Joined
·
668 Posts
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
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
