Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Diy Anamorphic Lens
Lumenlab > LLAVS: Lumenlab AVS > Projector Builder > DIY Video Projector Design
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
p_su
*edit* Kancerus pointed out that not everybody knows what an anamorphic lens is even for - and I forgot to explain myself enough. oops. smile.gif
Anamorphic Lenses - What they do & Why they're cool:
An anamorphic lens will stretch the picture either by compressing the height (vertical compression, VC), or by extending the picture width (horizontal expansion, HE). For the type we're concerned with, you need two triangular prisms of sufficient size that are placed in front of the triplet. The same two prisms can be configured for HE or VC depending on how they're set up in relation to the projector. The prismasonic page does a fantastic job of explaining how the lenses work for different types of panels.
The following is a short and dirty version of the explanation from the link - if you don't feel like checking it out (but you really should).
This is a 4:3 panel, with a widescreen image being displayed. The black bars take up 33% of the panel, and represent wasted resolution and brightness, as they aren't contributing to the output of the projector.

The image is then stretched, easy to do via computer, and now the full panel is being used - you regain the lost brightness and resolution. But now everyone is too tall- the geometry of the picture is not correct.

The anamorphic lens then modifies the picture to restore the correct geometry. This can be done either by vertically compressing the picture with the lens, or by expanding it horizontally. If you use VC, the picture width stays the same. If you use HE you get a larger picture than you would without the lens.


The net result is an increase in available resolution for watching widescreen material, and also an increase in brightness. These lenses are useful for those with widescreen projectors as well - check out the above link. And who doesn't want a higher resolution and brighter projection with the addition of only two external lenses and a software tweak or two?


*start of original post*
I have been looking into a solution to use the extra resolution available on my LCD for widescreen movies. The idea is that you use the full panel for the movie- stretching the image vertically (so everyone looks tall). The lenses then compress the output of the triplet back down to the correct image height. The benefit is that the resolution and brightness which would otherwise be wasted displaying black bars are now used to make the image.
Here is a sketchup model demonstrating this. The yellow is the lightpath from the full panel, and the red is the same light compressed by the prisms. (not to scale- for illustration purposes only biggrin.gif)

DIY anamorphic lenses are not exactly a new idea, but applying them to the DIY projector is a little harder than on a commercial unit - which is what has been done. Due to the size of the triplets that we use, the prisms to compress the image must also be quite large. A huge thread can be found here, detailing some of the progress others have made here. I used some info I found on that page to construct two prisms. They found that two 10 degree prisms are sufficient to compress the image. The prisms need to be filled with some clear material - they had used water or mineral oil. As there seemed no discernible difference in quality, I went with water, as it is much cheaper (free). I made my prisms from picture frame glass, and a cutting board (well, 2 actually). The people from that thread are now using optic crystal wedges- unfortunately, the wedges are much too small to be used on our projectors.

The glass might be sourced from a glass shop or building supply for cheaper, but Micheals had a 35% off sale, so the price was right. Plus all my glass was exactly the same size.

The cutting board was the only material I could think of that was pretty easily machinable, thick enough to cut grooves into (~5/8"), and plastic. Plus, at $7 they're not too pricey. You can see the groves cut, I used a dremel with a collar attachment to get an even height. I cut the cutting board with a hand held wood saw very easily.
p_su
Here is a test fit of the parts - so far so good. I used a tap to make a threaded hole in the back plate of the prism. I used a few plumbing parts so I would be able to easily cap it off. I wanted to have a metal to metal contact, and save the cutting board from any damage, so I didn't put a plug directly into it and used a threaded nipple (that's what their called- so no smart comments smile.gif ).

And here is a pic of an assembled prism.

I used the silicone to seal all around the glass, around the fill hole, and also the seams between the cutting board pieces. The plastic epoxy was also used for the plastic board to board joint (probably excessive- but I didn't want a lot of water on my floor).
This is a shot of my gross looking test setup. A tv tray and some bricks turned out to be just about the right height.

There is only one prism- it's the second one I assembled. The first one had a leak in it (which is the reason for the towel in the above pic dry.gif )- so I cut out the silicone and re-applied. 24 hours from now I'll refill it and hopefully have better luck.
This is a pic showing the light going through the prism- it needs to be angled a bit more- so there isn't too much area not taken up by the lightpath. There are some bubbles on the glass inside the prism- those eventually detached themselves and it cleared up.

If you look closely, the LL forums are up on the monitor behind the prism smile.gif
p_su
And finally - here are some shots of what this thing actually does. Keep in mind- I only have one prism for these pics - but it is enough of a proof of concept to keep me going. I set a test pattern as the desktop- which is a 2.35:1 aspect ratio pattern stretched.

The pic isn't horribly clear- but you can see that the circles are less ovoid in the right hand pic. The room lights were on, and there was a 55" TV which splashed the right side of the screen, hence the reddish glow. I used photoshop to pull up the contrast a bit to make the lines more visible- but no geometry was changed.
The pic below has the angled prism halfway over the triplet. I increased the angle of the prism so that the difference in geometry is more apparent. The left side is the one with the prism over it. This pic was not photoshopped at all, asside from some levels adjustments.

The prism seemed to offset the image vertically (in addition to the compression)- but I think that will be compensated for by the second prism. I'll continue testing more once the silicone on the leaky prism cures, and I have both of them to work with again.
DAZZZLA
Good to see someone playing around with anamorphic, something that I’ve had on my list of things to do for a long time.
The vertical offset could be considered a good thing, not as much keystone correction would be necessary.

DJ
cromaclearcrt
Nice Work ! smile.gif
sfij
Nice work and interesting experiment, however i don't know wether it's useful so much. Lets's consider the DVD's CCIR 601 image, what is 720x480 or 720x576. When it's projected with the default 4:3 DAR then the DVD gives you 540 lines of resolution. But if your DVD is anamorphic, i.e. the image has 16:9 DAR then resolution drops to 405 lines.
danielmramos
You know I am sure that I have seen commercial projectors that used anamorphic lenses to qualify as widescreen with full resolution specs. As I recall the lenses were pretty expensive; however, I know that it can be done. The technology is proven; however, the price will be the limiting factor. I wish you all the luck in overcoming the monetary hurtle.
danielmramos
I did a little research and found that NEC was the company that used such lenses. The HT100 was one such model. You will find that the lens itself is ~>$500 from what I have seen. I wonder if there is a vendor source for lenses that will do the job that would sell them for less, since they are not mounted? Anyway, at least you know it has been commercialized in the past.
danielmramos
Check out this article from projectorcentral.com :

http://www.projectorcentral.com/schneider_..._anamorphic.htm

It is about an anamorphic lens from Schneider optics. The one thing to notice when you read the article is the price. YIKES!
p_su
It's true- the commercial units are certainly very expensive. They are also using anti-reflection coated optics, which are corrected for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion. My water and glass don't have any of those properties smile.gif
The hurdle now is just the size of the prisms. A commercial PJ has a triplet with maybe a 2-3" diameter- and a very narrow initial lightpath. My triplet has a 5.25" diameter- and monstrous lightpath to go with it.
I am trying for a vertical compression. The same prisms oriented differently can do a horizontal expansion. Check out this link at the prismasonic website. They use two solid prisms (as opposed to liquid filled) to achieve the same goal. Those with widescreen native projectors can also benefit. The most exciting bit is probably the very bottom section "2.37:1 setup (2.37:1 screen, 16:9 projector + anamorphic lens)" Constant image height projection is very cool. But since it was cheaper to get a 4:3 panel.... guess I missed out on that one.

sfij - you make a good point about the limited resolution of the DVD format. I am using a HTPC to drive my projector, and so can digitally scale to any resolution. I do realize I am not actually gaining any detail since my panel is 1280x1024 and can accommodate the 720x480 within that easily. I am hoping to gain a bit in brightness - hopefully using an extra 1/3 of the panel will more than offset losses from passing through the prisms. Also the pixel structure will be compressed vertically, and diminish the very minor screendoor effect. Granted, that isn't visible from my seating location (at least, not until my new contacts arrive biggrin.gif)

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I do have an extra 304 vertical pixels to put to use... and if this does work - we will all have more options to use our projectors.
tenzip
I didn't see you mention it anywhere, but I hope you're using distilled water? Otherwise, you'll be seeing things you're not projecting at some point.

Very cool, by the way.
p_su
QUOTE (tenzip @ Feb 7 2007, 02:33 PM) *
I didn't see you mention it anywhere, but I hope you're using distilled water? Otherwise, you'll be seeing things you're not projecting at some point.

Very cool, by the way.


Well, I wasn't planning on drinking it anyway, if that's what you're worried about biggrin.gif
Thanks for the advice tho- I was planning on adding a drop or two of bleach to the water... keep everything in there as dead as possible. Cleaning algae out of a prism isn't my idea of fun either. I don't suppose anyone knows if bleach is bad for silicone sealant....?
lightlinked
isn't there some kind of special oil for liquid filled prisms?
if you make it all acrylic and solvent weld it, it will be waterproof and easier to put together
victor-eyd
Another less messy method is using trophy crystals. Very affordable and many have had great success in using them. Here's a primer:

http://www.zuggsoft.com/theater/prism.htm




The story begins here...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread....9813#post989813

Victor
p_su
QUOTE
isn't there some kind of special oil for liquid filled prisms?
if you make it all acrylic and solvent weld it, it will be waterproof and easier to put together

Some of the earlier designs used mineral oil - however water seems to work as well.
The acrylic idea is excellent. If I make another set I will certainly look more closely into the local price of acrylic - the sheets I saw were not thick enough to stay flat (~1/16").

Victor - I would happily use the trophy crystals - however the dimensions of the light exiting my projection lens are quite large - I would require crystals that were similar in dimension to my DIY prisms. I did look around, and was unable to find trophy crystals that were large enough dry.gif The are crystals are an excellent option for those with commercial projectors - and perhaps those using the standard LL triplet (if it is small enough).
arizonavideo
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 8 2007, 12:54 AM) *
Some of the earlier designs used mineral oil - however water seems to work as well.
The acrylic idea is excellent. If I make another set I will certainly look more closely into the local price of acrylic - the sheets I saw were not thick enough to stay flat (~1/16").

Victor - I would happily use the trophy crystals - however the dimensions of the light exiting my projection lens are quite large - I would require crystals that were similar in dimension to my DIY prisms. I did look around, and was unable to find trophy crystals that were large enough dry.gif The are crystals are an excellent option for those with commercial projectors - and perhaps those using the standard LL triplet (if it is small enough).



Couldn’t you place one prism on each side of the triplet?

I just zoom in the player a little to help fill the frame. Most movies Have been shot to fit the 4/3 TV screen anyhow but with HD becoming more standard they will start framing things more for wide screen.


Great job, Its nice to see some one do some experimenting and explain it in English. blink.gif
victor-eyd
The anamorphic lens I believe would be a great alternative to external scalers or htpc, especially when using hdtv, since most of the lcds we use (especially the 15" variety) cannot scale anamorphic hd signals, and as a result we get the squashed image look when displaying. The diy anamorphic lens solves this and at the same time utilizes all of the available pixels of the display, meaning no black bars when displaying 16:9 images.

p_su,

How big does the prism need to be for the pro lens? Judging by your design it seems the largest prism available (6"x7.5") might still be too small..

Victor
danielmramos
QUOTE (victor-eyd @ Feb 8 2007, 02:19 AM) *
Another less messy method is using trophy crystals. Very affordable and many have had great success in using them. Here's a primer:

http://www.zuggsoft.com/theater/prism.htm


The story begins here...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread....9813#post989813

Victor


Wow, that zuggsoft site seems to give all of the pertinent information an a diy anamorphic lens. I say go with their system.
p_su
AV - while I don't claim to be an expert by any means, I think that two prisms are necessary to help correct some of the chromatic aberration which is caused by the first prism. All of the DIY efforts, as well as the commercial units use two prisms.

Victor- I have measured the light output 6" from my triplet lens - it is a rectangle (almost ovoid) which is ~7.5" tall and 10" wide. So I"m afraid that even the largest crystal wedge will be too small. sad.gif

danielmramos - If you have a commercial projector - or your the dimension of the light coming from your PJ at 6" or so from the triplet is smaller than 6"x7.5" then the crystal wedges are the best option. For many DIY PJs, we have a much larger cone of light - so we are not able to use the crystal prisms that are featured on the zuggsoft site. They would cut off a lot of our picture and/or reduce brightness significantly.
Mark Techer
Awesome work p_su smile.gif Man, they are some BIG prisms...

Great to see that you were able to do this biggrin.gif

Just in in case anyone is interested, I have provided a link to my site showing what is now known around the world as the "Aussiemorphic Lens"...

Mark
BoomerBrian
There was a guy over at avsforum that made his own. I believe he posted the plans. I can't remember the thread but it may be worth checking out.
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 10 2007, 10:20 AM) *
AV - while I don't claim to be an expert by any means, I think that two prisms are necessary to help correct some of the chromatic aberration which is caused by the first prism. All of the DIY efforts, as well as the commercial units use two prisms.


Correct. The first prism breaks the light and the second reforms it. If the prisms were aligned to form a "pass through", there is no CA, but to do anamorphic strech or compression, the prisms must be "staggered" and the second prism can not fully reform the light as the angles change. As a result, some CA is present...

Mark
p_su
BoomerBrian - I think the person you are thinking of is Mark - see the posts above and below you smile.gif
The diyaudio thread was originally started to replace one at avsforum that was deleted (perhaps mod action over there?). Mark is one of the main contributors - and the reason that I am currently trying to apply the same ideas to our DIY projectors.

Mark - Thanks again for your work on the DIY anamorphic prisms. Hopefully I'll be able to approach the results that the crystal prisms can produce. I'm going to try to find some time to play with them this weekend... with some luck I'll have some screenshots and such posted in the next few days.
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 11 2007, 08:25 AM) *
BoomerBrian - I think the person you are thinking of is Mark - see the posts above and below you smile.gif
The diyaudio thread was originally started to replace one at avsforum that was deleted (perhaps mod action over there?). Mark is one of the main contributors - and the reason that I am currently trying to apply the same ideas to our DIY projectors.

Mark - Thanks again for your work on the DIY anamorphic prisms. Hopefully I'll be able to approach the results that the crystal prisms can produce. I'm going to try to find some time to play with them this weekend... with some luck I'll have some screenshots and such posted in the next few days.


Your more than welcome P_su smile.gif

I'm looking forward to seeing them. I tried to take some screen shots tonight with my FinePix S5600 using the RAW mode. You get just 24 frames to the memory card that can hold 200 High rez JPEGs. The files are stored as "RAF" which I could not open sad.gif

Looking on the LCD viewer, and there was no noise what so ever, so would have been real good to see how good the prisms actually work...

Mark
p_su
I have some good news and some bad. It appears that it will be possible to use prisms for DIY projectors. The bad news is that my current huge prisms may be too small biggrin.gif
I think that my front prism may be too large, and the second too small. The problem is that when the first prism is titled enough to compress the picture, the bottom of the second prism is about 5" away from the triplet- and the top is nearer to 8" away. The top of the second prism is cutting off the image and causing a double-image of compressed and non-compressed test pattern on the screen.
If the first prism were smaller - I would be able to tilt it the same amount, but it wouldn't displace the second prism as far. I took some measurements of the light from the triplet. at 6.5" away the dimensions are 9.5"W x 8"H. At 11.5" away the light is 11.5"W x 10"H. The other drawback to my current prism design is that the edges extend beyond the face of the prism- and the prisms need to be almost touching at the bottom.
This is the current setup- the two rectangles are where I measured the light path - the cone of light is extrapolated from those two measurements. Everything pictured is to scale.




As suggested previously, the next prisms will be made of acrylic, and bonded together (hopefully). Perhaps this will make leak-proof prisms a little easier to construct. So far the thickest available locally is .1" - which will probably bend if it was used for large prisms- and the faces need to stay flat. Still need to check around a local building supplier to see what they carry. Otherwise an order in with McMaster will probably be coming up shortly...

Mark - I found this thread on the RAF file format.... not sure if you're a photoshop user- but if you are then you're probably in luck. Forum link.
DAZZZLA
P-su, have you tried mounting the first prism before the triplet and the second in front?
It wound be interesting to know if it adversely affects the image

DJ
p_su
Dazz - That is an interesting idea. I thought about that myself, but my current prisms are too large to fit in front of the triplet with the fs mirror in there too. I was thinking that if the acrylic ones go together easily, I might make a small one to test that out. If it works that'd be very convenient - but i've no idea if passage through the triplet would throw things off. One way to find out I suppose.

I found some scrap bits of plexiglass at a local store for $3 a bundle. Each bundle weighs several pounds each - all extra cutoff pieces. Should be large enough for the backs and sides of my prisms... now I only have to find the larger pieces for the faces.
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 12 2007, 05:35 PM) *
Dazz - That is an interesting idea. I thought about that myself, but my current prisms are too large to fit in front of the triplet with the fs mirror in there too. I was thinking that if the acrylic ones go together easily, I might make a small one to test that out. If it works that'd be very convenient - but i've no idea if passage through the triplet would throw things off. One way to find out I suppose.

I found some scrap bits of plexiglass at a local store for $3 a bundle. Each bundle weighs several pounds each - all extra cutoff pieces. Should be large enough for the backs and sides of my prisms... now I only have to find the larger pieces for the faces.


I would be concerned about focus if you place an anamorphic element behind the primary lens. There was guy attempting to place a small pair behind the lens of his DLP projector some years back. Not sure how that panned out for him though...

Mark
EdZ
Question: Would using a cylindrical lens cause greater chromatic abberations than the prism (I know the prism only really causes abberations at the edges)? Using a cylindrical lens would probably be a lot more compact.
Mark Techer
QUOTE (EdZ @ Feb 24 2007, 03:54 AM) *
Question: Would using a cylindrical lens cause greater chromatic abberations than the prism (I know the prism only really causes abberations at the edges)? Using a cylindrical lens would probably be a lot more compact.


If it were possible to get the right curvature for each element, yes, a cylindrical lens would allow a more compact design. If the lens has two elements, then I would have to assume that the CA would be around the same as the prisms based lens. The difference would be more unifirom across the the image...

Mark
p_su
Are there any formulas around for calculating the required lenses? Could they be built in a similar way to the water prisms? If thin enough lexan was used, then it could be bent into a curve (provided it was not too extreme) and filled with water. I'd imagine that the cylindrical lenes themselves would still be fairly large- as they would need to capture all of the light exiting the triplet.

Mark - Have you experimented on any other angles for water prisms other than the 10deg that you used? I was thinking that since my prisms were so large, if I could use a smaller angle and still achieve the necessary compression - that would same some weight and volume. How does the angle of the prism affect the properties of the lens?
DAZZZLA
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 24 2007, 12:34 PM) *
Are there any formulas around for calculating the required lenses? Could they be built in a similar way to the water prisms? If thin enough lexan was used, then it could be bent into a curve (provided it was not too extreme) and filled with water. I'd imagine that the cylindrical lenes themselves would still be fairly large- as they would need to capture all of the light exiting the triplet.

Mark - Have you experimented on any other angles for water prisms other than the 10deg that you used? I was thinking that since my prisms were so large, if I could use a smaller angle and still achieve the necessary compression - that would same some weight and volume. How does the angle of the prism affect the properties of the lens?

Like this one?
Click to view attachment
I made this to experiment with pre-condensers. I also put it in front and behind the triplet to see what it would do. It did change the shape of the image but it was unfocused. I think it changed the FL of the triplet but it was only a quick test.

DJ
p_su
Dazz - yep that's just what I was thinking of. Is it possible that a second lens could correct for some of the focus issues? I noticed that with 1 or 2 prisms in place, it was necessary to refocus my projector to make the image clear again. Makes me glad I planned for 4" of travel on my focus mech smile.gif
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 24 2007, 11:34 AM) *
Mark - Have you experimented on any other angles for water prisms other than the 10deg that you used? I was thinking that since my prisms were so large, if I could use a smaller angle and still achieve the necessary compression - that would same some weight and volume. How does the angle of the prism affect the properties of the lens?


My original water prisms were 30 degrees and made from Perspex. The second type was the same 30 degree prisms with a divider in each to form a 4 prisms lens. I don't know now it was really that much of an improvment, as I ended up going back to the two 30 degree prisms. The optic crystal prism I am using today are about 14.5 degrees each...

Mark
Mark Techer
QUOTE (DAZZZLA @ Feb 24 2007, 02:02 PM) *
Like this one?
Click to view attachment
I made this to experiment with pre-condensers. I also put it in front and behind the triplet to see what it would do. It did change the shape of the image but it was unfocused. I think it changed the FL of the triplet but it was only a quick test.

DJ


That looks interesting. Do you have the "concave" element as well?

Mark
DAZZZLA
QUOTE (Mark Techer @ Feb 26 2007, 12:28 AM) *
That looks interesting. Do you have the "concave" element as well?

Mark

No I only made it to test if there was much of an increase in lumens by changing the 1:1 ratio light pattern from a pre-condenser to a 4:3 or 16:9.
I don’t see the reason for using a concave lenses like this unless it was to reduce CA. But then it becomes very complicated, you need to make the lenses from different materials.

DJ
Mark Techer
QUOTE (DAZZZLA @ Feb 26 2007, 12:03 AM) *
No I only made it to test if there was much of an increase in lumens by changing the 1:1 ratio light pattern from a pre-condenser to a 4:3 or 16:9.
I don’t see the reason for using a concave lenses like this unless it was to reduce CA. But then it becomes very complicated, you need to make the lenses from different materials.

DJ


I was doing some research tonight and it looks like it is to both correct for CA and focus. The two elements can be spaced to correct focus, were it seems that spacing prisms does not change the focus of the image. CA is corrected by the second element (much like the second prism)

Have a look HERE to see the two elements used.

I have a commercial 16mm cylindrical lens that when you turn the "focus" ring, changes the length of the unit as it alters the distance between the front and rear elements.

How did you work out the radius of the curve?

Mark
DAZZZLA
QUOTE (Mark Techer @ Feb 26 2007, 01:23 AM) *
How did you work out the radius of the curve?

A scientific guess. biggrin.gif
p_su
hmm... it seems that perhaps it is time for me to go out to the garage and try to find my old physics text books... need to brush up on my basic optics. smile.gif

Dazz - I assume that your test didn't show any significant improvement over a standard condenser? Were there any positive aspects, or did it just end up being a good idea to try?

Mark - check out this link. In it they suggest curving the surfaces of the prisms to compensate for focus and CA issues. Some interesting reading. They also suggest using a 3rd prism in order to increase the amount of stretch (or compression) that the prism set can produce. It would be great to be able to optically compress anything from 1.85:1 material to 2.40:1. As it stands, I can only compress about 1/3 from a prism pair - which means I would still have black bars for anything more narrow than 1.85:1.
DAZZZLA
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 26 2007, 07:49 AM) *
Dazz - I assume that your test didn't show any significant improvement over a standard condenser? Were there any positive aspects, or did it just end up being a good idea to try?

Using a pre-con and the cylinder lens isn’t very efficient. The extra surfaces negate the gains for a 4:3 but if a 16:9 LCD was used it may have some gain. The best lens would be if the separate lenses could be combined into one lens to use as the pre-con, eliminating the extra surfaces

DJ
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 26 2007, 06:49 AM) *
hmm... it seems that perhaps it is time for me to go out to the garage and try to find my old physics text books... need to brush up on my basic optics. smile.gif

Dazz - I assume that your test didn't show any significant improvement over a standard condenser? Were there any positive aspects, or did it just end up being a good idea to try?

Mark - check out this link. In it they suggest curving the surfaces of the prisms to compensate for focus and CA issues. Some interesting reading. They also suggest using a 3rd prism in order to increase the amount of stretch (or compression) that the prism set can produce. It would be great to be able to optically compress anything from 1.85:1 material to 2.40:1. As it stands, I can only compress about 1/3 from a prism pair - which means I would still have black bars for anything more narrow than 1.85:1.


I have seen part of the before. The curved element is interesting. Prismasonic have just released their version which add a 5th element (which they call the TFE) which is a curved glass front element. Is is said to reduce the optical distortions that occur with HE lenses as the image pans...

Dazza, I still think you needed a second element to make the image clear. Try looking through a bottle of water - good optic stretch, but lots of CA...

Mark
DAZZZLA
QUOTE (Mark Techer @ Feb 27 2007, 12:38 AM) *
Dazza, I still think you needed a second element to make the image clear. Try looking through a bottle of water - good optic stretch, but lots of CA...

Mark

My original intent was for light collection at the lamp end of the projector. I only put it at the triplet end out of curiosity. The extra concave lens probably would have fixed some things I was seeing but as of yet I have taken that idea any further.

DJ
Mark Techer
QUOTE (DAZZZLA @ Feb 27 2007, 12:54 AM) *
My original intent was for light collection at the lamp end of the projector. I only put it at the triplet end out of curiosity. The extra concave lens probably would have fixed some things I was seeing but as of yet I have taken that idea any further.

DJ


I wonder if it is worth further investigation?

Mark
arizonavideo
Surplus Shed has some small prisms that might work for the standard triplet. They are cheep.

http://cgi.ebay.com/OPTICAL-WEDGE-PRISM-AN...emZ120090902852
Mark Techer
QUOTE (arizonavideo @ Feb 27 2007, 03:19 AM) *
Surplus Shed has some small prisms that might work for the standard triplet. They are cheep.

http://cgi.ebay.com/OPTICAL-WEDGE-PRISM-AN...emZ120090902852

Yeah but they are tiny. They might be OK as the rear element of a DIY lens for HT with a really long throw, but not the front element...

Mark
p_su
AV - if the light cone form the standard LL triplet is small enough - it may be possible to use the optic crystal wedges that were found on the other forum's site. They can be found on this site - you need to make sure that they aren't engraved smile.gif
Mark Techer
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 28 2007, 06:07 PM) *
AV - if the light cone form the standard LL triplet is small enough - it may be possible to use the optic crystal wedges that were found on the other forum's site. They can be found on this site - you need to make sure that they aren't engraved smile.gif


Possibly if placed before (behind the prisms lens) of your projector. The prisms would apply the optical distotion that you require, then your primary lens would focus the new image on to your screen...Might be worth a try...

Mark
arizonavideo
QUOTE (p_su @ Feb 28 2007, 12:07 AM) *
AV - if the light cone form the standard LL triplet is small enough - it may be possible to use the optic crystal wedges that were found on the other forum's site. They can be found on this site - you need to make sure that they aren't engraved smile.gif



You have been making me look at the 2.35 wide screen format with a Anamorphic Lens. There is a fair amount of light gain to be had too.

Link.

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

Did you see the 6" x 7.5" prisms for $64.00?

The small prisms might work on the lamp side between the condenser lens and lamp if you have a small low heat lamp like the ceramic?
Mark Techer
QUOTE (arizonavideo @ Mar 1 2007, 04:49 AM) *
You have been making me look at the 2.35 wide screen format with a Anamorphic Lens. There is a fair amount of light gain to be had too.

Link.

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

Did you see the 6" x 7.5" prisms for $64.00?

The small prisms might work on the lamp side between the condenser lens and lamp if you have a small low heat lamp like the ceramic?

And more HERE on CIH using an anamorphic lens...

Mark
p_su
AV - I think that the prisms would need to go after the LCD (I'm assuming that you meant before LCD when you say 'lamp side'). If the light is compressed prior to the LCD - you might be increasing brightness by focusing light on the part of the LCD that is active - but you're sacrificing the resolution that's wasted by displaying black bars. If the prisms are inserted after the LCD- the full panel can be utilized and the resulting image compressed to the correct aspect ratio prior to the triplet. And that's assuming that works prior to the triplet smile.gif

You might recognize the test pattern from my earlier screenshots posted here... it's the one from Mark's link. biggrin.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.