AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There’s a bunch of things to share since last week so I’ll get right to them.


First, I apologize for the inaccessibility this week. I usually remotely connect through my main computer, which decided to cause problems that I couldn’t fix from the west coast. I’m obviously back on-line now and will try to get to the email flood soon!


Second, a good sample of the first batch has been assembled and they are waiting only on final steps. These are expected to begin shipping Monday. The learning curve did come at the expense of a significant percentage of damaged components as well as the extra week of delay, but those components should be replaced by midweek. As units are finished and packaged I will email each person per the established plan.


Third, Infocomm was very interesting and it was quickly apparent that even the industrial/commercial side of the industry has a significant interest in anamorphic lenses. My thanks to the forum members who spent some time talking about the Panamorph and especially to Don Stewart who provided a room in the Stewart booth for our gathering.


Fourth, I have been speaking with a number of manufacturers and the unanimous interest among them is for a lens to convert 4:3 to 16:9 (0.75 vertical compression) with no projector tilt and which shifts the image down an additional amount from the projector. The current Panamorph provides this 0.75 compression when the projector is tilted up 3.9 degrees. This is so that the image top is at about the same vertical location as before the setup. Consequently there is actually a demand for two different Panamorph 16:9 specifications. We are clearly going to pursue the “down-shift†version of the lens in the near future. What I don’t know is, given the choice, which prebuy customers would want which version? I will start a separate thread on this to to try and be clear on the options.



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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Hi Shawn,


Why the interest in the ‘extra shift down’ set up? And can’t one create their own drop down adjustment depending on where they mount the lens? By that I mean, if the projector remains at 90 degrees and the lens is mounted with a tilt down of three and a half degrees the relationship of the lens and the projector will be the same as tilting the projector up. Will not this result in approximately the same image thrown at a lower screen position?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Shawn


I'll just take one of the standard units.


If your going to email, you'll need my new address.


Ordered under,

Robert Fletcher

email

[email protected]


Thanks



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

Bob
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
I lost Shawn there,


what does he want the new version to do? Does he want to keep the projector level and not have the image drop by 8 inches with the lens on? Or is he talking about something else. Since I am in the original prebuy, can someone including Shawn let me know
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
Shawn,


It's good that you are finding a commercial interest in the Panamorph, but do you think this new customer demand and 16:9 product engineering redesign will push back the Panamorph 2 development and promised August delivery?


-Dean.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Sore eyes, some feel that an additional vertical distance between the projector and the top of the screen will help better position the image in front of the viewer.


Humey, this proposed second version puts a 16:9 image top lower than the projector rather than level like the current version.


Dean, absolutely not. We will always be tweaking here and there and are currently doing so to help the assembly process as well. However, the mod to a shifted 16:9 image is a minor change of the current design.


Brian, at this point and for the next several months the plate is full!


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

Shawn Kelly

Cygnus Imaging
www.cgns.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Shawn, O.K. I get why there would be some interest in the non-tilted projector Panamorph.


But that still does not explain what happens with the original Panamorph lens if it is tilted down 3.9 degrees instead of tilting the projector up by the same amount. The projector/lens relationship will be identical in either case, so what happens to the projected image?


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn Kelly:

Humey, this proposed second version puts a 16:9 image top lower than the projector rather than level like the current version.
Shawn,


When you say "rather than level," have you already taken into account the original image shift downward that the lens causes, and compensated for it with the use of tilting?


Thanks for the choice. Depending on a couple of things, this may work for me.


a) Will the image shift be measured from the projector lens at the parameter you stated, considering my premise above?


b) Do you have any plans to apply the same to the scope P, and if so, what would the geometrical scenario be for that?


Thanks,


Luca




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

PICTURES OF MY THEATER
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1659592&a=12715694&f=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Shawn,


How many lenses are in your first "batch". http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Secondly, when will the prebuy for the 2.35 lens come to an end? I believe I'll buy one.


Quote:

"unanimous interest among them is for a lens to convert 4:3 to 16:9 (0.75 vertical compression) with no projector tilt and which shifts the image down an additional amount from the projector. The current Panamorph provides this 0.75 compression when the projector is tilted up 3.9 degrees. This is so that the image top is at about the same vertical location as before the setup."


Will this change the intended design or thought process for the 2.35 lens?


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
SoreEyes,


Your idea of tilting the Panamorph instead of the

projector would work if you also tilted the screen.


In addition to the angle between the projector and the

Panamorph - which you are keeping constant - you need to

consider the angle between the Panamorph and the screen.


If you have a free hanging screen, you can't tilt it.

Essentially, tilting the Panamorph will introduce the

appropriate amount of keystone distortion.


Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Shawn or Greg, Time to educate Manny again. I don't understand why affording twice the vertical image drop with a level projector is different than raising the image the same delta (aside from its positioning). Both seem like they would have the same image aberations.



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

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

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
There is no guarantee that the manufacturers are correct or obvious that either choice is better.


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

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Manny,


The original P571 Panamorph compresses the image to 78%

of its original height - with zero tilt. The drop ratio

is 0.048 inches drop per inches throw.


The new "OEM" P572 Panamorph compresses the image to 75%

of its original height - with zero tilt. The drop ratio

is 0.075 inches drop per inches throw.


That's just the way the optics of the Panamorph works -

the more it compresses, the more it wants to drop the

image.


Again, its refraction. The Panamorph angles the top of

the image down more than the bottom of the image. That's

what gives you the compression. If the Pannie bent the

light at the top and bottom the same; it wouldn't compress.


It's the differential in how the Pannie is bending the

light that makes it function. However, when it bends the

light - it drops the image.


Greg


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
I am still trying to get a handle on exactly how the panny is going to work. The way I understand the drop is that the whole 4:3 image is compressed to 16:9 and in the process the entire image is shifted down by either .048 per inch of throw for the original or .075 per inch of throw for the new version. My installation will have about 26 feet of throw which will give me about 15 or 23 inches of drop depending on the version. I understand this to be a drop from the position the top of the screen would be located with a 4:3 format. My screen will be a 118†by 66†16:9 mounted 14 inches from the ceiling. The projector is a JVC G-15 mounted in a hush box inverted to the ceiling which puts the lens about 9†down. With the 12 inches from the 4:3 format and 9†from the mount that leaves me with 3†plus the 14†the screen is mounted down gives me a 17†drop. I figure I can use either version with a slight tilt needed for the new lens. Is my calculating correct or am I totally messed up.

Earl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
In a remote valley, far, far away, a loud <click> echoes, seemingly, endlessly...

Thanks.



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

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

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top