A newbie here.

I am an owner of a 1280x720 HD LCD projector, so frankly speaking, I'm not that interested in a 15" XGA DIY design. I'm here for the 17" 1280x1024 resolution DIY projector.

I know someone would tell me that I could get some experience by building a 15" first. But considering the cost and time of building one, I might as well learn the experience of building a 17" design from scratch.

I've been reading a lot about the "pro-lens" on the forum, but the thing is that it is still not available. I'd really like to hear any update from Brainchild.

Thanks

i too am interested in the pro lens and awaiting an update
at this stage how far off can they be expected?

If you are that antsy about it, you can use the standard lenses for a 17" monitor. It just won't have as long of a throw as the PRO lenses (but will cost CONSIDERABLY less).

so your saying that a standard lens with a longer throwing fresnel will produce the same\similar results as the pro lens?
so the only advantage of the pro lens is the longer throw?
sorry if this topic has already been covered elsewhere, im just tryin to learn as much as possible as i really want to build a 17" widescreen version
thanks

Yes, as long as the LCD is as big as a 17" monitor or smaller, you can use a standard lens with 220mm and 330mm fresnels (you need bigger fresnel sizes than LL sells to fit the larger monitor surface). The only advantage of the PRO lenses is that they will supposedly work for larger monitors (up to 21") and they will have a longer throw. They will also cost A LOT more. Check out my PLOG, Matropolis PLOG, or Foe's PLOG for more info. (Using a 17" monitor will effectively allow you up to 720p High Def since the monitors are 1280x1024).

From what I've read isn't the FOV for the standard triplet is too small for a 17", which will lead to a blurry edged image?

This is same problem with the diyprojector 135mm triplet lense which has a fov of approx 25o, and is useless unless you modify it, even then you'll loose some brightness and its very difficult to get the lense set up correctly.
We'll have to wait till the matched fresnel and triplet comes out until we can properly construct a 17" projector.

So does anyone know when the triplet will be ready, Brain last posted a few weeks back?

Wow steve - Tell us how 'really' feel!!

We all understand your frustration, but you seem to be lashing out kinda harshly. especially since you don't KNOW why he maybe hasn't replied to you yet. remember too, that since this fiasco has happened to Brain, as well as us, he has been cautious to let information out that may be found to be wrong (like the pro fresnels being remade often)
I for one thank Brain for what he has done, and hope the trouble he has had and money invested in this project lost doesn't convince him to stop the innovation.

My 2 cents.................


Ricoks

Does this look blurry to you?? It doesn't look blurry to me. This was done with Matropolis' 17" monitor and a standard lens. Look at any of the 17" setups that are complete, and they all look amazing.

Yes, but that's a widescreen shot

Every other 17" TFT 4:3 ratio (with the unmodified 135mm or normal LL triplet) has blurry and/or dimly lit corner problems. That's why the new fresnel and triplet are in the works, to cope with the larger screens (and a longer throw).

The new lenses are being made to allow for a longer throw and larger than 17" LCDs. If you were to look at the PLOGs, you would see that someone (matropolis I believe) has a picture of the entire 4:3 monitor and everything looks clear and bright. Most of the time people will be watching widescreen movies anyways.

Does this pic look blurry/dark to you? Not to me. This is 4:3.





PS - This is on a GARAGE WALL. It probably wouldn't be hotspotting so bad if it was on a real screen.

umm if you are trying to say the corners are not darker than the middle then im sorry they are, big time.

Yep it certainly does look dark at the corners.

Moreover you can't say from that shot that the corners are in focus (they do look blurry). Show me a pic where someone has taken a discrete pic of the corners. You won't find a pic on this forum (or diyprojector or diyaudio for that matter) using the standard lenses and perfectly focused bright corners (I've looked ). The problems with using the current lenses are:
1. The 2 fresnels are too small to cover the full 17" TFT screen
2. The light cone travelling through the LCD doesn't project the full image onto the triplet.
3. The FOV for the standard triplet cannot accomodate the 17" diameter.

If you use larger fresnel lenses (3dlense/diyprojector company) the cone projected is too large for the triplet to handle. If you use a larger triplet (135 mm) it hasn't an adequate FOV and you'll get blurry edges. I've only sen one plog that comes close to getting a focused 17" and that uses a modified triplet:
http://www.diyprojectorcompany.com/phpBB2/...topic.php?t=381

As you said, the new lenses are being designed to accomodate both long throw and larger 17" screens.

Bring on the new lenses!

Edit:I've just read Matropolis is using the DIYPROJECTOR fresnels, and is getting light spillage as they're not matched to the triplet (which can't handle the 17" due to the ~80 mm aperture and small FOV)

First of all, I said they were being made to accomodate LARGER THAN 17" monitors. Second of all, will you be sitting two inches in front of the screen while watching a movie? NO, so you would never notice this. Foe and Matropolis have both stated that they can read text just fine in the corners of their projection. Third, the corners being dim is more a function of the reflector/bulb than of the lenses. It has yet to be proven that a larger lens would produce a brighter image. If you want a 720p (which is the standard in HD nowadays) a 17" LCD will work great, period. Enough said.

Corners will always be darker this is a limitation of point source illumination. The corners will be darker with both the standard triuplet and the PRO. The only way to even the light is to have the lamp further away from the LCD but that makes everything darker.

If you look at the projector maths, the normal triplet can't handle the 17" and it certainly can't handle it with the LL fresnsel, that's fact.

I dunno, we can see they're not in focus and bright at the edges from a 5" screen preview on the picture that's been posted, so I'm assuming that's gonna be worse the larger it gets!

Wrong, take a look at matropolis's log again and the image been projected at the triplet, alot of the light isn't hitting the centre of the triplet and is being lost around it. He even states that's a problem. That's why his corners are dim, the fresnel and the triplet are mismatched. It really has nothing at all to do with the bulb placement and reflector.

I don't get you point, matropolis is using larger diyprojector fresnels, not the smaller LL fresnels. These can't be properly matched with the current LL triplet (FOV + focal point issues). I never said a larger lense will give a brighter image, but you need larger lenses to cover the 17" screen, and you need a properly matched triplet (that's where the new triplet and fresnels come in)!

If you can show me a projector that has perfectly focused well lit edges using the standard fresnel lenses and standard triplet I'll take my hat off to you

Can you tell me your points one more time? I think I missed them again.

Anyways.

Everyone knows that Math DOES NOT EQUAL Real Life.

They look pretty damn in focus to me (everyone that is using the 17" says first hand that they look in focus - especially for widescreen movies.

All projectors are dimmer on the edges than the middle (15" and 17"). I will say ONCE AGAIN: It has yet to be proven that larger lenses will increase brightness in the corners.

The point is that you can use a 17" LCD (Is that too confusing?). Whether or not you have to use different fresnels is a MOOT point.

Show me someone who is unhappy with the clarity of their 17" projector, and maybe I will believe you that it doesn't work.

Corners don't focus and are dim with Foe's setup (Taken from his PLOG)





QED

"It's brighter than the PRO setup he had"

HMMMM, makes my point right there now doesn't he?

I really don't think you're reading my posts

LOL, I like your logic, it bodes well with what Mr. Staples has been saying over at diyprojector, and I'm glad Brain and the other members of this forum don't have this attitude.

Widescreen, yes widescreen.....

I never said a larger lense will work, a triplet with the correct FOV, fl and aperture which is matched to the fresnel will improve the results dramatically.

Not only do you need different fresnels, you need a different triplet for it to work, moot on that

See Foe's comments

Come back to the discussion when you fully understand why the 17" can't work with the current triplet.
1 FOV issue
2 Aperture size
3 Focal length of the triplet is not matched to the larger 3dlens/diy fresnels

Selective quoting out of context, that's why when you read the three posts I put up from his plog you see my point...

First of all, if you are going to attack me, then I have to get this off my chest. STOP MAKING IDIOTIC COMMENTS!

You don't need a different triplet (the standard one works just fine, ask Matropolis if you don't believe me). If YOU actually READ Foe's comments, then maybe you would see that he is happy with the results. He says that it is Extremely watchable.

A larger triplet might improve the results slightly, but I doubt it will improve them very much.

Widescreen, yes thats right, the new standard in TV and Movies.

I'm glad there are people like Matropolis (instead of people like you) who are willing to look past the specs and see that it really does work. ONCE AGAIN I WILL SAY, show me someone who is unhappy with their results. Come back when you have a good understanding of what DIY is all about.

woohoo, projector fight!

oh, and I am unhappy with my results. The corners are the most important things when you use it for a computer monitor. I cant see my start button, quick lauch, nor anything running over on the right hand side by my clock.

the only question I have is how good are your corners jmrguy. It just seems contradicting to say math is not reality, but at this point you do not have a projector. I will go ahead and let you post my reply as you have been posting for other people above.

back to the original point, can you build a projector with a 17 inch monitor using the standard lenses, sure. Are the parts designed to work at their best with a 17 inch monitor, no. Will they work, yes. Will they work good enough, depends on how picky you are. Is it ok to spend 300 dollars on a projector that is 90-95% the best it can be, or perhaps be patient, very patient, while the correct lenses are being fixed. It is a personal choice.

I had a working 15 inch projector with crystal clear focus all the way to the edges, with great lighting, and I chose to sell it hoping I could have the same only with better resolution. Right now I am not that happy with the picture, but I have seen that the patience will be worth getting 100%. Right now my 17 inch with blurry edges is about 80% of what my 15 inch with no problems was to me. Plus I have the advantage of not having my box 10 feet from the wall, sometimes in the field of view. I can mount my lens 14 feet from the wall and have a nice sized image.

"back to the original point, can you build a projector with a 17 inch monitor using the standard lenses, sure. Are the parts designed to work at their best with a 17 inch monitor, no. Will they work, yes. Will they work good enough, depends on how picky you are."


EXACTLY. That was my original point before "makey" started telling me it wouldn't work at all.

Look man take a chill pill, there’s no need to get so worked up and take it personal, I’m not trying to attack you nor have I said that the 17” won’t work at all. I’m sorry if my comment’s seem “Idiotic” to you but I’ve read enough now from the posts in LL, diyaudio, diyprojectorcompany and diybuildergroup to realise why the standard fresnels and standard triplet can’t work well for a 17” LCD.

What I’ve said (and I fear you’re just dismissing my point either because you don’t understand it or you choose not to believe it) is that there are severe issues with a 17” monitor and the standard lenses.

Let’s take this slowly one more time. The standard lenses are the LL fresnels and the lumenlab triplet. Their focal lengths are matched to provide an optimal setup. They work well with a 15” LCD. There is a slight dimming in a 4:3 setup at the edges (but in a well aligned system it’s hardly noticeable), but they are in focus.

Now let’s take a look at the 17” LCD situation:
1. If you use the standard LL fresnels and the 17” LCT, it will not work well because the fresnels are too small to cover the LCD and hence can’t focus the entire image on the triplet and you’ll have very blurry dim edges.
2. If you use the oversized lenses from 3dlens/diyprojector company (which is what Foe and Matropolis have done) then you’re not using the standard lenses, and they are not matched with the focal length of the triplet.
a. The image that’s being focused at the triplet is LARGER THAN THE APERTURE, which means the edges of you image is being projected outside of the triplet (and is always going to give you blurry edges and something much dimmer than the 15” setup).
3. Even hypothetically if you had the correct fresnel setup which matched the LL triplet, the field of view (FOV) of the standard LL triplet cannot accommodate a 17” image (you will get blurry darker corners). This is the same reason that the long throw 135mm triplet (which if 55mm bigger than the LL triplet!!!) that diyprojectorcompany can’t handle screens bigger than 13” (in an unmodified setup).
4. A larger triplet on it’s own is not the solution as the 135mm doesn’t work
a. You need a triplet which has a FOV large enough to accommodate a 17” image, which also has an aperture to let all of the light from the projecting fresnel pass and which has a matched focal length with the fresnel.
b. If you get a triplet that matches the above then you won’t have blurry corners, and they should be a good bit brighter.

The reason I’m posting here it to inform others that you can’t get perfect results with a 17” monitor and the LL triplet (even if you use the fresnels from 3dlens) FACT. If you’re happy just to watch widescreen movies then you’ll probably be satisfied, otherwise (if you have any media in 4:3 format or indeed play computer games) you won’t. If you don’t believe me read Foe’s plog and matropolis’s plog and check out the postings at diyaudio.com. You’re better off to wait till the pro triplet has its issues sorted (soon I hope Brain )

Thank you for confirming what I’ve eluded to foamcows.
If you’re so convinced it works jmrguy, put your money where you mouth is. I can see you’re preparing a 17” projector. Show me your images that are as good as a 15” setup, and I mean both focused and well lit in the corners and I will take back all the optical mathematical garble that I’ve been spewing.

If you want evidence that there's more problems:
Standard and pro triplet lense (with or without larger fresnels) = blurry edges
Dean 6199 http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=5131&st=20
"I have had the blurry edges in my projection since the beginning as other have with the 17" Pro optics. Movies are still very watchable but trying to do anyhing in Windows XP is painfull."

Foe http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=5643&st=20
Check out the blurred text on the corners in post 33
"The lighting is a little off and the focus isnt perfect but its so close that in movies theres absolutly no way to tell. Games (I.e WOW) are a little less forgiving as in game text can fade out a little on the corners but when I say this keep in mind Im being very objective and the picture is in my mind is more then acceptable"

Matropolis http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=3527&st=60
For the light spillage check out post 81
"There is definately alot of spillage around the triplet.....To me it just seems like at 1280X1024, is just pushes the light tunnel too far and blurs the corners when trying to correct for keystoneing"

Didnt this thread start out being about the PRoLens Updates ????
Highjackers..Most of this thread is off topic...(i really dont care)

So how about it Brain ?? Update ?

Holy smoke batman's,,,

i cant believe what I have been reading here,,,

1.. proof is in the eating of the pudding,, I have a 17",, everything, full standard lens set,, ( no offence intended,,, but most have no understanding of optics and how they work,, plus minimal construction skills and yet they get results THIS IS DIY... and yes my 4:3 corners are a tad bit darker and also a tad bit blurry,,, i could go into 16 paragraphs to explain why,, the light engine, the lens are stretched to the very upper limits of optical physics,,, but they work,, ((so bitching or denying what is or what isn't does help anyone, these forums at times can be frustraing getting the info you want,,, and its meant to be a kind of teamwork)) its all relative to the bucks thrown to achieving a perfect result,, the real solution is to come up with a design for a reflector,, this where it needs to be resolved

2.. i have built both a 15" standard lens set and a 17" and i wouldnt go back to a 15" in a pink fit, the clarity and focus and brightness is pretty damn good,,

3.. when you consider the lamp (arc size), the reflector ( a napkin holder or whatever ) and also the triplet, a professional variable zoom lens would cost you at least $5k + and these are not designed for a PJ,, its pretty amazing what results we get for the buck.. its all relative...

Amen!!

Now, to hijack this in a nother direction - elken2004, wont it be great when we are flying around in a vehicle of sorts like that look like voyager instead of cars......... give me a small personal aircraft like that (DIY would be awesome) and i'm a happy man!!!!!!!!!!!

Coming back to the (semi) original point again, I’d love to see elken2004 how far you’ve pushed the normal kit. I’ve tried normal lenses, diyprojectorcompany lenses and 3dlense with 1 17” lcd and I’m bitterly disappointed (I guess my posts don’t hide this ).
Anyway, if you could post the exact specs and distances of your setup that would be much appreciated,
Thanks again,

If you look thru my plog,, i have a fair amount on what i did,, but i will follow up with some more detail,,, i ahve been experimenting with some settings, ergo, thought i would leave some of the final measurements etc, only after had got optimum setup,,, also,, I will get a camera that is better than my 2.2 meg to take some decent shots of a 4:3 and 16:9 screens, so that they can speak for themselves
I set my benq71+e to a display format of 1200 x 900 centered leaving black borders around balance of LCD to be within standard frenzel set (oh the display is as good as full native 1280 x1024) ie windows is only using the 1200 x900 in native mode..
just on another point the closer the front frez and lcd panel are together,, the better the optical result on screen, but the tradeoff is loss of keystoning,,, how ever the are ways to get around that too,, a little awkward but angle the screen as well,,, we are used to a screen being pure vertical, but who says that has to be,, too much angle upsets our perspective, however I am a perfectionist and want perfection all over screen,, however I am happy with what I have so far,, the ideal would be a lens with at least 2:1 ratio, so we could put PJ behind viewers,, and perpendicular to screen ergo keystoning minimal,, keystoning is why focus goes out at edges, (simplistly put)

also most dont understand that physical centres rarely agree with aligned optical centres, hence the widely varing results we all get,,, so therefore the physical centres are where we start from,,, then minor aligns visually can increase dramatically the visible results, the slightest angle on frenzels can result in curved edges and or blurred,, focus is much more sensitive around edges, as they are the longest ray paths,, i think i put sort of right!!! heheh

I had a quick read over these posts. From what I gather theres debate over the quality of a pro setup. The catch is the first pro just plain sucked. It sucked to the point that using the 15" setup is actually better. Sure it has its own problems but compared to the pro it rocks.

Would a working PRO setup be better, of coarse it would. Image would be brighter and maintain focus from edge to edge. In the end I sympathise with people like steveh. We paid a premium amount for what we were sold as a premium product, then we got strung along for months to have it end with news updates seemingly a thing of the past.

The pro setup will be awesome if/when it works. In the meantime the 15" lenses with a 17" panel is THE best option as far as image quality is concerned. I have a friend who made a 15" setup and mine looks so much better then his due to the resolution. It makes the whole movie appear sharper including his advantage with lighting and focus. Anyone else who has been able to compare please comment.

Despite all the problems, I love my pro setup for watching tv and video/dvds.

Seems to me if your picture is past your lens then just resize the lcd screen. Not 800X600 , 1024X768 etc... but move the sides and the top in on your lcd settings. It might be a 16 inch screen or less but it should be small enough to view in a 4:3 format with no blurred edges.
catch my drift?

What steveh said!

Bump, update please!

I've just subscribed 30 minutes ago, got into here, reading these words and I feel like there is a scam going on or something. So what's going here guys ? Should I call up Mastercard and demand a refund for the membership ?

No. Everything is on the up and up. There is a pro lens under development and everyone is wanting an update on whey they will be ready. I have never had any issues with LL. Everything I have ordered has arrived promtly and in perfect working order.

Ok Thanks Brian, sorry I was scared for a few minutes.

Plus most camera's tend to make the edges look darker then they really are. I personally am just going to build a 17" pj with the standard triplet.

Yep your $20 was absolutely worth it. Best $20 I personally ever spent.

For everyone who doesn't read the NEWS, please read this:

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

Welcome back Brain, and thanks for the update. After reading the news, I must admit that without varifocal capabilities and witnessing the amazing results some others have had using the standard lens and larger fresnels with 17" displays... I might get this thing started early and not wait for the Pro Lens.

I'll have to think it over.

Thanks again for the update.

The new pro lens are supposed to allow for better keystoning if I'm not mistaken. Plus it's designed for larger than 17 inch lcd or tv's.
I'll probably wait.

Hey dude, thanks for the update and all the work on the pro lenses. Although I must ask, I know you don't have an ETA at the moment, but would you say they'll be ready sooner then later? Just trying to get somewhat of a time frame so I know whether or not to wait, like would you guess they'd come out this year, or perhaps Q1 06'?

Why anyone would use an LCD larger than 17" is beyond me... These things are big enough as it is without trying to increase their size. But as I always say... to each his own.

The samples won't be ready until the end of September (read the news). If the samples perform well we can expect at least another 6 weeks, but I can't say for sure.

Approx. what will this lens cost? I think I saw something like $200.00?

Shouldn't fixed FL lens cost less than Vari ? I don't get why the newer lens should cost higher if it is fixed FL ?

Brain said before that it woudl probably cost more, better materials and a more reliable manufacturer. All this stuff is custom and relatively low volume so you can't get the deals that a Sony gets when they order a million of something.