|
|
Post by Decibel on Mar 11, 2017 4:41:27 GMT -5
Someone know differences between types of lenses in title?   |
|
|
|
Post by gjaky on Mar 11, 2017 5:17:28 GMT -5
I think Redfox brought up this question a while ago. What he found is that the HM lens lacked the anti reflection coating on its first lens element thus resulting in a slightly more washed out image. That may was an individual case however, but you can verify this by means of visual inspection of the two lenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decibel on Mar 11, 2017 8:29:45 GMT -5
The HFQ900HM lenses that I have here show the purple/bluish reflections on the surface.
I think is the anti-glare coating.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoonsight on Mar 11, 2017 9:23:25 GMT -5
Hi
I sent an e-mail to Barco a couple of weeks ago and got this reply about the difference between HFQ900/HFQ900HM.
The HFQ900HM lens is a High Magnification lens. Throw distance is very similar to the standard lens but can do larger surfaces.
This HM-lens was typically used in Planetarium applications where you have a large throw distance.
From Barco Service Engineer
I have a set of HFQ900HM lenses and they have coating on first lens element.
Spoonsight
|
|
|
|
Post by Casethecorvetteman on Mar 12, 2017 6:28:40 GMT -5
I think Redfox brought up this question a while ago. What he found is that the HM lens lacked the anti reflection coating on its first lens element thus resulting in a slightly more washed out image. That may was an individual case however, but you can verify this by means of visual inspection of the two lenses. Back during that conversation i too confirmed that my HMs have the AR coating and more recent tests showed performance to be pretty much identical from what i could tell. Throw distance was the same, mid focus was the same, outer focus seemed to be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by radiohead314 on Mar 12, 2017 21:12:30 GMT -5
I sold the lens to Hulio think he needed a part of it. Still strange how there could be no coating on the back. Characters where realy mirrored across the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casethecorvetteman on Mar 13, 2017 7:38:36 GMT -5
Yeah funny how yours were like that, mine certainly are not, i wonder if someone used harsh cleaners on yours
|
|
|
|
Post by radiohead314 on Mar 13, 2017 10:35:14 GMT -5
I considered that option but all coating was removed, there was not a trace left so it must have been a very thorough cleaning job but anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Mar 13, 2017 12:59:58 GMT -5
Hi I sent an e-mail to Barco a couple of weeks ago and got this reply about the difference between HFQ900/HFQ900HM. The HFQ900HM lens is a High Magnification lens. Throw distance is very similar to the standard lens but can do larger surfaces. This HM-lens was typically used in Planetarium applications where you have a large throw distance. From Barco Service Engineer I have a set of HFQ900HM lenses and they have coating on first lens element. Spoonsight I have 7 sets of HD10E (HFQ900) that came out of a planetarium instalation with around 12m trow, As i see it those lenses is best used for long trow and not optimal for HT size screens, 90-120", i prefer using some of the lenses with a more narrow range, fitting for my specifik purpose instead of a alround lens like the HD10E ( HFQ900) i have seen them in quite a few HT aplications, but they always had focus uniformity issues/ optical flare in areas of the screen. It dont make much sense to make them without coating, or for longer trow, as there are specifik lenses for longer trow/ bigger screens 300"+, so maybe the HFQ900HM is just a BARCO rebatched 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”. |
|
|
|
Post by gregstv on Mar 13, 2017 14:38:05 GMT -5
Hi I sent an e-mail to Barco a couple of weeks ago and got this reply about the difference between HFQ900/HFQ900HM. The HFQ900HM lens is a High Magnification lens. Throw distance is very similar to the standard lens but can do larger surfaces. This HM-lens was typically used in Planetarium applications where you have a large throw distance. From Barco Service Engineer I have a set of HFQ900HM lenses and they have coating on first lens element. Spoonsight I have 7 sets of HD10E (HFQ900) that came out of a planetarium instalation with around 12m trow, As i see it those lenses is best used for long trow and not optimal for HT size screens, 90-120", i prefer using some of the lenses with a more narrow range, fitting for my specifik purpose instead of a alround lens like the HD10E ( HFQ900) i have seen them in quite a few HT aplications, but they always had focus uniformity issues/ optical flare in areas of the screen. It dont make much sense to make them without coating, or for longer trow, as there are specifik lenses for longer trow/ bigger screens 300"+, so maybe the HFQ900HM is just a BARCO rebatched 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”. So what lens are you using if not HD10E or HQF900? |
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Mar 13, 2017 15:12:13 GMT -5
I have 7 sets of HD10E (HFQ900) that came out of a planetarium instalation with around 12m trow, As i see it those lenses is best used for long trow and not optimal for HT size screens, 90-120", i prefer using some of the lenses with a more narrow range, fitting for my specifik purpose instead of a alround lens like the HD10E ( HFQ900) i have seen them in quite a few HT aplications, but they always had focus uniformity issues/ optical flare in areas of the screen. It dont make much sense to make them without coating, or for longer trow, as there are specifik lenses for longer trow/ bigger screens 300"+, so maybe the HFQ900HM is just a BARCO rebatched 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”. So what lens are you using if not HD10E or HQF900? The ones that is specified for the screen size used, the HD10E ( HFQ900 ) is from 90-300" 4:3 screen a multi purpose lens, the GT17 is 180-260cm wide, perfect specs for the 90-120" 16:9 screen size, the HD10L for smaller screens than 80" 16:9. The HD10E will focus center and corners on most screen sizes, but will suffer from focus uniformity issues, and on a 90" 2m wide screen its also having reduced resolution capability, ill later try see if that the same on larger screens. The HD10L lens can be used on a 110" screen and have very good resolution capability in the center, but the outer corners will suffer, i normaly aim for optimum focus in center and as far out as possible, but sacrifice the corners instead of somewhere in between center and corner, as nobody watch the outer corners. So i find that you can pretty much use any lens on all screen sizes, but if you want the best results, the lenses produced with more limited size span, who is speced to the screen width you use will also give you a better resolution and focus uniformity all around, then there is contrast/ anti reflective coating and barrel construction, who will effect contrast/ light output quite some, wich is different from build year, and manufacture, specially on the Marquee machines as they also came with Elcan lenses in around 2010-> I think the HD10E (HFQ900) lenses is over hyped lenses as they were rare, and for my purpose ill be happy to trade my 2003-2004 build HD10E lenses with late build GT17 lenses, as ill never run over a 110" screen unless ill blend, and then ill need HD10L or GT17 depending the blend screensize. The HD1E lenses might be the best if you stack on a 4-5m wide screen. |
|
|
|
Post by Casethecorvetteman on Mar 14, 2017 8:10:50 GMT -5
My screen is 125" 1.37:1, so id say im probably best with the HFQ900, i dont have uniformity issues, but there was a lot of trouble with lens focus drift. This would likely be far less with a lens designed for a smaller range of screen sizes due to having to move the adjustment a lot more to throw focus off.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Mar 14, 2017 11:38:40 GMT -5
My screen is 125" 1.37:1, so id say im probably best with the HFQ900, i dont have uniformity issues, but there was a lot of trouble with lens focus drift. This would likely be far less with a lens designed for a smaller range of screen sizes due to having to move the adjustment a lot more to throw focus off. I recently tested a HD10E lens on a 120" screen, and the uniformity issues was still there, so im pretty sure its just about looking for it, its pretty impossible to find a perfect CRT lens, so ill say if its perfect uniform, it must be the only CRT lens in history.. Try put up a grid pattern, white lines on black background, and you should somewhere on your screen be able to find lines that flare/ bleed a bit off in one direction, the lines can be sharp, its just like a faint reflection, and will move location whan adjusting lens flapping. How much light do you trow on that 125" screen, and what gain.? |
|
|
|
Post by Casethecorvetteman on Mar 15, 2017 4:44:50 GMT -5
Im 1,300klms from home at present.
Plenty of light, its a light controlled room, walls and ceiling are painted black.
The screen is 1.26 gain, smooth white surface, Fidelio frame. Very nice quality screen.
The red and green have visible scanlines from corner to corner, it probably isnt 100% tight focus all over, but more than sharp enough that you certainly cant tell from the lounge.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Mar 15, 2017 11:41:22 GMT -5
Im 1,300klms from home at present. Plenty of light, its a light controlled room, walls and ceiling are painted black. The screen is 1.26 gain, smooth white surface, Fidelio frame. Very nice quality screen. The red and green have visible scanlines from corner to corner, it probably isnt 100% tight focus all over, but more than sharp enough that you certainly cant tell from the lounge. Thats not the same as there is no light difuzion in areas where the lines streak a bit, at least i have never seen a setup that was perfectly uniform/ perfect all over. Ther is not 1 electronic focus setting that works perfect for all combinations of content, so i set mine at a average, between max beam controle and max resolution, as if you foxus the beam perfect the phosfor will recive so much energy at a given point that it will expand the point so that it effect the resolution, but if you defocus a bit and get visible scanlines and maximum resolution you will also see that you have gotten a bit of defuse lighe on the phosfor around the spot or scanlines, the pixel phase pattern on the DVE disc, and the geometry pattern with white grid and circles on black background is exelent to ilustrate that, as they will not have optimum focus poin at the exact same setting, you just cant se the difusion on the picel phase pattern, but the 1:1 diagonal pixel phase pattern wont show if the phosfor get hit to hard, its also a nice lens test pattern, as often you can see the 1:1 pixel phase on the tube face, but not on the screen.  |
|
