yes, it is agreat lens for 7", go for it.
I also would like to see 1 finished projector.
I know sometimes I am boring, just repeating the same once and again, but I don´t like to be cheated, who does?
I think the first interested on proving the lens works are the sellers. This makes me think why the hell don´t they do it yet.
Actually DPC changed the specs since I started advertising people about the real specs on the lens. Now it says;
"Works with LCD's or other image sources up to 17" diagonal (12" LCD is optimal)"
but still 17" is anounced, well that´s not my problem friends 😀
I also would like to see 1 finished projector.
I know sometimes I am boring, just repeating the same once and again, but I don´t like to be cheated, who does?
I think the first interested on proving the lens works are the sellers. This makes me think why the hell don´t they do it yet.
Actually DPC changed the specs since I started advertising people about the real specs on the lens. Now it says;
"Works with LCD's or other image sources up to 17" diagonal (12" LCD is optimal)"
but still 17" is anounced, well that´s not my problem friends 😀
I modified my triplet just to get a bit more resolution to throw.
I use a 92" 9X16 screen at 14 feet and 4 inches, so my used image was only about 830X465 pixels of a 15" 1024X768 monitor. After modifying the triplet I got 899X544 pixels to throw (a 15% increase in pixel depth), with mixed result.
I modified the triplet on the cheap(like 5 bucks), and I can put it back to normal if the picture can't be cleared up in the coming weeks with a bit of tweeking, no harm done.
More photos of the construction/destruction Here
🙂
I use a 92" 9X16 screen at 14 feet and 4 inches, so my used image was only about 830X465 pixels of a 15" 1024X768 monitor. After modifying the triplet I got 899X544 pixels to throw (a 15% increase in pixel depth), with mixed result.
I modified the triplet on the cheap(like 5 bucks), and I can put it back to normal if the picture can't be cleared up in the coming weeks with a bit of tweeking, no harm done.
More photos of the construction/destruction Here
🙂
Dogbite said:
No harm done? You still wont have a working lens if you put it back together.
I think you should try building something more adjustable, according to another builder (I forget his name) he was able to get all of a 17" monitor into the FOV by modifying this lens...
so has anyone gotten one working with the 550? I got mine today but wont have time to work with it for a while, got a nice speeding ticket and my stereo was stolen out of my car all in the same day. someone should try and see if we can get a 15 to work with this lens and a 550 if we can any mod will be to much loss of clarity to make it worth it.
I too am really upset at the misleading of diyprojectorcompany, on top of the fact I waited 2 months for the lens. it was a waste and unless I have to I will never ever do business there again.
I too am really upset at the misleading of diyprojectorcompany, on top of the fact I waited 2 months for the lens. it was a waste and unless I have to I will never ever do business there again.
I knew exacly what I was buying.
It stated clearly the store optimal LCD was 12 inches, with a 450mm throw. Thats exacly what it does, and it does it well. with the longer rear focal length. I wouldn't and never expected a full 15" LCD to work well with corner to corner focus, but I aslo fully expected to only focus a portion on my 92" screen at 14'-4".
Before I bought the triplet I calculated the actual throw I would need out to about 475 - 550mm, if I were to use the full 15" screens diagonal at a 9X16 ratio with my screen where it is. But if I bought too long a throw, I wouldn't be able to fill my screen, this would suck worse. I opted shorter throw rather than longer for this reason, and the fact that most the video I present is still well under 800X600 in resolution.
Its clear you can mess with the lens to get it a bit one way or another off 450mm, but it definitly compromises the picture.
If I had the whole project to start over again, I probably would have started with a liliput monitor at 8". They are still a bit pricy though, so I'll wait.
It stated clearly the store optimal LCD was 12 inches, with a 450mm throw. Thats exacly what it does, and it does it well. with the longer rear focal length. I wouldn't and never expected a full 15" LCD to work well with corner to corner focus, but I aslo fully expected to only focus a portion on my 92" screen at 14'-4".
Before I bought the triplet I calculated the actual throw I would need out to about 475 - 550mm, if I were to use the full 15" screens diagonal at a 9X16 ratio with my screen where it is. But if I bought too long a throw, I wouldn't be able to fill my screen, this would suck worse. I opted shorter throw rather than longer for this reason, and the fact that most the video I present is still well under 800X600 in resolution.
Its clear you can mess with the lens to get it a bit one way or another off 450mm, but it definitly compromises the picture.
If I had the whole project to start over again, I probably would have started with a liliput monitor at 8". They are still a bit pricy though, so I'll wait.
Dogbite said:
Thing is DIYPC pitched this as a pop in replacement for the 80mm triplet. Its even the lens
Its the lens sold with their MKIV design kit which claims 14-17" LCD capacity...
http://www.diyprojectorcompany.com/designs/index.htm
Looking at this one should expect this lens to give corner to corner focus on LCDs up to and including 17"
It doesnt... its been proven.... even with the DIYPC reccommended fresnels.
it claims 17 inches you cant argue that. everyone knows it and many have and probably still are wasting there money on a paperweight. unless of course you want a 8 inch projector and yes then it works great.
Rox, reread the post. He's saying that it's been proven that it doesn't work as advertized.Rox said:
From my understanding of the problem, it isnt due to the fresnel lenses... if you use the 330/330 setup DIYPC reccommends you have to put your bulb closer to the rear fresnel to get the light into the lens. With a new front fresnel you wont have to do this but you will still have the Field of View problem.
yes, luca, I agree absolutelly with you;
But I have been told several times by the 135 triplet sellers that most of problmems were because of the not propper fresnell lenses, (a thing that I never accepted) and they afirmed, all issues would be solved with that fresnell. Now, time passed and fresnells are available, my question is for them;
did it worth anything we to make 3dlens make that fresnell, if it "was" unusable for us?
well, long fresnell is still needed if we need longer thows, but I would say, that lens was designed "exclusivelly" (I know you would not agree GG but is what it looks like if you read this thread) for that 135 triplet.
This is my personal conclusion on that. you don´t need to agree with me 😀
But I have been told several times by the 135 triplet sellers that most of problmems were because of the not propper fresnell lenses, (a thing that I never accepted) and they afirmed, all issues would be solved with that fresnell. Now, time passed and fresnells are available, my question is for them;
did it worth anything we to make 3dlens make that fresnell, if it "was" unusable for us?
well, long fresnell is still needed if we need longer thows, but I would say, that lens was designed "exclusivelly" (I know you would not agree GG but is what it looks like if you read this thread) for that 135 triplet.
This is my personal conclusion on that. you don´t need to agree with me 😀
Rox,
If it's not the fresnel lenses, can you please summarize again what your opinion is on the problem with the 135mm triplet?
I know this has been hashed around a lot, but I've always had trouble piecing it all together.
If it's not the fresnel lenses, can you please summarize again what your opinion is on the problem with the 135mm triplet?
I know this has been hashed around a lot, but I've always had trouble piecing it all together.
ok;
this 135 triplet lens (I believe 450mm focal one and 18" focal one form charles beseller opaque projectors or the ones from AWI industries... are all very similar specs) is stated to have 24 degrees full field of view (12+12 halfs). This means that the lens was designed for an smaller area than the LCD´s we are triyng to get trhow it.
The Lens we should use, needs somewhere 45 degrees so it would cover either 15 or 17 lcds. I know making the lens work at something wider than the stated field one is no problem at all, but I found making it work on 46 degrees when 24 is stated is too far (twice the xpected one). So this lens will project an unfocused image on the corners where the angle is wider than 24 degrees.
It is still a great lens for lets say under 12" LCD's.
If you go for unstriping the lens, then you will be able to cover full 17" screen (you can increase the FOV) but the overal performances will fall down since you move the lens spaces and you know that this was optimiced for that position you altered.
The fisrt lens striper told me the reason he did it was 1)unfocused corners and 2)light not coming form very corners. This means that not only was unfocus corners, but the very corner light was not going trhow the triplet even!!!.
So maybe the ideal fresnell lens for that triplet should be smaller, (forget 15-17 panels...) cos if I need to buy a 550mm fresnell and then cut it down to cover my 8", then where is the "ideal" exactly?
this 135 triplet lens (I believe 450mm focal one and 18" focal one form charles beseller opaque projectors or the ones from AWI industries... are all very similar specs) is stated to have 24 degrees full field of view (12+12 halfs). This means that the lens was designed for an smaller area than the LCD´s we are triyng to get trhow it.
The Lens we should use, needs somewhere 45 degrees so it would cover either 15 or 17 lcds. I know making the lens work at something wider than the stated field one is no problem at all, but I found making it work on 46 degrees when 24 is stated is too far (twice the xpected one). So this lens will project an unfocused image on the corners where the angle is wider than 24 degrees.
It is still a great lens for lets say under 12" LCD's.
If you go for unstriping the lens, then you will be able to cover full 17" screen (you can increase the FOV) but the overal performances will fall down since you move the lens spaces and you know that this was optimiced for that position you altered.
The fisrt lens striper told me the reason he did it was 1)unfocused corners and 2)light not coming form very corners. This means that not only was unfocus corners, but the very corner light was not going trhow the triplet even!!!.
So maybe the ideal fresnell lens for that triplet should be smaller, (forget 15-17 panels...) cos if I need to buy a 550mm fresnell and then cut it down to cover my 8", then where is the "ideal" exactly?
the "ideal" is the focal length
If you use a 450 mm fl projection lens, with a 12 foot throw distance, then you need around a 513 mm LCD to projection lens distance. If you put a 550 mm fl fresnel 35 mm before the LCD, then that is perfect. Even if you put the fresnel only 20 mm before the LCD, that is so close that you might not notice the difference.
It does not matter how wide the LCD is: With a 450 mm fl long-throw design, you still need this fresnel. A 330 mm fl fresnel will be MUCH worse.
BTW: I think these 450 mm fl triplets work pretty well for 15" LCDs, even if they were designed for a 12" FOV at that distance. But that does not mean that all triplets will have corner problems. One of the DIY stores is working on a new triplet that is optimized for the larger LCDs. This 550 mm fl fresnel should work very well with their new 500 mm fl triplet.
If you use a 450 mm fl projection lens, with a 12 foot throw distance, then you need around a 513 mm LCD to projection lens distance. If you put a 550 mm fl fresnel 35 mm before the LCD, then that is perfect. Even if you put the fresnel only 20 mm before the LCD, that is so close that you might not notice the difference.
It does not matter how wide the LCD is: With a 450 mm fl long-throw design, you still need this fresnel. A 330 mm fl fresnel will be MUCH worse.
BTW: I think these 450 mm fl triplets work pretty well for 15" LCDs, even if they were designed for a 12" FOV at that distance. But that does not mean that all triplets will have corner problems. One of the DIY stores is working on a new triplet that is optimized for the larger LCDs. This 550 mm fl fresnel should work very well with their new 500 mm fl triplet.
Re: the "ideal" is the focal length
I agree 100%. Thats why I mentioned the specifics of the lens so many times, as well as the fact that it is only in the very corner that any blurring is noticeable. The majority of the picture is essentially flawless.
Guy Grotke said:
I agree 100%. Thats why I mentioned the specifics of the lens so many times, as well as the fact that it is only in the very corner that any blurring is noticeable. The majority of the picture is essentially flawless.
just wonder what "blur" are you talking about;
those are real images;
those are real images;
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and those are blur simulations on adobe;
original
first
second
third
does any of those represent the actual blur on the 15"+135 triplet? (assume 12' trhow).
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
original
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
first
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
second
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
third
does any of those represent the actual blur on the 15"+135 triplet? (assume 12' trhow).
The unmodified 135mm triplet I got from DIYPC using a 330mm rear fresnel, 550mm 3Dlens front fresnel set up in a split design, and 17" LCD gives nice results except in the corners.
I grabbed a tape measure and set up some desktop items offset from the corners diagonally, and measured the viewable diagonal distance before the screendoor disappeared into the blur.
This indicated a display diagonal of 14.5 inches is quite usable. Pretty much agrees with Guy's comments above.
I have my PJ 10' from the wall, giving approx 102" diagonal.
On widescreen it looks wicked. You can sit pretty close without noticing the screendoor because of the relatively fine pitch compared to lower res displays. Even though the source material might not be high res, the interpolating/reconstruction filters on the video software make it disappear.
Slideshow with photos is stunning.
As I posted in another thread, the modified triplet did not seem to give as good an image. Maybe we didn't do a very good job realigning the lenses though...
I grabbed a tape measure and set up some desktop items offset from the corners diagonally, and measured the viewable diagonal distance before the screendoor disappeared into the blur.
This indicated a display diagonal of 14.5 inches is quite usable. Pretty much agrees with Guy's comments above.
I have my PJ 10' from the wall, giving approx 102" diagonal.
On widescreen it looks wicked. You can sit pretty close without noticing the screendoor because of the relatively fine pitch compared to lower res displays. Even though the source material might not be high res, the interpolating/reconstruction filters on the video software make it disappear.
Slideshow with photos is stunning.
As I posted in another thread, the modified triplet did not seem to give as good an image. Maybe we didn't do a very good job realigning the lenses though...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.