[Jorus]

Aside from the Panamorph, are there any other anamorphic lenses out there that perform vertical compression?


I just read this article over at projectorcentral.com, and it got me thinking about the benefits of using a 4:3 screen with the 4:3 projector I have my eye on. However, in order to take full advantage of my anamorphic DVDs, I'd need an anamorphic lens capable of vertical compression, rather than horizontal stretching. The Panamorph fits the bill, but from what I've read on this forum, it seems they're experiencing finacial difficulties and the product is not easily available Are there any alternatives?

 

[Jonmx]

Panamorph has been taken over by a new company and hopefully the lack of service and responses are behind them. I don't know if the powerbuy is still on, but you might want to check it out under the powerbuy forum in AVS. It is really the only game in town for vertical compression, although I think there is a European company that makes something called a Prismosomic (forget the exact name, and am not certain it does vertical compression) for a bit cheaper, but I have yet to hear from anyone who owns one.

 

[Jeffrey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus The Panamorph fits the bill, but from what I've read on this forum.......the product is not easily available

I think the Panamorph is available for immediate shipment. And better yet, Alan Gouger and AVS is the source. I really don't know if Visr has worked out the difficulties with communication etc., but with AVS involved, you would have a reliable, honest contact that responds to questions and assumes the responsibilities that come with carrying a product. Further, they provide this forum for technical assistance with the Panamorph. You can't go wrong with the Panamorph at the current powerbuy price. The device is very refined, and an excellent performer.


BTW, I had a panamorph, and I really liked it. I sold it to another forum member in anticipation of the new 2.35:1 device. This one year wait has been the longest "two weeks" I have ever experienced If you have been hear since the beginning, you get the joke.


Buy the Panamorph. Not only is it the only game in town, it's a darn good one.

 

[Jorus]

Thanks for the info, Jeffrey and Jonmx


But what is the 2.35:1 device? Does that mean I'll need different lenses based on the aspect ratio of what I'm watching? Or is the one you ordered an improved version of the original?

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus But what is the 2.35:1 device? Does that mean I'll need different lenses based on the aspect ratio of what I'm watching? Or is the one you ordered an improved version of the original?

Jorus,


If you want to use the full panel resolution with different aspect ratios - you'll need a different lens for each.


The Panamorph P752, the current one - will do 16:9 AR or 1.78 using the full panel. [ It can also do 2.35 with a

slight amount of letterboxing. ]


The new 2.35 device that Jeffrey refers to will do 2.35 AR movies w/o letterboxing.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist

 

[Jorus]

Thanks, Dr. Greenman.


One more question (I'm very much a newbie, please bear with me ): Is it a practical choice to go with two lenses? Or should I just live with the slight letterboxing for 2.35:1 material?


Also how does the 16x9 lens work with 1.85:1 material?

 

[car_rod]

To get 2.35, better go with a 16/9 projector and a lens: no need of an external video processor for that. I just tried yesterday with a Sharp 9000 and an ISCO II: amazing!


Anyway, I compared last week the ISCO II and the Prismasonic model 2 . The Prismasonic is quite cheap (600 euros) but its perfomance is also significantly behind the ISCO II. Both lenses expand horizontally the image, the ISCO II expands also a bit vertically.


Never seen a Panamorph, no one distributes this in Europe


Carlos

 

[Jorus]

Thanks for the idea, Carlos I'll keep it in mind.


Panamorph users:


If I do indeed go for a 4:3 PJ and a 4:3 screen, what's the best Panamorph lens to use with anamorphic material? Do I go for a 2.35:1 lens? If so, how will it handle my 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 material?


And if I went with a 16x9 lens,would I suffer a drop in quality when viewing 2.35:1 films?


Essentially, I'm willing to go with a 4:3 projector because I REALLY want a D-ILA/LCOS PJ and every model I've seen is 4:3. But the vast majority of the material I'll be watching will be 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35:1 anamorphic DVDs (no TV at all, just DVD and LD). What is the best solution for me?

 

[car_rod]

If money is no objection as well as moving/setting lenses depending on the material to see, get a Panamorph AND a ISCO II.

Put the Panamorph in front of your DILA to see 1.78, and put the ISCO II in front of the Panamorph to see 2.35 (you'll need a video processor to handle all type of AR regardless the actual source, DVD, LD, cable, etc, in order to always use all pixels of the DILA).

I think Alan Gouger tested a similar setup some time ago.


Carlos

 

[Jonmx]

I think the best solution for a 4:3 projector for mostly anomorphic material is a Panamorph and a large 16:9 screen. 4:3 material tends to be the least quality and it looks better smaller (with blanks on the sides) centered in the 16:9 frame . I keep the lens on for all images. I use an HTPC and compress all images and the end results come out in their original aspect ratios. The 4:3 materal is centered with blanks on the sides. The 2.35 material is centered with blank screen on the top and bottom. Many DVD players will properly compress the image, but for TV/VCR the only solution I know of is DScaler on a PC.

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus T One more question (I'm very much a newbie, please bear with me ): Is it a practical choice to go with two lenses? Or should I just live with the slight letterboxing for 2.35:1 material? Also how does the 16x9 lens work with 1.85:1 material?

Jorus,


It's your choice. You can get 2 lenses - one for 16:9 and the other for 2.35 - or you can live with some letterboxing

of the 2.35 AR image. It's a cost/benefit analysis only you can make.


The 16:9 lens used with 1.85 material results in slight letterboxing - but less than with 2.35 material.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist

 

[Jorus]

Thanks for the very informative answers, everyone God, I love this place. Imagine if I had to rely solely on salespeople to make these choices.


I guess I'll have to make an exact count of what aspect ratio dominates my DVD collection and then go from there.


Yet another question, if there's anyone out there who stil isn't tired of me If I went solely with a 2.35:1 lens, how would it display 1.78/1.85 material? Bars on the sides?

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus Yet another question, if there's anyone out there who stil isn't tired of me If I went solely with a 2.35:1 lens, how would it display 1.78/1.85 material? Bars on the sides?

Jorus,


Very good - exactly right.


You would put bars on the sides - it's called "pillar-boxing".


Pretty soon - you'll be answering the questions instead of asking.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist

 

[Jorus]

Thanks, Dr. Greenman though my newbie-hood still has a ways to go


I guess I'll go for a 2.35:1 Panamorph and a 4x3 screen. The pillarboxing is a good tradeoff considering I'll be watching 2.35 material without any letterboxing And with a 4x3 screen, my non-anamorphic discs will still be projected at the same size at the enhanced discs, even if I don't get full resolution.


Now, off I go to look into four-way screen masking.

 

[barryz]

If I may wade in with my two cents worth, doesn't the Panamorph (and ISCO 11) produce significant distortion at the edges in the shape of bowed lines? At least, all the pictures I've seen on this forum show this fault. The way to solve it is to overscan the image slightly so the edges of the picture fall off the screen. With a pillar boxed 1:1.78 you wouldn't be able to do this would you?

 

[Jonmx]

Quote:

Originally posted by barryz If I may wade in with my two cents worth, doesn't the Panamorph (and ISCO 11) produce significant distortion at the edges in the shape of bowed lines?

Neither of these lens produces significant distortion. The Panamorph is on the order of a centimeter. The ISCO II has some problems with very short throw distance projectors, but on a normal throw distance or beyond performs equally as well. Of course no one knows how well the 2.35:1 Panamorph will perform. My biggest problem with the Panamorph is getting perfect focus in the corners.

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jonmx Neither of these lens produces significant distortion. The Panamorph is on the order of a centimeter.

Jonmx,


"On the order of a centimeter" at what throw or image size?


The distortion should be quoted as a dimensionless percentage.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist

 

[Jeffrey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus I guess I'll go for a 2.35:1 Panamorph and a 4x3 screen.

This is not advised. In fact, I don't see any good reason to go with a 4:3 screen at all (let the flames begin). Please consider a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorus Now, off I go to look into four-way screen masking.

Very cool, but very expensive.

 

[Jonmx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Morbius "On the order of a centimeter" at what throw or image size?

I have an 100" diagonal 16:9 screen.

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jonmx I have an 100" diagonal 16:9 screen.

Jonmx,


So by my calculations - your screen is about 49" high or

124.5 cm.


A one centimeter bow at top and bottom for a total of 2 cm across the entire height of 124.5 would be a bow of about

1.6% - which is about what I'd expect.


The pincushion, or "bow" distortion should be in the low single digits.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist