| Author |
Message |
A Rogers
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 133
Location: Toronto On
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: Anamorphic Lens |
|
|
Anyone ever try using an Anamorphic lens(es) to maximize raster area and sharpness while displaying 16:9? With all of a few minutes of searching I found a decent amount of information and a diy on anamorphic lenses.
http://www.zuggsoft.com/theater/prism.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Motobias
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 163
Location: Osnabrueck, Germany
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
good idea...but what about mounting, aligning, center and corner focus...
_________________
Most peope talk about HD without knowing the meaning and how to do it RIGHT !
FIGHTING STUPIDITY SINCE 1983
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every once and a while someone asks about using anamorphic lenses with CRT projectors so as to max out raster usage...
Given the size of the lenses used by CRT projectors and the fact that there are 3 to align, the general consensus is that it can't be done/isn't worth the cost or effort.
Of course, feel free to go for it!
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You obviously didn't search on here or AVS. You can try, but I think Chiem found that the lenses would be extremely large.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim in Phoenix
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys
Who needs it when you can Edge Blend?
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a homemade anamorph would be a WHOLE helluva lot cheaper than two projectors and a blender, not to mention the difficulty of setting up a blend properly &etc. But as Spanky said, it was pretty much proven by an optical expert that it's not practical/possible, and the blend would spank the bejeezus out of a single anamorphed CRT anyway. It just takes (lots of) money. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ile
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1491
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | You obviously didn't search on here or AVS. You can try, but I think Chiem found that the lenses would be extremely large. |
Chiem researched concave mirror for anamorphic squeeze.
You need two sequential prism to prevent chromatic aberration.
One Finn build two anamorphic prism for his G70 and it worked fine, but four glasses and glycerine in other prism limited all that extra light output that more used phosphorus was giving. He used 24 deg for glyserine prism and 30 deg for distilled water prism.
He newer tested with some other stuff in second prism. It was thought that something like silicone oil would pass more light through than glyserine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Rogers
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 133
Location: Toronto On
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ile wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | You obviously didn't search on here or AVS. You can try, but I think Chiem found that the lenses would be extremely large. |
Chiem researched concave mirror for anamorphic squeeze.
You need two sequential prism to prevent chromatic aberration.
One Finn build two anamorphic prism for his G70 and it worked fine, but four glasses and glycerine in other prism limited all that extra light output that more used phosphorus was giving. He used 24 deg for glyserine prism and 30 deg for distilled water prism.
He newer tested with some other stuff in second prism. It was thought that something like silicone oil would pass more light through than glyserine. |
This is fantastic information, thank you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You are right, Ile. Faulty memories on my part. Yes, the size of the lenses means they would be insanely expensive if made with proper optical glass. You can DIY them with glass or plastic forms filled with water/glycerine/etc, but then as Ile said you lose more light in the DIY anamorph than you gain with the increased phosphor usage.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Rogers
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 133
Location: Toronto On
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | You are right, Ile. Faulty memories on my part. Yes, the size of the lenses means they would be insanely expensive if made with proper optical glass. You can DIY them with glass or plastic forms filled with water/glycerine/etc, but then as Ile said you lose more light in the DIY anamorph than you gain with the increased phosphor usage. |
I think the main benefits would be prolonged tube life and slight increase in sharpness no? Somewhere down the road I have intent to "splice" a g90 with and XG (electronics) I would be able to build a chassis large enough to accommodate the extra space needed for the Anamorphic optics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prolonged tube life, only if you ran it at a lower contrast. Which, if the anamorph is sucking up the extra light, you're not likely to do.
Sharpness, only if the anamorph is optically perfect. Which a DIY won't be.
If you want a monster picture and high light output, stacking or blending are your best bets.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | You are right, Ile. Faulty memories on my part. Yes, the size of the lenses means they would be insanely expensive if made with proper optical glass. You can DIY them with glass or plastic forms filled with water/glycerine/etc, but then as Ile said you lose more light in the DIY anamorph than you gain with the increased phosphor usage. |
Additionally, anamorphic lenses in general are not a free lunch. The DIY variety suffer from noticeable chromatic aberration and light loss due to reflection, not to mention significant pincushion (geometric distortion). Essentially, they create far more problems than they solve. If one were to do this properly with good optical design so as to minimize these problems, the cost would be quite prohibitive.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piratepowwow
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would be interesting to see what you could come up with by using two giant homemade prisms mounted at the front of your hush box that stretched across all three pj lenses.
Good point about the light lost to reflection and absorption in the prisms. It's entirely possible you would burn up the phosphorous just as fast because you have to turn up the brightness to compensate.
Chromatic aberration I'm pretty sure can be compensated for the most part with convergence, but if it stretches say the red beam wider than the blue beam, then... that's no good.
If the point is to maximize phosphor life... I guess that could work out but I doubt it would last very significantly longer given the lost light through the prisms.
If the point is to improve image quality, I don't think this is even possible. By stretching the image vertically on the raster your scanlines will probably get bigger and more noticeable. Beside that, the image quality issue at high resolution isn't top to bottom clarity, it's left to right clarity because the image starts to bleed to the right. Anamorphic wouldn't help you there since the raster would still be the same width(and the chips in the PJ can only handle so much bandwidth accurately anyway).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim in Phoenix
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | Well, a homemade anamorph would be a WHOLE helluva lot cheaper than two projectors and a blender, not to mention the difficulty of setting up a blend properly &etc. But as Spanky said, it was pretty much proven by an optical expert that it's not practical/possible, and the blend would spank the bejeezus out of a single anamorphed CRT anyway. It just takes (lots of) money. |
Lots of Money?
Not lately. The new Analog STE100 "Son of Blendzilla" features an msrp under $7000, and 9" crts have seen a shocking drop in price. For a ten foot image width you can have a Stewart Luxus Deluxe, processor, and two Marquee 9500's retubed for under $30K and the picture will blow the t*ts off your local movie house. Who coined the term "personal Imax"?
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
$30k absolutely qualifies as "lots of money" in my budget.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVerge
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I asked the same question, and man you would need a big freaking lens. I see why people said it doesn't work for crt.
The image on the face of my lens on my digital is about 1 inch wide leaving. It would take a huge lens to do it right. If crt was still a valid thing in the home theater world, i would imagine they could equip the projector with native anamorphic lenses that would be absolutely awesome. Such a shame 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
