Best projector/best picture quality

Zooming can work fine especially if the X30 has the lens memory. You might be lucky as I was an a good used lens will turn up, but you need a long throw setup to get the best out of it: Otherwise you start needing a curved screen due to pincushion if it's a very short throw setup.

The discussions can get very heated between lenses and zooming and TBH these days I can't be bothered arguing over it, I'm happy with my setup and really that's all that matters...I bought mine used to try out knowing I could sell for the same price if I didn't like it/think it was worth it, three years later (or whatever it is) and I still have it. I did zoom for a couple of years and even owned a projector with lens memory for a brief while and that worked quite well (shame the image wasn't good enough once the film started, but that's not the fault of zooming, just that it was a Panasonic :devil:).
 
with that overall width you could only manage a diagonal of 95", when you allow for a 3" section frame so 6" in total thats a screen viewing area of 84" x 47" in a 16.9 ratio screen.

this leaves you 1" either side, just a note here, if you go for a screen as close as this to the side walls you will have to darken the walls, even use Devore velvet or something similar to stop light reflection, think about doing this on your ceiling as well.

the effect this as is quite staggering on the image contrast so well worth doing :smashin:
Allan,this was the size you said id need at 16.9 not sure if its the same at 2.35:1 could you pm me a price pls for the material cheers:smashin:
 
Did you tell Allan how much you wanted then as it looks like he was asking you to get in touch with him to let him know what you needed.
 
I didn`t know you`d replied mate sorry

but it would have been wise to pm or email me when you realised I hadn`t replied

anyway its 20$ per linea foot and so is the blacking if thats required

then theirs shipping and import duties to add on

Allan
 
Allan,this was the size you said id need at 16.9 not sure if its the same at 2.35:1 could you pm me a price pls for the material cheers:smashin:
as mentioned wasnt sure how much i needed but gave a rough idea with my measurements needed

Did you tell Allan how much you wanted then as it looks like he was asking you to get in touch with him to let him know what you needed.
as above

I didn`t know you`d replied mate sorry

but it would have been wise to pm or email me when you realised I hadn`t replied

anyway its 20$ per linea foot and so is the blacking if thats required

then theirs shipping and import duties to add on

Allan
Didnt pm as i was awaiting a reply for how many linear foot id need for the distance i had via size of screen to be used :thumbsup: cheers Allan.will pm you:smashin:
 
with that overall width you could only manage a diagonal of 95", when you allow for a 3" section frame so 6" in total thats a screen viewing area of 84" x 47" in a 16.9 ratio screen.

as mentioned wasnt sure how much i needed but gave a rough idea with my measurements needed


Didnt pm as i was awaiting a reply for how many linear foot id need for the distance i had via size of screen to be used :thumbsup: cheers Allan.will pm you:smashin:

if you max viewing width is 84" as mentioned earlier then its easy to work out how much you need.

a piece 8ft (96") will give you enough to stretch it round a frame

so 8 x 20$ + 160$

shipping unfortunately now you missed the last order will be around 280$ so making a total of 400$ + import fees which work out at around £30

if you`d have pm`d or emailed me the total would have been £128.38 as against the now £276.97 :(
 
if you max viewing width is 84" as mentioned earlier then its easy to work out how much you need.

a piece 8ft (96") will give you enough to stretch it round a frame

so 8 x 20$ + 160$

shipping unfortunately now you missed the last order will be around 280$ so making a total of 400$ + import fees which work out at around £30

if you`d have pm`d or emailed me the total would have been £128.38 as against the now £276.97 :(
:mad: damn give me a shout pls when ordering more:smashin: what was the material brand mate?seymour?thx Allan-Also how would you compare the picture quality to your other screens mate?
 
Last edited:
Also and i`m sure Stuart would agree with me if he saw an X30 here, you don`t really need to go the expense of an anamorphic lens, i`ve done loads of demo`s with customers asking if they can see any loss of brightness of can see pixel struture when zoomed and all have said no so far.

That said if your a purist and have the budget then theirs no harm in having a lens but i`d recommend you see without first before splashing the cash :smashin:

Did you do comparisons with and without a lens, or was it just how the image looked when zoomed for 2.35?

Just asking as some may think a comparison was done with an anamorphic lens when it sounds like it was just seeing how things look by just zooming.

I agree about zooming first though - if you're happy with a zoomed image it can certainly save you some money :)

Cheers

Gary
 
Hi Gary

I actually borrowed a friends ISCO lll large, it wasn`t on a sled, just an ISCO mount on a velvet flat panel bed which slid under the JVC X30-70 and Sony 95.

It was shown to several visitors to be honest and it wasn`t clear which one was preferred, lens or no lens.

All agreed that they could see no loss of brightness though just with zooming and the zoomed image still remained sharp.

with the advent of lens memory i`m not sure anamorphic lenses have the appeal as they used to but we all have our preferences and i`d never knock them.

FWIW the lens/mount was sold on, for I believe £2k to get rid of it :eek:
 
with the advent of lens memory i`m not sure anamorphic lenses have the appeal as they used to but we all have our preferences and i`d never knock them.

I have the RS55 using the E-shift and my system has been specifically designed to take advantage of zooming the image to various sizes. This is exactly the situation one would think an A-lens has been made irrelevant.
Ironically, I just picked up a used Panamorph UH480 lens for my system!
Why? Simply because it will get me an even bigger scope image when I want it (I've maxed out my throw distance as it is, and since I bought an extra big screen I have even more unmaskable screen real-estate to take advantage of).
 
Hi Rich

yes I suppose thats one advantage so you end up with a wider image if your lens zoomed is max`d out but I personally wouldn`t use a pj on max zoom if it were possible not to, not sure why, its just I feel its a better option not to :rolleyes:.

also if you are going to max it out and use a lens you could introduce other issues such as pincushioning and edge blurr :smashin:

as said I`d never advocate the "do not use a lens" but would say always try it without first as see what you think, especially with the latest batch of pj`s with lens memory
 
Hi Rich

yes I suppose thats one advantage so you end up with a wider image if your lens zoomed is max`d out but I personally wouldn`t use a pj on max zoom if it were possible not to, not sure why, its just I feel its a better option not to :rolleyes:.

The point is with an A-lens I wouldn't have to max out my zoom. I could have it less zoomed, and the A-lens will do the work of making the image wider.

I'm going to do some A-lens vs RS55 zoomed with E-shift comparisons. Should be interesting.
 
Hi Rich

sorry I mis-understood what you meant, I thought when you said you`d bought an extra big screen and you were max`d out on the lens, so needed a lens to fill it. :smashin:

yes that is a way to produce a wider image as you say without maxing out the lens movement :thumbsup:
 
Well, I hope it's not me who is mistaken.

To allow for the largest image I can project, my projectors end up as far back in the room as possible, literally within inches of the back wall (actually, a bay window). My last JVC RS20 projector was not as deep as my new RS55, and it's connections were on the side, so it went back further than my RS55 and projected a larger maximum image width. But now with the RS55 being slightly further into the room, my max zoomed out size ends up at around 116" or 118". Whereas I want up to about 124" wide (my available screen area).

If I understand correctly, with an A-lens like the Panamorph, you choose your image height you want. So a 124" wide scope image will be about a 53" tall. That means my 16:9 image size would be the same height, which makes for a 93.8 inches wide (107.5 inches diagonal) 16:9 image. So I only have to project a 93.8 inch wide 16:9 image to start with, then anamorphic squeeze is added, slide the A-lens in and I get a 124" wide scope image.

So, in trying to achieve a 124" wide scope image I only have to project a 93.8 inch wide image, hence nowhere near max zoom on my projector.

Correct?
 
Last edited:
Ironically, I just picked up a used Panamorph UH480 lens for my system!
Why? Simply because it will get me an even bigger scope image when I want it (I've maxed out my throw distance as it is, and since I bought an extra big screen I have even more unmaskable screen real-estate to take advantage of).

your not mistaken Rich at all but from reading this in one of posts I understood it to mean that you were max`d out on your lens and needed to make it wider as you had bought an extra big screen, so purchased the A lens to fill it

so if you don`t need to max out now to fill it using the A lens then even better for you :smashin:

you`ll have to let us know what your thoughts are of the lens when used compared to zooming
 
Hope it's OK for me to reply here Rich: What you say sounds corrrect. The only issue is if the image coming out of your projector at the lens is too big to fit through the A lens. Even if it's not tooo big, you may still get vignetting or more pincushion than you'd like. Generally A lenses work better on setups where the projector is at or near to minimum zoom as my own HD350/Isco II setup is.

As an experiment for a fellow forum member I once moved my projector to a closer position to try it out and found that the pincushion increased markedly and I was limited on the screen size due to vignetting. This was at about 3.5 metres trying to fill my 112" wide scope screen (similar specs to the guy I was trying the test for). My usual setup is 6 metres throw, minimum zoom.

Hopefully you'll be OK if you are at mid zoom or less for your lens viewing, but you'll only know by trying...best of luck. :thumbsup:
 
Thanks guys.

Kelvin,

Yup...I'm likely at the edge of acceptable as I understand it. I've seen this lens with a JVC projector used at even closer throw distance (on a huge 130" wide screen) and found it looked good, despite knowing there was some pin cushion. But then again that wasn't in my system, so I'll find out what is acceptable to me in my system. I still intend to zoom for most scope (as I won't watch all scope at my max screen width...I just want the A-lens for those times I feel like maximum immersion, and for when the source quality permits it).

Also, in comparing zoomed E-shift images vs an A-Lens image, I will also look at smaller scope image sizes - ones that fit more comfortably within the performance specs of the Panamorph. With the JVC's lens memory, it should be easy for me to set up a lens memory for a certain zoomed scope image size, and another memory for a size that will produce the same scope width with an A-lens. So I'll be able to switch back and forth between the same sized zoomed image vs A-lens image, without making the throw distance limit the quality of the A-lens image.

That's the plan, anyway...

(Of course if I find the A-lens not to have an advantage, the A-lenser will probably say "Well...see...you don't have an ISCO....")
 
Just go with what you feel is best. Mine is the more modest Isco II anyway, so probably similar to the Panamorph.

I've long since passed the point of worrying if someone else does or doesn't use a lens, I just hope my limited experience is of some help to those who want to try one.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom