I have been looking at the Plogs and can't decied where to start. Any suggestions on lcd monitors? I am thinking on either a 15" or 17" size. I plan on spending around 200 to 250. Are the Pro lenses making a huge difference in the quality of the picture. Most of the Plogs are using the S15 lenses. If i go with a 17" is it recomended I use the Pro lenses?

A 17" is going to give you higher resolution. But you will HAVE to buy the Pro lens unless you want dim and unfocused corners. The standard triplet is not quite large enough for a 17"

No-one is using the Pro lens yet because they just got shipped out this week. You'll start seeing results with them next week.

Ive used the standard triplet with great success. No less in focus then a 15"

Perhaps you have either not tried it, or did a poor job.

Hahhaha right.......

Sure I didn't try it or it was a poor job.

True the 17'' should have a higher resolution but you could just run the 17 inch with the standard lens kit and resize a bit with a program.

after all thats one of the benifits of running thru the computer.

To the point you dont HAVE to buy the pro lens to use a 17" monitor.

Good luck

Brian kc0kfg

You HAVE to if you want brighter and more focused corners when you run the 17" in it's native resolution.

Everyone here can argue till you're blue in the face but it's a fact.

Everyone that is using a 17" and a standard triplet are finding ways around the problem. With a Pro lens you don't have to cut corners or find a way around the problem. You can use a 17" the way it's meant to be used.

If your corners are not focused with a 17" and a standard triplet, your build is off.

Trust me, ive done it.

Why you would want to watch 4:3 is beyond me, but it is capable.

I dont mean to insult you, dim yes, unfocused? dead wrong





nav_lexy : i would also like to point out that you shouldnt assume a projecter appears in person as it does in images . the shutter speed of the camera, and camera used can greatly exaggerate brightness . Ill post an image from my projecter at a slow shutter speed

Click to view attachment

That is with a 15" LCD, and an n6

Some quality loss on jpeg compression.

It does not look that good in person.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment


Keep in mind, the white balance is making the whites appear perfect, in reality they are slightly off white.

Well I would love to see a pic of someones Desktop at 4:3 with a 17" and a standard LLtriplett and ALL 4 corners in focus.

I haven't seen one pic like that on this site yet.

If the living room and projecter are intact after tonights party, i will personally lower it down from the ceiling and get some shots.


Beers on me jonjandran

Click to view attachment

I hope you are right, but that means I had something wrong in my first setup, or my fresnels were warped.

yeah, any slight warp or misalignment will cause one or all corners to be different focus then the rest.

im not by any means saying its optimal, but its doable.

personally i will be switching to an opaque projecter lens (16:9 capable only, 4:3 will be blurry).

I do this not to protest the pro lens (im sure its an order of magnitude better), just because 200 to spend on this is a bit much. Its better spent elsewhere.

Well, I did manage to get the corners in focus. Horribly dim, yes. But in focus. I did that after my 15" panel met it's demise and I substituted a 17" panel in a standard lens projector. The fresenls in question were borrowed from (And subsequently returned to) an overhead projector with a large base. They were not the correct focal lengths, which is why the corners were so incredibly dim.

Or rather, to be more precise, what I managed to get was a focal solution where the center and all four corners were ACCEPTABLY focused, with the real sharp focus in a ringaround the mitddle. The center and corner were slightly blurred, with a ring around the image whih was in very sharp focus.

I went back to the standard fresnels and using PowerStrip to limit the used area on the projection for 2 reasons:

1. The throw was (IMO) unacceptably short and

2. The dim corners were jut too bad.

As to viewing material aspect ratio:

If I have a choice when renting or buying a movie, I always get widescreen. Some movies that I like I don't get that choice. It comes in 4:3, or not at all.

I like to play PC games on the projector. Driving games I particularly find fun. These are pretty much adapted for 4:3 viewing. Even if not, Powerstrip and the like doesn't work on 3D accellerated stuff, so it's going to display in 4:3 anyway, unless I use a widescreen panel. (This is still a distinct possibility for a Mark III projector.) Most cases, a widescreen panel just screws up the aspect ratio of the graphics on the screen anyway, which I would not find enjoyable for gaming. (Sure, you get used to it, but I'd rather not.)

So yes. I still see a use for the full 4:3 (or 5:4 in the case of a 17") desktop aspect ratio.

I like widescreen movies, because they show the whole frame, as it would be in the theater. I don't like the idea of part of the picture being cut off. For material that was intended to be presented in 4:3, which includes PC games, some classic movies, as well as many TV shows, I want to see it in 4:3, without stretching to fit a 16:9 screen. I use my projector for desktop stuff, too. Surfing the 'net, and the like. I want to do that with as much real-estate on my desktop as I can manage. That means using the whole panel, which means 5:4 aspect ratio.

I'm not just watching movies on this thing, so it's got to be as versatile as it can be. Get over your widescreen snobbery, some people actually DO have legitimate wants for fullscreen.

Edit: This is the image from my "Phoenix" PLOG where I had the full 17" panel up:

Most modern games support 16:9

Look at the xbox 360 for an example (pick up any game, they are all widescreen)

You can always watch a 4:3 movie in a box, inside the 16x9 area, like most hd tuners will auto format for you.

Snob , nice choice of words

I dig