AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Mr. Wiggles,


In response to your wondering about the 90 degree and inverted Panamorph, I gave it a shot.


Expanding the image works quite well. The aspect ratio is very controllable for adjustablity so proper AR is achievable.


Zooming down and expanding the image works better in my situation as far as keystoning is concerned. I then need to tilt (or I should say not) my projector up to be horizantal with the ceiling instead of about a 4 deg downward tilt ( I had this problem BEFORE the panamorph, just to make it clear this lens is not the cause of my problem, it is the low ceiling). The keystoning I have in the standard set up is a bit excessive but with flat black surrounding the screen I rarely notice it.


Performance: It is slightly softer. Not anything our wives (or the average joe) would notice. This is really based on how sharp of a pixel I can achieve. I would compare it to adding a depixelization lens, the two results being on par with each other. The benefit being that the chance of seeing pixels from viewing distance is just about as close to zero as you can get. Don't misunderstand this softness, the image is very watchable, I just like the way the intended set-up produces a nice, sharp, dot in the center, pixel.


I think I might see a bit of a pincushion as well. It seems very slight, probably like an ISCO. I never notice the supposed Barrel distortion of the intended set-up.


When it was all said and done I put it back the way it was intended to work. The keystoning on my screen is cropped anyway and I really enjoy the sharper image. The REAL reason for not leaving it the "expanded" way is that I had this UGLY set-up of boxes and other stackable items to make the thing work. If someone wanted to use a Panamorph in this manner it would work really good, but they will have to design thier own mounting bracket of some sort.


Anyway, it works good. Just knowing you have the option to go this route is nice.


Jeff


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Just a little addition:


I did not do this experiment "under the microscope". It was just to see if it was a watchable way to install a Panamorph and still enjoy all of the benefits of an anamorphic lens. In my opinion, it works just fine this way. I did not whip out a ruler and measure every square inch of the image to be sure the stretch was the exact same here as it was there....etc..etc. It all seemed just fine. Nothing struck me as odd, so thats where the test ended.


For me.


For some on this forum, I'm sure the test will be more extensive.


Jeff
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,537 Posts
Jeff,


By "inverted" do you mean reversing the direction of light through it? Then I understand.


Cool!


Is the softness equal everywhere? I'd have expected it to be minimal in the center and increasing toward the sides.


Thanks


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

Noah
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Jeff,


That is great to know.


It is not that I plan to use the lens in this manner. But it is good to know that it works well this way.


The Seleco would be a projector that could use the reverse action.


Can't wait to try it out. I swear I can taste the thing.


-Mr. Wigggles


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

The Mothership is now boarding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
I believe that Shawn posted a hint a few weeks back that this might have an interesting effect. He left it as an exercise for the home theater enthusiest.



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

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

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
I've pre-ordered it as well. I have a 12' x 5' screen and I may only be able to use it in the reverse mode as I am almost to the back of the room now and can't fill the screen horizontally.


I thought that it was worth a shot; we'll see.


Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Noah,


At 1.5 distance, I thought maybe the picture seemed softer. Maybe. It was if I knew it might be, but I was not real sure type of thing. This brought me to pixel examination which confirmed it.


Does that make sense?


Jeff
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top