What's new

Anamorphic lenses still useful? (1 Viewer)

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Premium
Insider
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,419
Location
New England
Real Name
Gregg Loewen
I went with a 2.39 screen about 6-7 years ago and kicked myself that I didnt do this a decade before. WHAT AN AMAZING DIFFERENCE.

An anamorphic lense is a nicety especially when wanting to maximize light output.

I do not not currently using an anamorphic lense. I have a 140 inch 2.39 screen with a touch of gain with a a JVC RS600. I am quite happy with it. I have motorized mattes that come down to frame for 16x9.
 

John Dirk

Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
5,219
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
I chose a 16:9 screen and don't use any anamorphic at all. Going CIH screen at 2.35 and shrinking down for 16:9 didn't make sense for my space. And it doesn't make sense for the great majority of projector owners. That's why it's a super niche setup, even ignoring the cost.

But for those that do it, more power! It's a cool idea and especially if you could go all-in with a motorized, automated system with lens sled...that's living the dream!
I agree. My projector does have this function but I have no use for it.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
22
Real Name
Robert Hart
I went with a 2.39 screen about 6-7 years ago and kicked myself that I didnt do this a decade before. WHAT AN AMAZING DIFFERENCE.

An anamorphic lense is a nicety especially when wanting to maximize light output.

I do not not currently using an anamorphic lense. I have a 140 inch 2.39 screen with a touch of gain with a a JVC RS600. I am quite happy with it. I have motorized mattes that come down to frame for 16x9.

I probably wouldn't bother with an anamorphic lens if I still used a JVC projector as most of their home theater models produce super dark awesome blacks. They make it easy to mask excess light spillage on the surrounding walls. Plus, they have good lens memory.

I developed a taste for high end large venue projectors a few years ago though (more specifically, high end lenses). You get a much brighter and more detailed image with better contrast on a $40,000 Barco but at the expense of black levels in solid black areas (like letterbox bars).

Using a black velvet border does hide most of the excess screen but not completely like it did when I used my old JVC RS35U. The anamorphic lens eliminates this issue.

It inadvertently solves another issue too. I bought my current projector when I lived in a smaller house so I got the short throw lens. I have more room now so the projector overfills the wall space if I mount it where I want. A anamorphic squeeze lens allows it to fill a 150" 2.40:1 screen / 120" 16:9 without me spending another $600-$1500 on a used regular throw lens.

BTW, I'm not rich. I didn't pay $40,000 for my projector. I like to live 5 years behind with certain electronics. I got my $40k Barco plus an $8000 lens for around $2,000 used with 30 hours on the lamps.

My first anamorphic lens was diy and cost less than $120 to make. It performed just as well as the Panamorph I've been testing. Anyone not using one because of the insane cost should look at the diy option. It's relatively easy as far as diy projects go. I'm only getting a Panamorph as it's going for less than $500 used.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
348,754
Messages
4,855,599
Members
142,372
Latest member
Native_Texan
Recent bookmarks
0
Top