Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Help with lenses (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Help with lenses
Joe Elliott
Master Film Handler

Posts: 497
From: Port Orange, Fl USA
Registered: Oct 2006


 - posted 10-13-2009 01:29 PM      Profile for Joe Elliott   Email Joe Elliott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To start out with, I am posting this in the Film Handler Forum, as there maybe some projectionists out there that will have this information that never check the Digital Forum.

I am looking at moving an old 1.3k Christie projector into one of our small houses for alternative content use. It had been in a larger house and was replaced by a 2k Barco. I have tried using all of the lens calculators I could find, including the one on this site, and they all give you a specific lens model, which I don't need. I need to know if the zoom range will be compatable. I used to have the formula to figure that out, but it is long lost. Here are the specs:

Old house:

78ft throw, screen is 36X15 common height

New house:

58ft throw, screen is 28X15 flat, common width.

I know for scope I would have to redo the software masking, or possible need a different scope lens, but all of the cable and satellite stuff we have been doing is all flat.

My basic question is: Will the same flat lens work in the new house. I can post the lens sizes tomorrow, as I forgot to bring them home with me, but just working the math, someone should be able to tell me. Also if you could post the formulas to calculate the zoom it would be helpful. Most of the lens calculator software gave me the zoom range of their lens that would work, but did not give me the specific zoom needed on each screen.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: Boulder Creek, CA.
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 10-14-2009 10:22 PM      Profile for Dominic Espinosa   Email Dominic Espinosa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm confused. It may just be that it's late and I'm tired so excuse me if I'm wrong.

The first screen is 36x15, I presume this is scope, yes? If that's the case then it's the same size as the other screen because flat on the first screen is the same as flat on the second screen.

So if both screens are the same size but the throw is 20' less you'll need a different lens, otherwise the image is going to be too small. You need to gain something like .10" per foot of throw to fill the second screen.

Again, I might be missing something. More info would be a big help though.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Elliott
Master Film Handler

Posts: 497
From: Port Orange, Fl USA
Registered: Oct 2006


 - posted 10-15-2009 02:05 AM      Profile for Joe Elliott   Email Joe Elliott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Dominic Espinosa
I'm confused. It may just be that it's late and I'm tired so excuse me if I'm wrong.

The first screen is 36x15, I presume this is scope, yes? If that's the case then it's the same size as the other screen because flat on the first screen is the same as flat on the second screen.

So if both screens are the same size but the throw is 20' less you'll need a different lens, otherwise the image is going to be too small. You need to gain something like .10" per foot of throw to fill the second screen.

Again, I might be missing something. More info would be a big help though.

Actually yes, I believe you are right. Flat would be the same on both. The main lens is a variable zoom lens, so it may be able to zoom out to fill the screen. Let me give the specs:

The main lens is a Minolta 3.2-5.7:1 lens. It is paired with a ISCO 1.5 Widescreen lens.
The Scope lens is an ISCO 1.9 Superwidescreen lens.

These are special lenses made by ISCO, not main production runs like the ones on their website, so I cannot compare them up.

I finally found the lens calculator I needed, but I'm still not sure if I am reading it right.

Christie Lens Calculator

It is a DCP H/I. If I am reading it right, then you're right, I won't be able to use that lens, unless I mask it for scope, and then will still have black on the sides.

Well, back to the drawing board. I'll have to check the other screens, and see if any of the smaller theaters match up proportionally.

 |  IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009


 - posted 10-15-2009 08:36 AM      Profile for Karl Borowski   Email Karl Borowski   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not familiar with your lens. Is that inches, millimeters, Ancient Egyptian cubits?

Looks like, when you talk about a ratio to one, that that is an F/number, which is irrelevant for what we are talking about here.

I will see if I can't dig up some formulae for you tonight. . .

But anyway, sizes are almost always marked in inches, millimeters, or both. Millimeters are almost ubiquitous with digital equipment.

Again I don't have formulae handy, but with even basic math, you can do a simple ratio where you convert millimeters/inches to feet of throw (I assume you'll want to worry about flat only, especially with a 1.3K projector). (Hint: 1 foot = 304.8mm / 1mm =~.003281 ft.)

Then compare your old ratio, approximating what length you're at if you can't determine that in a menu or are at one end or the other of the lens, to x over new feet of throw to see if you are in the ballpark or not with the new screen.

So: Lens length you were at on the old screen (converted to feet)/78 ft. = x/58ft.

x = [(lens length in feet)x58feet]/78feet

The length is going to have to be ~74.36% (about 3/4) the length of the old one (so shorter) to give you the same dimensions.

You don't have to worry about ft.L if it was bright enough on the old screen and the new one is closer.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 10-15-2009 09:04 AM      Profile for Richard Hamilton   Email Richard Hamilton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Karl Borowski
ubiquitous
quote: Karl Borowski
formulae
WTF

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 10-15-2009 09:30 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Rick,

If it's ancient Egyptian Cubits you should easily be able to help him out!

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 10-15-2009 11:44 AM      Profile for Richard Hamilton   Email Richard Hamilton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark,
i made a few calls, and I think I heard my Egyptian friends flipping me off over the phone. Something about middle fingers [fu] . Thats not aimed at you

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 10-15-2009 08:36 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe...this obviously goes to 1st generation DCinema projector.

The native aspect ratio of those projectors was 5:4 (SXGA, 1280x1024).

The lens markings are in "Throw Ratio"...this is how Videiots do things since they don't understand the math. The problem with throw ratio is that the lens must know what projector it is going into (its aspect ratio and, more specifically, the imager size).

Here is how throw ratio works. Take the throw and divide it by the WIDTH of the image...that is your throw ratio.

So, lets say you have a throw of 78-feet and a screen height of 15-feet [Wink]

The image without the anamorphics is going to be 15 x 1.25 (5:4 ratio) or 18.75-feet. divide 78/18.75 which gives you a throw ratio of 4.16. So your 3.2 to 5.7 fits into that range for the old house.

You multiply the 18.75 by 1.5 for the first anamorph and you get 28.125 and you will find that it comes to 1.875...which is wide enough for 1.85. Multiply 15 by 18.75 by 1.9 (the second anamorph) and you get 35.625 or a ratio of 2.375. Since the lenses are stamped to 2 sig. figs....really they are probably closer to the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios we know since in scientific terms, we can only calculate to 1.9:1 and 2.4:1

In the new house you repeat the exercise but we concerned about the width.

58/18.75 = 3.093 so in this house you will not be able to achieve full height for FLAT nor full width for flat...it will be close though. Scope choices are there. You can have a similarly undersized Scope with the 1.5 anamorph or you can use the 1.9 anamorph and zoom the lens out (with suitable refocus and lens shift. Or you could leave the prime lens alone and then reduce the number of pixels to form the scope image (bad idea as it reduced the light and resolution).

So if you take your throw and divide it by the shortest Throw Ratio you get: 58/3.2 = 18.125. Divide that by 1.25 and you get your max height of 14.5-feet.

SG

 |  IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 10-15-2009 09:21 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Karl Borowski
Is that inches, millimeters, Ancient Egyptian cubits?

Geez Karl. Is it your intention to piss everyone off or are you just trying to hone that supposed talent you think you have there?

[Roll Eyes]

 |  IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009


 - posted 10-16-2009 01:56 AM      Profile for Karl Borowski   Email Karl Borowski   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, John, I was trying to be funny and find out if they were in inches or mm.

I am pretty sure that you and Richard are being fucking dickheads and following me around from thread to thread.

Good thing you guys both have helpful comments though. I was too busy "making fun," of Joe, while the two of you both gave him helpful answers.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Elliott
Master Film Handler

Posts: 497
From: Port Orange, Fl USA
Registered: Oct 2006


 - posted 10-16-2009 03:58 AM      Profile for Joe Elliott   Email Joe Elliott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steve,

Yes, that makes sense, because when I was trying to calculate it as focal length, it mathamatically should not have fit in the old house either.

Although the math is going in one ear and out the other, I just spent 12 hours doing builds and commercials, and it is now 5am Friday, so I'm pretty tired. It should make sense to me by Saturday when I've had more sleep.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 10-16-2009 08:56 AM      Profile for Richard Hamilton   Email Richard Hamilton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Karl Borowski
I am pretty

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 10-16-2009 12:24 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Karl, trust me...it isn't just Richard and John that think you are out of line...

-Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 10-16-2009 01:31 PM      Profile for Richard Hamilton   Email Richard Hamilton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steve, please call me rick, "richard" and "fucking dickheads" are out of line [thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 10-16-2009 02:00 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay "Dick" [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.