Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
leyjerry

Which Anamorphic Lens?

Recommended Posts

I got rid of my anamorphic lens (mk3 Aussiemorphic) and bought a Lumagen Mini 3D video processor. Best move I ever made and best bang for buck you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for a high quality anamorphic lens , my advice would be to understand who manufactured the lens ( glass component) and their reputation in that field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If bang for buck is really the question then you can't go past a Panamorph UH480. I personally run a Schneider Cine Digitar and totally agree with Warrens comments.

I have personally compared the Isco III, UH480, Schneider, panamorph DC1 all side by side in my own theatre and clear bang for buck winner was the UH480. The Schneider and Isco were only 5% better if that and only because of side by side comparison. I had a fellow AV nut see the UH480 in my theatre without side by side comparisons and he stated that it was the best picture he had ever seen.

I do have one for sale that you are welcome to have for $1600. I will also have a Schneider kino linear transport available for $1250 in around 4-6 weeks time.

If he wanted bang for buck he'd be using the zoom feature on that projector..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes but question was about anamorphic lenses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but question was about anamorphic lenses...

Yes and he has a top of the line JVC X95, hardly going to put a prism lens in front of that, even if it represents 'bang for buck'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the JVC range use the same lens so the same applies to all models.

The E-shift models have effectively zero pixel structure so a lens is an expensive way of adding distortion IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with prism lenses is that they distort so much,most noticeably towards (although not restricted to) the edges where the image can elongate quite significantly. It's quite common to see a 1.25 expansion in the center and 1.45 at the edges. The average is around 1.33, but only the average. Single air-gap cylindricals have this problem, too. On my web site there's a comparison between an Isco and a Xeit lens, clearly showing the Isco stretches the image far more unevenly than the Xeit.

Xeit-v-Isco-Distortion-Chart.jpg

Prism are also susceptible to ghosting, more readily than cylindricals.

And of course they can't be focused, plus they displace the image a couple of inches due to the light path passing through an optical "chicane" as it passes through the prisms.

And this is for a GOOD prism lens. Simple ones - with no correction for astigmatism or color aberration - are just plain awful.

It's easy to think something is "the best image you have ever seen". That is simply because you haven't seen anything better. Many of our own customers who have upgraded from a prism system (and in some cases from a single air gap cylindrical) can tell the difference straightaway when they install a Xeit lens.

Specifications here: http://xeitoptics.com/specifications/

Edited by Alcheringa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Understand all that's been said here. As stated, I have DIRECTLY compared Isco III, Schneider Cine Digitar, UH480 and other forms of non corrected prisms. These comparisons were not made with cheap projectors - JVC HD990, Runco Q750i and Runco LS5. The two cylindrical were best and looked brilliant. The UH480 looked fantastic even after viewing the cylindricals. My point is that the difference is not as big as is made out.

The person who stated that this was the best image he had seen had just spent 2 weeks visiting local specialist AV stores viewing the best of their projector set ups. His impression was that the image QUALITY was the best he had seem anywhere. This was not in reference to the "immersiveness" of widescreen but in reference to image quality. If the image projected through any A-Lens is as good as the image quality without a lens then it is a Damn good lens period.

Do I use a UH480? No, because the cylindrical is better but only by 5% if that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His impression was that the image QUALITY was the best he had seem anywhere.

Nice scientific terms those: "impression" and "image quality".

They make me wonder why I spend so much time designing, building and calibrating down to less than 1/100th of a degree cumulative, and getting all those expensive lens elements built on million dollar machines, when two glass wedges in a nice box are just as good They give a good "impression" . They have "image quality" - however that's defined.

The problem with a lot of this stuff is that it's mostly anecdotal. Someone went through a few stores and came away with a good "impression". Panamorph run the line with their el cheapo sub-$1000 model (Cine-Vista, I think it's called) that because it has no color aberration correction, and no focusability - none of that snake oil cylindrical lens designers use to jack up the price - it's somehow "clearer" and sort-of closer to how Mother Nature meant lenses to be made. "Sharpest image on the planet", was the phrase used, I think.

When quizzed, the spruiker for Panamorph replied that, well, it was sharp in a strip about 4" wide down the middle of a 12-foot wide image, and that it did need users to lobby the projector makers to include sub-pixel color channel correction (because the rainbow patterns the lens produced outside this 4" strip looked like an illustration of Isaac Newton's prism experiment), and anyway, it was cheap, and whaddaya want for 2-bits? Sleigh bells? Suddenly "sharpest on the planet" became "only an entry level device after all". It only took 2 personal messages to get him begging me to stop being so truthy.

No mention of gross distortion, ghosting, astigmatism, beam displacement and sheer unadulterated weight, unsealed optics, low ANSI contrast and expensive add-ons just to get the image focused. And these limitations apply as much to the upper end of the scale as the lower end of the prism field, which is severely llimited in design degrees of freedom by the fact that prisms by definition emobdy nothing but flat surfaces.

You can usually tell when a lens maker is fudging it. They rely on "impressions", not hard specifications. I mean, feel the love, baby. Why go to all the hassle of producing a precision intstrument to exacting standards when you can just "impress" punters and rely on "wow" factors like "sharpest on the planet" and "best image quality" from checking out lenses in store demo rooms with light streaming in from all over the place?

Never mind that prism lenses were dropped in 1953 as a viable means of top quality commercial cinema projection. What does Panavision - who junked their prism design for all-cylindrical lenses - know about "image quality"?

Do I use a UH480? No, because the cylindrical is better but only by 5% if that.

I bet you can't quantify that 5%. Which parameters are you referring to?

Edited by Alcheringa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! There were a few firm points of view being expressed there. But that's one of the things that makes our country great; we can have a robust debate and be passionate about what we believe in and still be mates at the end of it. Bravo!

Fwiw I have made a choice........de winner is......XEIT & Cineslide. Now for that other old chestnut; price.

Thanks so much fellow forumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own one of Marks CAVX Mk3 with corrector A-lense and project onto a 120in majestic scope screen from Rich. Screen is not curved and although it has ghosting which shows up occasionally (I have the jvc hd550 and ghosting can be reduced to nearly unnoticeable levels if the PJ shutter lens is set to its lowest setting) I am more than happy with the results and no one except myself has noticed the stretched image when viewing 16:9 content like games until I correct the ratio setting the PJ to 4:3 and then setting it back again that they notice!

I cannot use the zoom method either as my ceiling is 2mt with a beam down the centre of the room at 190cm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...