Greeeeeeeeeeeeeaaat ! Have to borrow some permanent black marker at work hehe and mod again

BTW i did paint the inside of my projector with matte black paint with no significant improvements. But this paint while being said to be matte still had some "shinyness" in it ...

Thanks for your compliments elken

Just to clarify when I said it might work better with flat black, I meant the inside of the triplet casing.

Yep that's what i understood. I've always asked myself why it looked white while looking inside of the triplet ... My triplet is black inside but not the sides of the lenses, that should make a difference

Yep. This was the mod I was going to do for my basic triplet. Seems like it should work very well. The triplet itself ( regular one) has a ground glass edge, so you couldnt paint the inside. The edges would need to be blacked like I did with my filters. Permanent marker rocks for this. Wear non powedered latex gloves when you do it.

In my hast and talking with Elken I forgot to mention that I also have an aperture slightly smaller than the rear element. The black marker, I suspect, is still slightly reflective so a very small amount of ghosting is visible so I use a sheet of paperwith a circle cut out to just cover the edges of the triplet to eliminate it completely.
I still have another idea as to what might also be manifesting the ghost , more testing.

DJ

"petunias"!!!,,, heard to say yet again, ohhhhhh nooo not again...

anyhows this wilted petunia, has expired to nah nah land....

If that fails, here's how to make ghostbuster's slime.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/demos/Ghostbusters2.htm

I know that was meant a joke but it’s not that far from what we might need. Seal the first element into the casing, fill it with the ghostbusters slime-less the Fluorescein, add the other elements and seal the top. Hmmm

DJ

Oh oh! I smell home cooking in the future. I was working with some elements a few years back on ( Barco I think) some gigantic PJ and the LCDs had some type of silicon based fluid in them. Something like that maybe?

Sorry but I think that my english is terrible...
Can any1 to explain me, what the meaning of text quoted? (Luxies?)
Sorry for the inconveniences.

P.S.: (other times, when I see the elken -ism words, I don't ask, because I think that is your own slang... putting this in the end of the words... but the majority of times I don't understand this)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI unit of illuminance. It is used in photometry as a measure of the intensity of light, with wavelengths weighted according to the luminosity function, a standardized model of human brightness perception. In English, "lux" is used in both singular and plural.

My ghosting is much more exxagerated than what you are getting elken. I will do my best to get a picture of it. It is only horizontal so it cannot be the lens. If it were the lens than I could rotate the triplet and it would go away but it does not. It has to be the bulb arc and it not being a point.

So has anyone tried this mod on an 18" opaque lens yet?

That’s what I though at first as well but… Do this simple test. Use two strips of paper and stop down the arc ends on the rear of the triplet. Then look for the ghost again. With mine I had ghosting in one direction, length ways with the lamp, but after stopping the ends I had ghosting the other direction as well, I just couldn’t see it with out the stop.

DJ

OK, I know that is a lux, but luxies, it is confuse.
And, what's meanig that Elken want to say? That he don¡t want to say any lux measeures? (but this forum only talks of pro lens, and quality of image, not relation with the light intensity..., in the thread ...ceramic 150W bulb..., maybe)
Thank you.

It’s Elken’s slang.” and why I dont have time to play Luxies” roughly translates to “and why I don’t have time to take lux measurements for everyone”

Thank you.

Sorry guys, it might be a while before I can show you the blur....

Last night I decided to make the jump and tried to remove the antiglare on my samsung 712n. I had the lcd glued into the metal frame with silicon so I was cutting the silicon out when I realized I had made a HUGE mistake. Along 2 of the 4 walls there are FFC's. I only paid attention to the main row along the bottom and forgot about the side row. Well I cut off the side row. Yea Yea, stupid me. I found this out after cutting off an entire FFC. I quickly gasped and ran and plugged it in, monitor was shot. ARGH!

It gets worse, instead of thinking oh well, maybe I can practice stripping a monitor, no, I was stupid and in a fit of rage shattered the panel. When a panel shatters you have a mess, about a million paper thin pieces of glass go everywhere. Definitely did not make me feel any better.

After 2 hours of mopping, sweeping, picking up glass, my floor still looks like glitter is on it.

So lesson be learned, extreme mods are not for the short tempered.

I would REALLY like to hear the thoughts of Brain and/or someone else involved in the design of this lens (sorry, I know it was at least one of the forum members but I can't remember who).

Is this a design issue? A manufacturing issue? Do you agree that there is an issue, or do you think that this mod is a case of a bandaid solution for a problem elsewhere in the projectors that are exhibiting these problems?

Saw this somewhere on the web, but i can't get my hands again on this info. OSRAM already make a 250W ceramic powerball but with 3000K (HCI-TS 250/830), but there is hope ... Look at this : http://shop.osram.ch/shop/prdtDetail.aspx?.../942%20NDL%20PB
So they prepare or have ready a HCI-TS 250/942 wich is a 4200K with perfect spectrum for our needs.

As i can't find this bulb anywhere on the net, I asked someone at OSRAM Swiss if this bulb is available, cause it would be PERFECT (while waiting for a 400W ). No response yet.

Sorry to pollute the topic

Also look at all those new powerball 4200K in french OSRAM catalogue : http://www.osram.fr/pro/bareme/bareme_pro22_28.pdf

Seriously, what's going on here? Does the PRO as shipped have a defect or not?

remember earlier when I mentioned I had an issue with blurryness in a horizontal plane. I just got a new panel, one without antiglare. This improved the issue I was having 100%. Something about the antiglare was emphasizing the issue with the lamp having a huge arc. I still have a slight blur, but it is nothing compared to what I had before.

I don't think this could be called a defect. Since after the modification of the lens the focal length changes from 500mm to I believe was around 550mm, then this wouldn't be a defect per se, but a good reason for revision might be in order.

Excellent discovery Elken!

I am rather curious, has there been any official comment on the PRO lens,, with this issue of Pincussion Problem..

so far with all my tests, with multiple fresnels sets and now two different panels, it seems clear that this MOD works, not just for one particular setup, but in general..

also will there be a 330mm fresnel ( to cater for 410mm wide panels ) @ the same width as the 220mm, as I have also determined that using a 330mm irrespective of what power lamp one uses, is by far more efficient than a 220mm

You are talking about a 330mm is better WITH a precondensor. Right ?

Because I've tried a 330mm and a 220mm with the Pro Reflector and NO precondensor and a 330mm is much dimmer.

Yes, absolutely need a precondenser if using a 330 fresnel. IMHO.

gs

question re--asked>>

I am rather curious, has there been any official comment on the PRO lens,, with this issue of Pincussion Problem..

so far with all my tests, with multiple fresnels sets and now two different panels, it seems clear that this MOD works, not just for one particular setup, but in general..

also will there be a 330mm fresnel ( to cater for 410mm wide panels )


hmmm,,,, before i started the 150 watt thread, I was only using a 330mm with no precon,, and that was with a standard lens too, and even posted quite a few pics,,, didn't seem dim to me.

Did you take lux measurements?

Does he have your meter?

Nah, just stirring him.

maybe this might prompt an answer

"H---n"

Hmmmm, quite the vagueism...

Official Answer to your question --> Maybe.

just to qualify, some of my optics knowledge this is an example of a 26" telescope I built, one of several types.. even so I have forgotten so much of what I knew then.. such as life.

Stop showin' off. Why's yer pins cussin' anyway? They angry?

Edit: The Port's killin' yer brainy cellisms.

I think I missed this (oops)... It makes complete sense (to me anyway) that you find a 400W HQI/330mm/no precondenser setup the same brightness as a 150W/330mm/with precondenser setup. Both of these setups give (for me anyway) a similar average lux reading on my screen (4.55m^2)... a 400W HQI/330mm/with precondenser is much brighter. There is nothing unwatchable about either setup, just one is brigther than the other.

cheers,
gs

Nice Truss Mount!
Arrrrrrr...

Hi guys
Thanks for the info on the pro lens mod,makes a huge difference to the focus.Using an Osram 400 and corner focus is much improved.Tried a 3.2mm spacer ,image now very crisp the only problem is a ghosting effect just right of the image.
Do you think that it might be a problem with the way I might have reassembled it or due to the arc being to big for the lens and since the mod it highlights the problem even more.Im sure there was no ghosting before but it seems to be more apparent now and im hell bent on getting rid of it.
Dazzzla mentioned internal reflection from inside of lens amd ogo got rid of the smearing with blocking off 1 cm of the perimeter of the lens or blocking around the light so got a couple of things to try.

Think il strip it again try the permanent marker on the inside of lens and the lens edges then try putting a cone over just the arc witha smaller piece of uv glass on top see if i can help the point source theory, then if still no luck start blocking off the lens.Would it help if i have no luck at this to try a different thickness spacer my thinking is if there was no ghosting at 12mm and iv tried 3.2 then there might be a point in between where i might get excellent focus and reduce the ghosting or hopefully eliminate it all together.Perhaps with the larger arc of this bulb a larger diamater spacer might work.
Thanks again for finding this out Elk and Dazz and to anyone trying it when putting it all back together make sure you keep the lenses /case straight ,it caught on one thread when i tried it so was slightly tilted and was a b..ch to get back out.

sorted the focus problem -was my vga lead dohhh.Got a slight smearing which i hope to rectify with a smaller hole in the top of the lightbox which just covers the arc of the bulb.Thanks again elk and dazz ,great find with the pro lens mod.I tried different spacers as well about 7 in all and 3mm is about as good as I can get it.Il let you guys know how the lightboc mod goes and if focus improves.
thnaks again

For those who do this mod... be vewy vewy careful. I chipped the center lense but thankfully it was not in the light path. Perhaps this defect is because it was originally designed for 17" optimally, and at the far end, 19" monitors. For those like Elken whole use 19" WIDESCREEN monitors, the lightcone reaches its limit within the triplet itself, and therefore the pincushion and focus effects are observed.

I am experiencing pincushioning w/ my 17" 5:4 panel. Have yet to project on a white screen to check out overall focus. I did hold up a white shirt to the corner and saw perfect focus, but I didn't check the center.

paging elken!

I am going to make a prototype spacer ring. I am hoping you could supply me with the OD and ID the dimensions of the ring. I don't have time to take my triplet apart, but I have time to machine a ring!

3.62 mm hehehheheheh

ok, so 3.62mm wide, what about the inner and outer diameters of the ring?

I think 4" Schedule 80 pipe may be a good starting material. Pretty certain you want 104.00mm OD and 2.00mm ring/spacer wall thickness. So, how about making me one in exchange for that info? And don't forget you'll want to make two - one wider to take up the slack for the new narrower one I think? Got to thinking back and after checking see that I was incorrect in making that crossed out statement. The retaining ring actually sticks out a bit too far when the mod is performed.

Sorry is this is already known, but i haven't been around for a year. Does this fix the 'new' pro, or the original one??
I still have my original one, and never exchanged it yet.
Thanks for the heads-up!!!

The manufacturing specs on the pro lens have remained the same since its inception. This should be considered an optional and advanced/extreme modification.

I think he was refering to the first "Pro" lens that LL offered over 2 years ago. It had problems and so it was recalled so to speak. Members who had bought it were offered a new Pro lens in exchange when the New Pro lens started shipping.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=87220

And to answer ricoks question. This is for the Newer Pro lens. Some of them have slight corner pincushioning problems, but not all of them have this problem.

I stand corrected. My bad for not picking up on the wording there.


I think all the "new" pros are essentially identical but some have taken exception to arguably minor anomalies which may be seen under certain usage conditions. The corrective measures are - again arguably - a tradeoff whereby one fixes some anomalies in exchange for others.

It's pretty much a consensus though that there IS an appeal to the image when the mod is performed.