| Author |
Message |
nuttall_chris
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | Chris does the tube size matter? The lens doesnt caer what size the tube face is does it?. A certain lens should have the same specs no matter what the tube face size is correct? If I am wrong i need to understand why. does that 1 inch make the difference?
Help me out!! 
Athanasios
Edit I ment to say he was wrong on the HD10L's my bad !!! Sorry |
Raster size is what's important. As can be seen in the quote below, lenses are all given a range of magnification.
Raster Size x Magnification = Screen size
The larger raster on the 9" tubes will throw a larger picture than an 8" tube.
| Quote: | The HD10 family of lenses has been designed to maximize performance and
versatility for professional CRT projection video, data and graphics applications.
All HD10 family lenses are optically coupled and designed to cover a full 178mm
(7”) raster diagonal. They are all fully color corrected hybrid designs,
incorporating both plastic and glass elements and share the same C-element and
mounting geometry, making it possible to interchange the lenses on the same
projector. The following is a brief description of lenses in the HD10 family.
HD10E – The HD10E covers 167mm focal length (7”) CRT raster diagonal. It
was designed to provide good performance over the largest possible
magnification range (14-45X). For this reason, CPL recommends the HD10E
lens for applications where the intended screen size requirements may vary over
this wide range (90” – 300” diagonal).
HD10L – The HD10L is designed for optimized performance for smaller screen
sizes not covered by other HD10 family lenses. This lens provides excellent
performance for a specific magnification range (9-13X).CPL recommends the
HD10L lens for applications requiring screen sizes of 60-90” diagonal.
HD10GT17 – The HD10GT17 is designed for improved resolution over the HD10
lens over a specific magnification range. This lens provides excellent
performance for magnifications of 14-20X. CPL recommends the HD10GT17
lens for applications requiring screen sizes of 100-140” diagonal.
HD10GT26 – The HD10GT26 lens is designed for improved resolution over the
HD10E lens for magnifications of 21-30X. CPL recommends the HD10GT26 for
applications requiring screen sizes of 150-200” diagonal.
HD10GT30-67 – The HD10GT30-67 is designed for improved resolution over the
HD10E for magnifications of 30-45X and to extend the range of the family up to
67X. CPL recommends the HD10GT30-67 for high magnification applications
requiring screen diagonals of 210-460”.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Raster Size x Magnification = Screen size
The larger raster on the 9" tubes will throw a larger picture than an 8" tube. |
With the "Raster" being the smallest denominator on overall screen size in that equation.
| Quote: | FWIW - I sold my 8500LC with a set of HD10L lenses to Barry (Joust) and it throws an acceptably sharp 96" wide image with the 10L lenses. Not as sharp as the GT17 lenses but acceptable.
|
I think a set of 10L's on an 86" wide screen would look just as sharp as the 17's ( in the CORNERS) Both of those lenses are at their limits though with an 86" screen .
The problem is most likely the projector schlemflug, might be all out of wack, Electronic focus. ETC
Are you trying to maximize your raster right out to the edges (which is not good) it really makes corner focus impossible.
Have you done a quick lens swap just to make sure it is not a damaged lens ?
Also the distance from the tube face to the lens is very important , Someone might have really screwed with your schlemfluge springs , ( Maybe you ) and really got your distance wacked .
Bruce
Last edited by Bruce 09 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EDITED
Last edited by Bruce 09 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuttall_chris
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce 09 wrote: |
| Quote: | FWIW - I sold my 8500LC with a set of HD10L lenses to Barry (Joust) and it throws an acceptably sharp 96" wide image with the 10L lenses. Not as sharp as the GT17 lenses but acceptable.
|
I think a set of 10L's on an 86" wide screen would look just as sharp as the 17's ( in the CORNERS) Both of those lenses are at their limits though with an 86" screen . |
I did a direct comparison between the HD10L and GT17 lenses on the same projector. The GT17 were noticably sharper than the HD10L lenses on the 86" screen
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | The problem is most likely the projector schlemflug might be all out of wack |
No adjustments were made to the schlemflug when switching between the HD10L and GT17 lenses and with the GT17 lenses, focus was uniform and very sharp corner to corner with the GT17 lenses but somewhat softer with the HD10L.
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | The , are you trying to maximize your raster right out to the edges (which is not good) it really makes corner focus impossible. |
Yes, the raster was fully maximized to withing a couple mm from the edge of the tube face.
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | Also the distance from the tube face to the lens is very important , Someone might have really screwed with your schlemfluge springs , ( Maybe you ) and really got your distance wacked . |
The 8500LC doesn't use the springs it uses the same mounting method as the 9500LC projectors and is much harder to screw up.
Chris.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | Quote: | | Thanks to Chris and Bruce!!! I was mulling over this on my drive home from work just now....... Bruce How is the car? The 9500 seems to be in working order...to many things going on right now to let me fully test it. |
Pretty Good actually, I had it UP to 135 mph racing a few times , Step father likes it, It's who I bought it for really we, it's going in for some paint work next week.
I had a very interesting trip I am Just recouping now. I put a total of 6800 miles on in two weeks !!Saved a women Burning up in from a horrible accident I watched in the middle of Wyoming. She Is suspected to make it from her other injuries I found out a day later .I had quite a few other adventures as well on this trip But overall Had a pretty good trip .
WORST YEAR OF MY LIFE THOUGH .
Four close family members gone!! know no wife, and my Black Lab died But doing ok
Bruce |
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The 8500LC doesn't use the springs it uses the same mounting method as the 9500LC projectors and is much harder to screw up. |
Yes I know that , I slipped up . I was just in the middle of reminiscing  I was going to fix it but you got me first You still can f*ck it up enough to mess with FINE focus problems .
Bruce
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuttall_chris wrote: | | Bruce 09 wrote: |
| Quote: | FWIW - I sold my 8500LC with a set of HD10L lenses to Barry (Joust) and it throws an acceptably sharp 96" wide image with the 10L lenses. Not as sharp as the GT17 lenses but acceptable.
|
I think a set of 10L's on an 86" wide screen would look just as sharp as the 17's ( in the CORNERS) Both of those lenses are at their limits though with an 86" screen . |
I did a direct comparison between the HD10L and GT17 lenses on the same projector. The GT17 were noticably sharper than the HD10L lenses on the 86" screen
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | The problem is most likely the projector schlemflug might be all out of wack |
No adjustments were made to the schlemflug when switching between the HD10L and GT17 lenses and with the GT17 lenses, focus was uniform and very sharp corner to corner with the GT17 lenses but somewhat softer with the HD10L.
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | The , are you trying to maximize your raster right out to the edges (which is not good) it really makes corner focus impossible. |
Yes, the raster was fully maximized to withing a couple mm from the edge of the tube face.
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | Also the distance from the tube face to the lens is very important , Someone might have really screwed with your schlemfluge springs , ( Maybe you ) and really got your distance wacked . |
The 8500LC doesn't use the springs it uses the same mounting method as the 9500LC projectors and is much harder to screw up.
Chris. |
ALL those questions I was asking were for RUVA !! I thought HE had a red focus problem. Did you help him set it up or how do you know the specifics of HIS set up ?
I was asking all these things to help him trouble shoot or pinpoint the problem he was having. I have seen lenses that for some reason do not focus as well as the others in the same set, and the poor focus will follow that lens around .
I thought he might rule out a bad lens .
Your idea of sharp and others might be different. At what level did you test the resolving focus at the extreme corners
?. I agree the newer 17's would look better in the center But I have a hard time Believing they would focus Perfectly in the corners on an 86" screen.
Both lenses have their limitations and were designed for DIFFERENT applications, BY THE SAME MANUFACTURER
But if your 17's focus better on small screens than 10l's and you had your Raster right out near the tube face edge and were using the outer area of the lenses for superior results then Hats off .
I found the newer vintage lenses of the same models looked better. I think it is the newer AR coating, they might not really resolve better but they have a real clarity to them . Whether it is the glass they used or the coating I don't know, but have seen it a few times .
Bruce
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
