What sort of Lens do I need... at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders > Canon GL Series DV Camcorders

Canon GL Series DV Camcorders
Canon GL2, GL1 and PAL versions XM2, XM1.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 13th, 2005, 02:30 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 201
What sort of Lens do I need...

I'm wondering if I need the WD-58 or the higher priced 16:9 Century Optics (DS-1609-GL) to get a better angle for an upcoming project...

There's streamable (Windows Media) at http://www.ekoostik.com/video/yum.wmv for an example of the placement. The very first angle is the camera in question. I'm hoping to be able to get rid of A LOT of the head and foot space and make the subjects more than the mice that they appear as.

Will the WD-58 get me much more?

Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Kimmell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2005, 11:58 PM   #2
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Kevin, you might not know that you're comparing an apple to an orange. These two items do completely different things. The Canon WD-58 is a wide-angle adapter which gives you a much wider field of view. The Century piece is an anamorphic adapter for shooting in the 16:9 aspect ratio. I couldn't take the time to download a 46 megabyte video clip (I'm on a sat connection), but if you're wanting to get rid of head and foot space and make objects look bigger, then you need to zoom in to more telephoto, or add a teleconverter lens. The Canon GL camcorders have a 20x zoom so you should be able to simply zoom in a bit more... unless I've totally misunderstood your post...
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2005, 09:59 AM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 201
Oh... sorry,

Here's a still of the shot: http://externalis.com/ybp/wide.jpg (it's sized smaller but you see the framing).

I am already zoomed in as far as I can be without losing a band member. This is the wide stable shot that we go to when the other cameras are moving.

So I'm wondering if the WD-58 will make a very big difference. It sounds like I need a 16:9 lens from what you're saying.

I tried setting my GL to 16:9 before but the output seemed quite visibly degraded.

Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Kimmell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2005, 09:11 AM   #4
New Boot
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10
you should use a telephoto lens, however, depending on how much you may have been zoomed in already, your on-camera zoom should do fine. you do not need a 16:9 converter.
matt-
Matthew Kennedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2005, 10:03 AM   #5
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Actually (if I understand) I think he might want the anamorphic lens. Kevin is saying that he doesn't want to zoom in any further because he needs to cover the full width shown in the image. What he wants to do is eliminate the space above and below the stage by framing the shot in 16:9... I think!

But that would lead you to a format decision, not just a lens choice. Do you want to end up with a 16:9 project? That would mean all your cameras would need anamorphic adaptors, unless you find the GL-2's built-in mode acceptable (it will be noticeably softer than using the adaptor lens).

If you don't want to go with 16:9 for everything, then you could just apply a black matte to letterbox the shot. But either way, a wide angle lens won't do anything for you. It just widens the field of view, and is only useful for going wider than your built-in lens allows.

Just one other thought.... shoot from a position further off to the side, not from the center. That will have the effect of moving the band members into less horizontal space and allow you to zoom in further such that their height fills a greater portion of the frame.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2005, 01:51 PM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff
Actually (if I understand) I think he might want the anamorphic lens. Kevin is saying that he doesn't want to zoom in any further because he needs to cover the full width shown in the image. What he wants to do is eliminate the space above and below the stage by framing the shot in 16:9... I think!
That is correct. I need the same width but less head and foot room so that the characters appear larger. The overall format from the rest of the cameras will be 4:3 so if I am to use a 16:9 from this position I'd need to letterbox it. Would that basically negate the increased size of the subjects?

-Kevin
Kevin Kimmell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2005, 01:52 PM   #7
New Boot
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roseau, MN
Posts: 23
Kevin,

The 16:9 might look bad on the view finder, but should look great on the final cut. I know that with the GL2 the 16:9 look very distorted on the view finder but look perfect in the computer. Might just be what you are looking for. Hvae you tryed pulling a few clip in with the 16:9 setting and see what the final cut looks like??

LeEarl
LeEarl Rugland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2005, 01:55 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEarl Rugland
The 16:9 might look bad on the view finder, but should look great on the final cut. I know that with the GL2 the 16:9 look very distorted on the view finder but look perfect in the computer. Might just be what you are looking for. Hvae you tryed pulling a few clip in with the 16:9 setting and see what the final cut looks like??
I haven't. I did shoot once with the 16:9 setting but when I pulled it into Vegas it looked really bad. That was the first time I used the camera and also when I first started using Vegas so it's possible that I didn't pull the video into Vegas properly.

So if you guys are telling me that 16:9 is what I want and that I wont effectively ruin the effectiveness of the 16:9 by letterboxing it, then I guess I need to figure out how to properly import the 16:9 clip into a 4:3 project.

-K
Kevin Kimmell is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders > Canon GL Series DV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:03 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network