135mm long-throw lense kit from diylabs

[Me2!]

Rox,

You better think abou this. Saying that all these people are covering up to protect sales or whatever reason is basically slander. For the guys with businesses you are accusing them of fraud. What is your proof?

I dont think you meant it like that but that is the way it reads to everyone else. Please consider how to be constructive in your posts.

[ace3000_1]

but I still think that it will be only an approximation of the actual full spectrum FOV

Exactly Hezz, (good to see you btw) thats all it was, a 5 min test .

A rule i commonly follow is if you can, try to have the FOV you need half of what the lens has in its specs, i do the same with arperature, that way your know your fine and will get the best possible image out of the lens in our type of setups.

To me, large panels are more of a pain then anything, thats why i dont bother with them, 7inch is still to big to me.

Trev

[ace3000_1]

Well incredibly no body knew it.

Everybody knows the feild of veiw that they need when they draw a plan, its upto the manufacturer or supplier to supply the specs of the lens. If you are on a budget and dont want to risk buying a lens that wont work, dont buy it.

But there is people havving succes somehow, well, i asked them for photos (i started a thread as well where i challenge them to post results, but no replys yet) i have contacted with people but they only tell me it works, no photos as JCB told me.

Yep, thats typical, i dont have photos simply because id rather spend my money on others things then a cam to just show screen shots, other then that im broke from buying all of the optics ive tested over the last 2 years!!!

Last year i made over 32 setups of others designs to prove a point i was courious about. I made the setups with the exact same spacings and parts, guess what? the screen shots you see in here are not the same as reality (not all), most are brighter from having the cam over exsposed to light. Now while that was my findings, im not going to go out and say who it was who was lying, and blame the actual person, because at times cameras have CCd's more sensitive to others at different wavelengths of light, so i cant go just blaming the person.

However, weather the person lies or not, we all should still praise the work and effort they have put into their project. Weather another member makes a clone of the project and isnt happy with the results as what was seen in the pic, honestly, thats not my problem, and the truth comes out in the end.

Then the informaiton provided by them is confussing, things do not macth at all (astaples for instance says that 5,5" bulb placemnt betewwn rear fresnell and bulb works fine with 17" lcd; thats not posible)

Thats possible, but the image must be messed in reality. How can the light be going through the lcd paralelle if the source is short of the rear frensels focal? thats impossible lol and will yeald a blury fuzzy image.

A rule i follow is ALWAYS work from the light source back to the projection lens, never the otherway or it simply wont work right.

I think the design on the paper can be very accurate, if you design it very carefully taking on acount all as posible elemnts, i don´t undrestand why shouldnt it be close to reallity (in fact hats the functionallity of the specs, they are defined in by some parameters so we can use them on paper, don´t you think so?).

Thats right, i always work to a plan on paper, the only ajustments should only be in mm's and on the mirrors (if using them), no way cm's . As you said, providing its planned out right.

Trev

[ace3000_1]

You better think abou this. Saying that all these people are covering up to protect sales or whatever reason is basically slander. For the guys with businesses you are accusing them of fraud. What is your proof?

I have proof of a certain company in my email that i saved.......... but your right, slander and acusations do not belong in here.

People who lie and rip others off get caught out sooner or later, reputation is also a very powerful thing .

Trev

[Rox]

I don´t tried to give bad reputation to anybody, just found some information non sense from them, also was tested by 3rd person and the expected imabe was as i predicted. (hot spot in the midle and black image on a lcd out of 3" circle at the midle, his is because the bulb placement was too close to the rear fresnell, the light was divergent on the output so only the central part was hiiting the triplet; the conbined focal of 330/330 is 6,5" so if you place the bulb at 6,5" the light would be parallel teorically, thats alredy a wrong setup cos only the 130mm circle will enter the triplet. Now if you go closer 5,5" then the light would be diverging and less area of the lcd would enter the triplet, you got it?

about the field angle, i just knew the field angle required by my setup and just wonder if the lens that are available had same or more that angle. Found a dissgusting field angle on the 135 lens case.

Sometimes, the specs of a item told by the seller aren´t full specs and its hard to find them (on ebay, you can find lot of TFT with lot of imformation from the manufacturer for instance but most of it non interesting information, you can read full page of specs but the response time could be missing for instance, then if you have luck and search the exact model number/panel number or wharever, maybe you can get to a disgusting response time (50ms), thats the reason why the seller didn´t write down with rest of imformation. I wonder if it is the same case with the 135 lens field angle.

but for me the best prove is that nobody takes the my challenge.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Hezz
It is possible that this 135 mm triplet is a copy of an old design meant for old curved CRT projection. If that is the case it might be wise to check the MSN DIY TV projection forum and see if anyone is using this lens with similar problems.

Hezz

forgot to mention, this 135 lens was oriinally designed for OPAQUE PROJECTORS.

I posted full specs on a thread somewhere.

[ace3000_1]

Now if you go closer 5,5" then the light would be diverging and less area of the lcd would enter the triplet, you got it?

I know that Rox, tell me somthing new lol.

Trev

[Me2!]

I don´t tried to give bad reputation to anybody, just found some information non sense from them, also was tested by 3rd person and the expected imabe was as i predicted.

Like i said, im sure that was not your intent and im sure the English is part of the issue.

You found they made a mistake? Found ongoing incompetence? Found they intensionaly mislead their customers? These are all very different but it is hard to tell which you mean from your post.

I also am not sure what you mean by disgusting field angle. I could guess but would i get what you really meant?

Your looking into the field angle issue on these parts has helped many with their project im sure.

[ace3000_1]

but for me the best prove is that nobody takes the my challenge.

Send me over the triplet, the lcd and the frensels and ill have it sorted in a day for you, im not going to spend money on a 15/17inch test bench just to see if somthing works, or to take on any chellenge Rox. Those with the gear, fair enough, but they dont have to.......

Trev

[Me2!]

im not going to spend money on a 15/17inch test bench

As probably the top designer on the board I’m surprised you don’t have this already! I know u specialize in the 7" but still...

These bits are getting expensive for me too.

Just think, someday you might have a design that will be licensed by others and your efforts will bring affordable home theatre to the masses.