|
Author
|
Topic: Elmo 1.1 lens (100w/12v bulb) vs. Elmo 1.3 lens (150w/15v bulb) which is better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted January 31, 2010 02:34 PM
I'm keen to maximise light, and the light from a GS 200 watt lamp is conspicuously brighter than that from a 100 watt lamp projector. But, I must say that for me personally, when I got a GS with a 1.0 lens (having been used to a 1.1) and when I got a 1.1 lens for my ST 600 (having been used to a 1.3), I can't say that I'd describe the difference as dramatic. In fact if someone started either projector without me seeing which lens was in, it's quite possible that I'd be unable to guess from the amount of light. That's just me, though, hopefully it's more conspicuous to others!
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted February 02, 2010 10:05 PM
Taking Adrian's point, I have wondered myself why there would be such a pronounced difference between 1.0 lenses and the 1.1 model.
If one goes by the basic physics of light and lenses, you are talking a fraction of an f-stop between the two, and by that, one should be hard pressed to see any difference at all between the lenses in terms of light on the screen.
The 1.0 may have better glass in it, but that doesn't change the basics regarding light throughput by a decimal point.
Assuming all other factors being equal, am I missing something here? I know the 1.0 is revered as the 'king of the hill' but where exactly does this dramatic change come in, compared to the 1.1?
If I do a "running" test on the GS and swap instantly between the 1.3 and the 1.1 lenses, there is a tiny bit of lumen difference, as well as better glass with better contrast and sharpness, but nothing enormous. Nor could I imagine it would be any other way. We are not talking an f-2.8 versus an F-1.1 here, to use an example.
I am not trying to go for 'sour grapes' or anything like that; I have two 1.1 lenses; I am happy with them and I am glad the 1.0 owners like their lenses. I am just curious regarding this, and if I have forgotten something in my points here, please let me know.
Claus.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antonio Costa Mota
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 171
From: Portugal
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted February 03, 2010 06:44 PM
I have the Elmo 1,0 and the 1,1 lens, as well as the Schneider
1,1. Although they are all exccelent performers, using the SMPTE
test film, I find the Elmo 1,0 to be the best. It gives a sharper picture and above all an outstandig Flat Field. This is a major weakness of most lens. Regarding the light output, they
only defer marginally and with a regular film, you can hardly tell the difference.
--------------------
António C. Mota
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
can't you use the Elmo 1.1 w/ the 150w bulb? that's what I use? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think that throws a nice bright picture...My guess is Gian would be the one to answer this since he has the different configurations that he likes..
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
