AVS Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As I begin the long process of deciding when/if to move my home theater to 4K, I realized I'm unclear on a key point, namely, will the current generation of anamorphic lenses be able to resolve 4K, or will new ones be required? Will this be true for Panamorph, Isco, Schneider? Certainly the big Meridian 4K projector uses a lens, however, I am unsure which one and whether it is enhanced or not? Clearly a new scaler will be required!


Does anyone have a sense of this?


Thx.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
IIRC the Meridian 4k unit used an Isco IIIL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
You gotta love how an actual 4k projector is sold as a "Complete System" that INCLUDES an anamorphic lens. Even still, there are some people that think a SIMULATED 4k makes an anamorphic lens obsolete. Apparently the people who are selling actual 4k projectors still find a benefit to the use of an anamorphic lens.


-Sean
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
There's already a thread on that topic, no need to take this one off topic for the purpose of beating a dead horse. Whether or not current anamorphic lenses can resolve 4k properly is a valid question and deserves a thread if its own for those who choose to use one with a 4k unit.


If I were to guess, I'd put money on the Isco IIIL and IIIS being able to resolve it just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot
If I were to guess, I'd put money on the Isco IIIL and IIIS being able to resolve it just fine.
Not to come off sound like a commercial post, but bases on what I am seeing on my screen with my lens, I have no doubt that lenses in the caliber of ISCO will resolve 4K without issue.


If the so called 4K is 3840 x 2160, then no issues. Should true 4K come out, then the 1.33x stretch might become a limiting factor as ISCO actually makes a 1.25x for 2K (2048) and 4K (4096) image chips.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX
Not to come off sound like a commercial post, but bases on what I am seeing on my screen with my lens, I have no doubt that lenses in the caliber of ISCO will resolve 4K without issue.


If the so called 4K is 3840 x 2160, then no issues. Should true 4K come out, then the 1.33x stretch might become a limiting factor as ISCO actually makes a 1.25x for 2K (2048) and 4K (4096) image chips.
Yeah, I didn't think about the difference in panel AR with "true" 4K. That could be an expensive proposition for anyone who wants to keep using a lens with one of those projectors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,130 Posts
Short answer is there is no magical resolution beyond which a lens won't "work". Any lens will work with any projector (assuming you're within the throw/beam size limits).


Now I think the implied question is if some lenses produce artifacts too great for a 4k machine, and while the answer is probably yes (though that's a personal determination), I would venture that any of the "quality" lenses we use today with 1080p machines will work fine with 4k ones.


4K will (roughly) cut the pixel size in half (per direction), and I think most of the coated/corrected lenses out today produce less than a half a pixel of CA or other issues.


I know my HD5000 resolves the pixels and the gaps between them on my Planar 8150 just fine, out to the edges of the screen, so I wouldn't have any issues using it with a 4K machine. Or, at least I wouldn't disqualify it off the bat without tests.


So, basically, I think anything like the HD5000 class (UH480, Ausie Mk3), or pretty much any of the cylindricals will probably be fine. As always I think you'd want to consider the price range/budget of the projector, I wouldn't pair an HD5000 with a $30k theoretical 4K DLP or the VW1000 or something like that, I'd want an ISCO with one of those, but I'd want an ISCO with a 1080p Lumis or DPI too. But, for say something like the JVC RS55, something like an HD5000 might be a good match (assuming the RS55 resolves the "4k" pixels well enough to benefit).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,923 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot /forum/post/20955550


Yeah, I didn't think about the difference in panel AR with "true" 4K. That could be an expensive proposition for anyone who wants to keep using a lens with one of those projectors.

As far as the panels I've seen, the pixels aren't square on the 4096, thus they are spread over the same area as the 3840. The 16x9 aspect is maintained. The DCI projectors are square. 858x2048 for 2.39. My guess is the 4096 chips will be for DCI projectors and the home market will get the 3840 chips which is still considered 4K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,923 Posts
I would like to see more Docs on the pro/cons of using a lens of the Isco caliber. Moving a lens in and out isn't good enough. I would like to see two identically match and calibrated projectors together with the lens in front of one. Then, and only then, could we tell.


I must say though, that I see no loss of pixel sharpness in the least nor loss of grid definition with the Isco in front of my Benq 5K or RS40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda /forum/post/20957233


As far as the panels I've seen, the pixels aren't square on the 4096, thus they are spread over the same area as the 3840. The 16x9 aspect is maintained. The DCI projectors are square. 858x2048 for 2.39. My guess is the 4096 chips will be for DCI projectors and the home market will get the 3840 chips which is still considered 4K.

The JVC 4K projector is actually 16:10, not 16:9. They also call the 1920 chips 2K, so I guess 3840 could be called 4K.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top