Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack - View Single Post - 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen
View Single Post
Old 02-07-08, 08:59 PM   #10 (Link)
 
Prof.
Shack Helper
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Prof.
Loc: South of Adelaide
Prof.'s Avatar
User: #3204
Since: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,147
Prof. is offline
Re: 16:9 Screen Vs. 2.37:1 CIH Screen


Quote:
Richard W. Haines wrote: View Post
While in theory this makes sense, the cost is so expensive for the lenses is it worth it?.
Unfortunately this is how many people view anamorphic lenses, and something way beyond their reach.. As a consequence, they don't even consider it as a possibility and don't look any futher into it..

Commercial lenses are very expensive, sometimes thousands more than some projectors..

I was of this belief about a year ago, and for me an anamorphic lens was just a dream..Something that I would never be able to afford, unless I won Lotto..

Then I came across Mark's Aussiemorphic lens, and for the first time it looked liked it would be possible to have an anamorphic lens..
I read everything I could find about it, and other peoples views on the lens who had purchased one..
and looked at a number of screenshots with the lens fitted..

I finally decided to buy one, still a bit hesitant as to whether I was going to get a quality lens or not, particularly when compared to lenses costing thousands of dollars..

Well to say that I was thrilled with the results would be an understatement..
I won't say what it cost me, except it was a fraction of the price of a commercial lens..

My point is this...You don't have to pay an arm and a leg to have an anamorphic lens..There are other ways of obtaining a lens that will perform almost as good as very expensive ones..
You can just buy the prisms, and put the lens together yourself..Or you can buy a lens kit (like mark's) and set it up yourself...

Believe me...If I can afford it...anyone can..


Home Theatre....The never ending story!
Prof..

Forum Rules Reply With Quote