1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cygnus Image Processing Lens- Anyone got one?

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by Oakleyspatz, Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Oakleyspatz

    Oakleyspatz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,568
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +230
    Came across this site from an Amercian company selling a lens made especially for LCD/DLP projectors which basically splits each pixel into many sub-pixels, removing screendoor pixelation from low res pj's.
    The site seems quite old so I'm not sure if they still produce these lenses and if so, how well they work. The reviews seem excellent though !!
    Check out the site @

    www.cgns.com
     
  2. Oakleyspatz

    Oakleyspatz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,568
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +230
    Well I've found out some interesting info. I wrote directly to the makers, Visual Systems Research, Inc. who tell me that they do indeed still make the lenses and this is the exact reply:
    "Yes, the IMX processors are still available through Visual Systems Research, Inc. They are $695(£374) plus shipping for the IMX931-IMX936 models and $795( £428) plus shipping for the IMX93U universal model. Because of the Infocus 4805s recessed lens, you'd need to use the IMX93U which mounts independent of the projector. The other advantage of the IMX93U model is that if you switch to a different projector you can still use the IMX."

    This seems like a reasonable price/cost for what appears to be a real improvement on DLP projectors of VGA resolution and LCD up to XGA which displays 'screendoor' or 'chickenwire' pixelation .
    A quote from a review by Home Theatre Magazine reads:

    "My initial impression was that the IMX-VT makes LCD images look like DLP images - it turns an image with very visible pixels into an image with barely visible pixels (You can adjust it so that you see no pixels but you lose picture sharpness.) On some scenes the difference is tough to see; on scenes with motion, it’s very easy to see. Also, the bigger your picture, the bigger the difference it will make – it worked much better when we set up the Sanyo for an 8-foot picture than it did for a 5-foot picture. The IMX-VT seems to have no negative effects – the reduction in light output from the projector is negligible (not even enough to warrant readjustment of brightness and contrast controls), and a SMPTE resolution test pattern showed that there’s no loss in vertical or horizontal resolution.

    The IMX-VT definitely makes LCD projector images more filmlike. (Note that I didn’t say filmlike I said more filmlike.) I’d call it a $1,000 improvement it’s a very good deal at $695. If you’ve got an LCD projector you’re not quite satisfied with, I’d definitely recommend you check out one of these processors - it could make you happy again."

    If only I could get a 'real' review by a punter !!!
    watch this space!
     
  3. theritz

    theritz
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,451
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +27
    If you're looking for a real review by someone in the know, then have a look on avsforum - Alan Gouger (the owner of the forum) has posted his impression quite recently) in the >$3500 projector forum.

    I haven't seen one of these (read about it ages ago, observations included optical issues such as barrrel distortion, iirc, shold be stuff in the avsforum archives about it, they've recently released new models which are far better), but Panasonic's "smoothscreen" sounds as though it achieves the same effect at a far lower incremental cost, one of the lenses you mention could with shipping, import taxes and VAT amount to a very significant proportion of the new cost of a projector (model dependent, needless to say). A wee bit of defocus (which the lens causes in any event, probably does the trick for me.......................

    Interesting stuff all the same.

    Sean.
     
  4. Oakleyspatz

    Oakleyspatz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,568
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +230
    So TheRitz, in your opinion, would this lens make my 4805's image appear to resemble that of the higher res, Screenplay 7205 or at least the 5700?
     
  5. theritz

    theritz
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,451
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +27
    Oakleyspatz,

    I have no idea, tbh, you might get a better idea if you read Alan's thread over on avs (which is dead for me atm) - the consensus there seems to be that using the lens can reduce viewing distance to about 1x screenwidth on the likes of a HT1000 (1024x576) or on 720 projectors.

    I wouldn't think it's a substitute for higher resolution in terms of greater image detail, if the projector isn't resolving the detail then there isn't a lens which will solve that with the exception of a Panamorph lens for "stretching" a 4:3 native image into a 16:9 shaped image, for instance a native XGA projector, so that instead of using 1024x576 in widescreen mode the widescreen image whan using a Panamorph uses the full XGA resolution (1024x768) "stretch" into a widescreen shape.

    So if you mean will it "look like" one of the projectors you mention, my guess would be no. If screendoor is an issue for you it would help, going on what I've read.

    Ultimately it's for you to judge whether this is something you'd be happy to buy unseen and trust that the effect would be worth the expense.


    Sean G.
     

Share This Page

Loading...