FX/Z1 plus panasonic anamorphic ?
 

...just thinking they're both the same thread size - could this be done to get widescreen ? Boyd , I saw your other posts about this in the filmlook forum and read what Wilt had to say. All you would need is resize in post or project thru the lens , or another similar anamorphic. Is anyone a new fx/z1 owner that is also a dvx100 owner with the anamorphic - Well maybe ? At least it's worth a try. You would have a lot more res than shooting scope in squeezed dv. Just a thought - thanks Kurth

It would almost definitely work, more or less. The question is, to what end?

The Panasonic anamorphic is a tricky beast, which was designed around the specific focal length the DVX uses. Coincidentally, the Z1 shares the same focal length (except adding more telephoto). So yes, over a large portion of the zoom range, it should work.

However, at the long end of the telephoto, it will likely become impossible to achieve focus. Anything above about 8x becomes problematic, and 10x on the DVX is really really difficult to use with the anamorphic; I suspect the 12x on the Z1 would be past its limits.

Also, focus is so crucial with the anamorphic, that I wonder if it wouldn't be even more troublesome on the Z1. The higher resolution of the Z1 will show focus errors more readily than any SD camera.

Also, diffraction would start to rear its head. With the anamorphic on the DVX, one of the keys to using it is to keep the aperture as small as possible to get the best depth of field to overcome the inherent anamorphic astigmatism. But with the Z1/FX1, tiny apertures (f/11 or so) can lead to soft-focus issues from diffraction. You may end up with less usable range on the Z1/anamorphic than on the DVX/anamorphic.

So yes, it could probably work after a limited fashion. However, back to the question I ask, which is: why bother? The Z1 is already shooting in the widest format you can get on television. There are no 2.35:1 TVs. If you are looking for 2.35:1, I think you'd be better off just letterboxing your 16:9 footage. If you shoot with the anamorphic, you're going to have to unsqueeze/letterbox in post anyway, cropping it down to the same size as if you'd just letterboxed in the first place. And if you letterbox in the first place you'll get the raw detail straight to the chip, rather than resized/downrezzed footage.

All in all, I'd say skip it and just go for the letterboxing if you need 2.35:1.

I agree, and this is pretty much what John Fordham and myself said in this thread...

>>>So yes, it could probably work after a limited fashion. However, back to the question I ask, which is: why bother? The Z1 is already shooting in the widest format you can get on television. There are no 2.35:1 TVs. If you are looking for 2.35:1, I think you'd be better off just letterboxing your 16:9 footage. If you shoot with the anamorphic, you're going to have to unsqueeze/letterbox in post anyway, cropping it down to the same size as if you'd just letterboxed in the first place. And if you letterbox in the first place you'll get the raw detail straight to the chip, rather than resized/downrezzed footage.<<<
Barry...not true. You have the option of projecting a native 16:9 720p projector outfitted with a 16:9 lens- these projectors are getting pretty common. I've run my 720p nec vt540 thru an old panavision adjustable anamorphic and it looks pretty good but it was only dvd res - if you could use all of the projectors res , using the camera as hdv deck. you would have 2:37:1 at 720 lines of h res. The weak link ( that's affordable ) in HD projected images is the projector. 1080 projectors are still pretty expensive. The reason for thinking about the concept of shooting scope on the fx1 is having another format. Just like in film- 110, 35, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc. etc. - thanks - Kurth

This projector should do fine for you without any anamorphic lens, it's native 2048 x 1080 with 27,000 lumen output :-) http://www.barco.com/Presentation/en...p?element=2579

I saw this (and lots of other cool stuff) at a recent Barco event and it is truly mind boggling. Cost is in the $100,000 range...

thanks Boyd - that's exactly what I was looking for - let me pull out my last 15 credit cards ! But kidding aside , that is my point. My Super Panatar Anamorphotic Attachment , which weighs about 10 pounds , cost me $100 on ebay, has two beautiful glass prisms , probably pulled from an old 30's 35mm projection facility, and is also adjustable anamorphic , works pretty food with 1024x768 projectors , which are alot cheaper. You're lucky to get to even see this stuff , but as you know , it's for organizations like the Philly opera and , usually not for mortal men. And just to get that thru Mexican customs ....I don't even want to think about it. I guess the thread was meant to try to find an excuse for owning the pany anamorphic w/o owning a dvx100( if and when I buy an fx1/z1) . I saw a thread at filmshooter about shooting a 16mm Beaulieu thru this lens. The images looked pretty good , when stretched out to 16:9. Alot cheaper than owning a super 16 camera , esp. since I already have a 16mm Beaulieu and alot of s8 cameras as well , which is kinda where I started with all this . OK amigos - thanks Kurth

The interesting thing here is that there are several threads similar to this where people say "has anybody tried this..." But there has never been a followup from the original poster. So - as you admit - I think people are just looking for confirmation that it's OK to spend some money on a pet project.

Since you make a good case for all this, why don't you pick up one of the lenses (or borrow/rent one) and give it a try? Then afterwards report back to us on the results and whether it was worth all the trouble. That way we'll have a definitive thread to refer the next guy to when the question is asked again!

Maybe , when I own the sony I'll take some footage thru the large anamorphic I already own , reproject thru same lens and see if it's worth thinking about getting the pany. Boyd, I remember reading a thread where you and Jon were discussing the possiblity except with a dvx100a , and he said it had possiblities. They're about 2 or 3 panys' in the town where I live (and it's small) , but none have the anamorphic. Renting - well . I live in Mexico - there's no equipment renters. There's got to be someone who reads this forum w/both cameras or with good friends w/one who owns the other. Yeh , I know , I hate people on forums that are always making suggestions or requests for other people to make the effort. I just thought someone would have already tried this. thanks - take care- Kurth

I have tried the AGLA7200 Anamorphic on the Z1/FX1...in fact it's one of the first things I did when we got the camera.
Yes it will "work" but there is a noticeable drop in softness...especially in the corners. So much loss in res I'm pretty sure cropping would look better.
FWIW,

Brian
Now if Century came out with their own....that would be the ticket!

Brian - thanks - a handson was what I wanted to hear. And I'm glad someonelses' logic was working along the same lines, too. K

Yeah, that's another good point -- the Panamorphic was designed for an SD camera, so the quality of the glass may not be up to par for shooting HD with it. I definitely think you'd get better overall results from just cropping.

So I guess any good SD camera will do fine...
 

Hello all! Yeah, this is a really old thread. But I just brought a really old video camera (3-tube), and I'm hoping to get another really old camera with the exception of it being digital (3-CCD), not tube. Now the background here is that I'm primarily a photographer who shoots with a Hasselblad 6x6cm EL/M.

I recently got a Zeiss Sonnar 150mm F/4.0 lens for that camera. And since it's currently my only lens, I need to do something to get the wider images I'm looking for. So I'm going to use one of the Generic Anamorphic adapters that are now on eBay. That will give me my wider horizontal angle of view without altering my vertical depth. I won't have to worry about all of the considerations the rest of you have to deal with. At least not for film.

But now that I'm considering using video, I'll have to investigate ways to deal with editing the results.

I just couldn't resist posting here since I've read through so many forums today, that I finally felt like I had to say something about all of this.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao