The resolution of the DCR lens is top notch. I priced that ISCO once and it was $17K. You bring one over and we can compare them. In the mean time, the Paladin DCR lens is best for using the full 4096 4K chip. Even JVC was impressed !
The design of it is ingenious to get the most brightness. I edited my post above to include some extra caveats. The price difference is large and I think it boils down to how much someone can afford but also what the person is looking to achieve with the added lens. Are you after the best resolution or the most brightness? Pick your poison.
The DCR is actually larger in width and almost as tall ( lens ) as the Schneider 1.25 lens. I Googled it. As for resolution, the DCR looks as sharp as no lens zooming. That's about all I can ask for.
6.5″ W x 5.7″ H x 4.13″ D(165 x 145 x 105mm)
Craig, my intention isn't to start an argument. I'm only trying to say that I doubt Panamorph has found a way to achieve the same level of optical quality for about half the cost. Plus these two lenses are very different in the type of optics, amount of optical elements and what they're trying to achieve. So a direct comparison is a little difficult to do. It's important to put price in perspective here. The ISCO 1.25x $17400 new and the Panamorph is around half the cost at $9000. So if Panamorph can get you to about 90% of the way there in optical resolution (what I'd say the difference was between the the DC1/UH480 and ISCO IIIL visually) at a considerable less amount of money, then they've done an excellent job. But I'm going to have a problem if someone wants to say there is "no" difference in optical quality between these two lenses.
Where are you looking at specs? Panamorph's site says for the DCR, including the housing is:The newly designed Schenider/ISCO 1.25x lens (same optics but new housing) is:186.5mm x 119mm deep x 188mmThe elements are extremely similar in size to the housing as the housing is minimal on the ISCO. They measure 150mm (input element) x similar depth x 168.5mm (exit element). So it seems the elements themselves on the ISCO still measure larger than Panamorph even when you factor in its housing. This is why I believe it could handle a 1.4x throw ratio without issue. The weight difference between these two lenses is also massive. Again, the optical elements alone weigh 3500 grams or 7.7 pounds. That's more than double what the Panamorph weighs with its lenses, housing and stand included. If the resolution capabilities of the DCR is similar to the UH480 and DC1 lenses I've had here in the past, I don't know if I'd say "sharpness" is the same between the ISCO and DCR. There was a noticeable difference between the ISCO IIIL and the UH480/DC1 and the ISCO 1.25x is supposedly a bit better than the IIIL. But I haven't had the opportunity to see the DCR against the 1.25x ISCO.
The $80k Loki gives you 8500 lumens though. So if you need a massive screen with relatively good image quality there may not be many alternatives for the price. I don't think price comparisons for projectors apply the same for stand-alone lenses. Projectors cost more or less (typically) if they're able to do something others can or cannot, ie cost more for more lumens, more contrast, higher resolution, ect. I think it's a bold claim to imply you're getting the same amount of optical quality (or more as you imply) for a lot less money. This is especially so when there are people out there who can attest to the optical quality of ISCO/Schneider anamorphic lenses. For some perspective here, Panamorph's DC1 lens, which sold for roughly the same amount as the DCR lens you have, could not meet the optical quality of the ISCO IIIL. It could not delineate pixels as well across the whole image as well as the ISCO IIIL could. This is something I've personally seen. Given that information, and also knowing the DC1 was roughly the same amount of money as the DCR, why should I assume it could better the ISCO 1.25x lens that is better than the IIIL (according to many who've had both the IIIL and 1.25x ISCO)?Given what I've said above I don't think there's a whole lot left to assumptions. ISCO/Schneider has a reputation and end-user reviews to attest to the quality of their optics. My personal experience using both ISCO and Panamorph lenses over the years tells me the same thing. If Panamorph wants to change my mind, I'd gladly review the lens if they think my assumptions are incorrect.
And yet, people with ISCO lenses say they don't look good with their RS4500's - at least one that i know of. We will never know unless you buy the $17K and hop a plane to Sacramento. I saw the Loki on a massive screen. It had rainbows - it didn't look good.
In what way did the ISCO "not look good"? And which ISCO are we talking about? If you had the RS4500 on a 20' wide screen you'd probably be saying the same thing. The $80K Loki gives you something the RS4500 cannot; lumens. Let's keep things in perspective here. The DCR lens can give you more lumens I'm sure, but I highly doubt the quality of the optics are as good as the ISCO. I've never once seen anyone make this claim before.
Ask him which ISCO - post 5250 - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2514257-jvc-4k-native-laser-projector-confirm-175.htmlDC1, ISCO, Schneider - those are all HE lenses, so not the same thing. The RS4500 isn't made for a 20' wide screen IMO. The Loki was on a big screen. It's got a color wheel and a wobulated faux 4K DLP chip with no contrast. It's a really bright Optoma UHD65.
It's not worth arguing. JVC saw this in my theater and was very impressed. I did hours of comparing with and without the lens the other day - everyone at the demo said keep the lens. This is a unique VC lens only designed for use with 4096 x 2160 projectors. believe it, or don't believe it, or fly to Sacramento and see for yourself.
1775 Replies
597443 Views