G15 and love it.


The Optimorph might be good in 8-12 weeks....but it might be as bad as it looked at CEDIA. For a $300 savings, I wouldn't risk it...especially since it is going in front of a $4k-$5k projector!



again...just my .02

 

[ilpostini2]

by adding one of these lenses, does it change the throw distance?

 

[guitarman]

Lets clear this up right now. It seems the info I got about the Panamorph adding 3' to the offset is incorrect. Bytehoven who has the lens lmk that with the lens the offset is about the same.


I'm pretty sure his lens is 6" down from the ceiling and I know his screen is just 24" down from the ceiling. Without the lens on my set up, with the lens of the projector the same, at 6" down from the ceiling. The screens start of the viewing area is exactly 18" down from the ceiling. So you see the Panamorph lens does not add very much to the off set

 

[Craig Peer]

I couldn't resist the siren song of 33% more resolution and 20% more brightness to the already awesome HT1000 picture, so I just ordered a new Panamorph lens ( the " X " model at a nice discount ). I'll report back in a week or so after I get it and set it up! Since my pj mount tilts and I can even move it up and down if needed ( Draper adjustable Aero mount ) offset shouldn't be a problem.


Still a better deal than an H2 Mustang unit - less than $ 4400.00!

 

[PRH]

It has been my experience that the panamorph doesn't help the HT1000's picture at all. No noticable brightness increase (perhaps if it was measured). No perceivable resolution increase. I did however notice some bowing of the lower corners of the picture (ceiling mounted). This could be masked off by zooming out a bit, but that would be akin to about 4% overscan (on the sides) which I find irritating. I certainly couldn't recommend the panamorph for anywhere near what it costs.


Btw - I'd say the offset is increased by about 8". All comments refer to the PSO-Universal.