# Aussiemorphic Lens Shoot Out



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

When I posted that screen cap comparing the MK4 to a trophy lens, it seems to cause a bit of an upset for a few. As I didn't take the trophy lens shot, it wasn't really a fair comparison as who knows what conditions the image was captured under. 

Anyway, I had some spare time tonight, so was able to do an A B C on the three Aussiemorphic Lenses MK2, MK3 and MK4. All taken using the same camera, under the same conditions. 
Now to bring out the best (the purpose of the last comparison shots was to show the worst), I've rocked the focus for each lens to ensure the image is sharp as it can be. A point to note about the Mk4 is that when I rocked the focus, I did so with the lens out of the light path. This done simply because the optics in a cylindrical lens won't change the focus once correctly set
Image 1: MK4 - true cylindrical lens with fully corrected optics
Image 2: MK3+C - CA corrected prism adapter with astigmatism correction lens fitted. 
Image 3: MK2 - Trophy Lens with no correction.

Enjoy.


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

The third one seems a bit contrasty. Is that right Mark?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

That shows the difference between the three types very well!
I'm surprised at how much better the Mk.4 is over the MK.3!..The detail in the background tiles really shows the difference..with the Mk.3 looking just a little bit softer overall..

This is one area that I've noticed is lacking in the two prism lenses..You can get quite sharp closeups of faces etc., but background images lack sharpness and detail ..
Time to start saving the pennies I think!!


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

mechman said:


> The third one seems a bit contrasty. Is that right Mark?


Well that is because is has no correction and the anti-reflective coatings are not the same multi broad band coatings used on the MK3+C and MK4 optics. Also surface finish would come into play where the Trophies are not commercial optical grade. There is no actual specs for their surface, where both the Mk3+C and Mk4 do have properly specified surface finishes.



Prof. said:


> That shows the difference between the three types very well!
> I'm surprised at how much better the Mk.4 is over the MK.3!..The detail in the background tiles really shows the difference..with the Mk.3 looking just a little bit softer overall..


And this where the true advantage of the cylindrical lens is seen (yes pun intended) because the optics are adjustable, I can get both V and H perfectly in focus at the same time. The Mk3+C is no such adjustment, so you get what you get at a certain TR that may or may not be optimal. The TR is 2.1:1 and the actual throw is about 3.7m.


----------



## billz260 (Jul 19, 2011)

Hey Mark, I know this post is quite late, but I was wondering if you could show the same frame, but fit to your screen by using the Zoom method, i guess if your projector would allow for that? As a forth comparison?

Thanks,

Bill


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

It could be done though it is allot of messing for me to remove my A-Lens etc. With the W6000's 1.5x zoom, I can fill the screen by zooming but it is at the limits of the range. It looks OK but I feel a touch washed out and I certainly would not dump the lens in favor of that. Besides, it is PITA to get the image to be centered for 16:9 program. Now the shrink method would be a better alternative, but requires either a Scaler or a PC running a program like Media Player Classic - Home Cinema. I blogged about it HERE.


----------



## billz260 (Jul 19, 2011)

That's cool, maybe if you have your set up dismantled at some point in the future. I can certainly see where this would be a pain.

So for comparison in my mind, I can expect even more difference than what you've shown between version 4 and 3 lenses, with the zoom method, expecting a bit more grain but maybe less of the milky wash than the number 3 since it's not passing through lenses?

I am definitely sold on the advantages of a lens, and more specifically your most recent Version 5 design. Cost is just prohibitive for me at the moment.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

billz260 said:


> So for comparison in my mind, I can expect even more difference than what you've shown between version 4 and 3 lenses, with the zoom method, expecting a bit more grain but maybe less of the milky wash than the number 3 since it's not passing through lenses?


If I was to do the shootout, it would be between the MK5 and zooming only. I see no point in using the other 2 prisms based lenses as we already know that they have optical limitations.

The main issue with me running A-Lens Vs Zooming shootout on my system is I use a curved screen for A-Lens which may add geometric distortions for zooming (barreling).


----------



## billz260 (Jul 19, 2011)

I was more or less looking for a comment from you on what you thought the zoom would look like compared to the other 3 shots.

For me, 5 is obviously the best, with 4 not being too far behind. (at least from what I can tell on my monitor), 3 was a definite loss in quality, from 4 with a sort of 'haze' look to it. So I'm wondering what the ZOOM would look like compared with 3 specifically, just to get an idea from an expert on what I would expect between my current financial options (Making a lens, vs. Zooming) until I can buy a proper lens.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

billz260 said:


> I was more or less looking for a comment from you on what you thought the zoom would look like compared to the other 3 shots.


I demoed this back in the MK3 days for JVC. We projected side by side onto a massive white surface with two projectors, one using an MK3 and the other using zoom. JVC engineers said that although they could see pincushion from the A-Lens, that they preferred that image as it appeared 'denser'. 

To run the tests again im my room would be a pointless exercise because of my curved screen. The A-Lens will produce a better image because there is no geometric distortions.



> For me, 5 is obviously the best, with 4 not being too far behind. (at least from what I can tell on my monitor), 3 was a definite loss in quality, from 4 with a sort of 'haze' look to it. So I'm wondering what the ZOOM would look like compared with 3 specifically, just to get an idea from an expert on what I would expect between my current financial options (Making a lens, vs. Zooming) until I can buy a proper lens.


The optics in the MK4 and the MK5 are the same. In fact the optics in my personal MK5 lens originally came from my MK4.

This is one example where 'you get what you pay for' rings true.


----------



## billz260 (Jul 19, 2011)

Thanks Mark, that was the info I was looking for. I plan on a lens at some point, as well as a DIY curved screen, so I guess until I'm ready (with a screen) I'll zoom on a painted wall. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand.


----------

