AVS Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A dealer with whom I've done much business was kind enough to loan me his demo Schneider Cine-Digitar 1.33X and Kino-Linear slide to take home for an evening. I wanted to see if it would pass all the light of my C3X 1080 and, if so, how it compared to the Panamorph UH380 that I bought with the projector.


First, I'm happy to report that small as the lens seems, it will pass all the light, though it required a bit of fiddling and futzing to line up just right. More importantly, the image I got from the Schneider was, without question, superior to that rendered by the Panamorph. It's as if a haze had been lifted...what had been soft and slightly grainy was now crystal clear. It seemed like there was more contrast and brightness as well.


To be fair to Panamorph, the UH380 is a less expensive solution, and in the absence of comparison, it dazzels. Unfortunately, now that I've seen the Schneider, I'm toast. I've got to have it. Looks like the motorized slide and lens combined is going to set me back almost $7K. At least I can take heart in the savings this represents over an ISCO III/CineSlide ($12K?). From what I've read, the ISCO and the Schneider offer similar optical performance.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,743 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete /forum/post/12916932


At least I can take heart in the savings this represents over an ISCO III/CineSlide ($12K?). From what I've read, the ISCO and the Schneider offer similar optical performance.

Interesting observation. I'd say the Isco is a step above the Cinedigitar in optical quality, but before Aussie Bob beats me up
no, I don't have any MTF numbers to back that up (yet
).


I'm very surprised you aren't getting any vignetting. When I tested the Schneider on a similar larger panel DLP I got it at 1.8x throw. It's not obvious, becasue it's close, but it was there. And that PJ didn't have a recessed lens like the C3X. You must have a very long throw.


re pricing, not that much at even full MSRP. More than 7, but way less than 12. Street? Different thing likely. Check with AVS or local dealer. Availability is the issue usually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I experimented with the Schneider/C3X 1080 (T2) combo moving the projector and lens gradually forward on a cart (zooming and refocusing as I went) until I began to see vignetting, then backing off until it wasn't noticable any more. I came up with a TR of 2.4 (1.78:1 width) or 1.8 for the 2.35 width. This is with the anamorphic lens retracted (i.e from screen to projector lens). So yes, it does require a long throw 17.5ft or greater in my situation. But if you've got the distance, this is a superb lens and a good value at $4K. One can only hope that they come out with a larger lens for shorter throw situations.
 

·
Scott Horton, techht.com
Joined
·
5,743 Posts
Good info. Since you are using their linear slide, I presume the lens is a good bit out from the prime? But the CineDigitar being smaller, I suppose it could get pretty close if it retracted to the lens side of the case. About how close it yours? (relative to the frontmost edge of the PJ).


FYI, they were working on a medium format lens, but stopped. I've heard they are working on it again, but no ECD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yes, I am retracting to the lens side of the case. When deployed it sits just a fraction of an inch...maybe a sixteenth to an eighth...from the leading edge of the case at the projector lens opening. As you may know, the projector lens is recessed and the case angles away at the opening. So when the CineDigitar is parallel to the projector lens it is almost touching the body on one side and somewhat farther from the sloping side. I could move the Schneider a little further away from the projector and still capture the light, but it just seemed logical to position it as close as possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
793 Posts
Back from a refreshing holiday at a beautiful set of totally deserted 10km long ocean beaches on the NSW (Australia) mid-north coast. Perfect weather, crystal clear water, no stress.


But despite my newfound peace of mind there's not enough information here.


Like:


#Standoff from C3X lens to edge of case (how close can you get the Schneider to the C3X lens itself?).


#Standoff from C3X lens front element to Schneider rear element (glass to glass, ignore case).


#Standoff at which C3X lens begins to vignette off of the Schneider rear element, at your throw ratio settings.


#Screen height.


#Concrete numbers or other observations on why the Schneider is better than the Panamorph. "Looks great. May be more contrast and brightness" is a little vague.


C'mon Pete, give us something to work with and model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Gee, Bob, you're a real stickler! I'm away today, but I'll try to give you the standoff data in a day or two. Unfortunately, I don't have a meter with which to measure the difference in foot lamberts, so you'll just have to take my subjective observations with a grain of salt. For what it's worth, others to whom I have demonstrated the two lenses, have volunteered (without prompting) that the Schneider produced a sharper, brighter, picture with more contrast. As for my screen, it is a Stewart CineCurve with GrayHawk RS that measures 51 x 123. The image begins about 30 inches from the floor. The projector cart is 54 inches tall.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I also have tested a Schneider and compared it to my UH380 and came to the opposite conclusion. I have a C3X720 with the same housing as the C3X1080. Somewhere I've got a spreadsheet where I measured contrast degradation and light loss between the two. I'll dig it out if I can find it. But both me and the owner of the Schneider agreed the Panamorph was the better lens as well as being much easier to install.


It is very important to have the throw distance optimized for the Panamorph as it doesn't have the astigmatism ring. I'm using mine at 17ft or about 2.1 throw distance.


Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Or another way to put it, the results can be different for different installation parameters.


Bob
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
793 Posts
Pete, stickling is what it's all about. Anyone can say that such-and-such is better, and they have friends who say the same thing.


That's what they said about the Edsel Ford.


And Heaven's Gate.


And George W. Bush.


Facts, man, facts...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Are you suggesting that the Edsel, "Heaven's Gate", and George W. Bush were, in some way, flawed? How can I trust your judgement from this point forward?!(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,969 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
The distance between projector lens and the 1.33X lens is approximately 1.75 inches. I can move the Schneider up to about an inch away from the forwardmost edge of the projector case without serious issues. That's about 2.5 inches lens to lens. I admit again that the Schneider is less forgiving than the Panamorph in terms of placement, but I still think it's a more precise piece of glass. At some point when I have the necessary metering equipment I will provide numbers to back up what I think is "self-evident" ...as in "we find these truths to be self-evident"... Of course, what is "self-evident" to one may not be "self-evident" to another...hence war and genocide.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top