Just got the Century .6x and 1.6x lenses - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CCD HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 1st, 2006, 09:00 AM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 216
I also noticed that radial CA correction seemed to work very well on this image.

Does anybody know if there is software that performs CA correction on video? I've seen some packages that do this on still images. It wouldn't be hard to do the same for video, but I haven't found anything that does it...

Bill
William Gardner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM   #17
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 110
Huzzah for internet film school!

Forgive me for digressing from the topic at hand. Also forgive me for being a dyslexic, unlearned, dumb ass. I have a couple questions.

1. What does the 'x' in 0.6x, 1.6x, etc.. on telephoto lenses represent?

2. Am I correct in my understanding that the longer the focal length of my lens, the narrower my depth of field becomes?
__________________
Brilliant Champions | Gallery Hijinks
Joe Lumbroso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2006, 06:59 PM   #18
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Joe: the x represents the multiplication symbol. So, the Z1's published lens spec (in 35mm still camera equivalence) is 390mm at full zoom. Adding the 1.6x teleconvertor gives us a 35mm equivalent of 390 x 1.6 = 624mm. In other words, the teleconvertor multiplies the camera's built-in lens 1.6 times. Yes, your understanding of narrow depth of field is correct.

William: interesting point. I'm not aware of any software but maybe someone else is.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2006, 02:47 PM   #19
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 110
Boyd, thanks for breaking that down for me. All this is starting to make sense now.

Is there a 1.6x teleconverter you'd recommend that is between the $300-$500 range for the Z1 or should I just cut down on my drinking for a week and get the Century?
__________________
Brilliant Champions | Gallery Hijinks
Joe Lumbroso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2006, 04:59 PM   #20
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
The century is the only one I've used, but the following thread might be of interest: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2006, 11:35 AM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: West Sussex England
Posts: 695
Boyd,

Thankyou for the info re the lens hood. I did a quick check round over this side of the pond about the offer you got. Nobody had heard of it. A quick e-mail to century in the States put me in touch with the Uk imports, who match the deal. I am now the the owner of the said hood having collected from them at the Video Forum show being held here in London at the moment.

regards

Mick.
Mick Jenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2006, 12:45 PM   #22
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2006, 12:54 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: West Sussex England
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff
Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.

I'm useing it with with the 1.6. Could have done with it a couple of weeks ago when filming cheetahs in the Masai Mara when it suddenly rained, it would have helped to keep the rain off as it was falling almost straight down. Still we located them the following day and got some good footage.
Mick Jenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2006, 08:52 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Corfield
Your abandoned factory is an interesting place. But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter! Seen on the LHS of your picture. I've been using an old Canon C-8 1.4 teleconverter ($50 on ebay) and the aberration I get is no worse. I can even see similar problems using the Sony wide angle converter, except that the aberation now appears on the RHS of the picture. Look carefully in shots with high contrast on the RHS. I blame the standard lens, you can see aberration when it's fully zoomed in (LHS), but you really have to look for it. Shows up with high contrast subjects.
i also use the canon c-8 1.4x and i use the 1.6x as well... very nice... for 1/10th of the price... thats the way to go...!!!


joel

oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!! times 12x (STOCK ZOOM) = 36x!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think i am crazy? i post some pics so you can compare the century...

joel

Last edited by Joel Corral; February 8th, 2006 at 12:23 AM.
Joel Corral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Posts: 342
Lens Shade

Hi Boyd

An addendum to my earlier e-mail to you (feel free to post it): A polarizing 4 x 4 filter only sort of works in the lens shade for the Century W/A lens. You really need a fully rotating holder that you get on a matte box to get the full force and effect of the polarizer. But, the filters and the holders are beautiful, but expensive, about $150 a pop for the holder and or the filters.

Jack Hubbard
Jack D. Hubbard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2006, 06:04 PM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 110
Hi Joel,

Are you using the Canon C-8s with Z1/FX1 with John Jay's recipe? I've been considering this but want to hear some positive feedback as well as stills before making my final decision. If you would email me (joe [-at-] lumbroso.com) some stills, I could host them for this forum. Thanks.
__________________
Brilliant Champions | Gallery Hijinks
Joe Lumbroso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2006, 09:25 PM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Corral
oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!!
joel
Minor correction, 1.4x "+" 1.6x = 2.24x (you multiply them, not add them).

Otherwise, B&H could sell you 5 nice 1.0x "teleconverters" to get
1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x = 5x.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

:)

Cheers,
Bill
William Gardner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Corfield
But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter!
I would not condemn the Century 1.6X. Here's a couple of frame grabs that I did at maximum zoom without and with the 1.6X installed.

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

My close examination of the images says there's just about as much chromatic aberration with out the telephoto converter installed as there is with it. It's magnified by the teleconverter but I don't believe the converter adds much.

My observation is that the Century converter is not the CA culprit with the Z1U.

Carroll Lam
Carroll Lam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2006, 07:56 PM   #29
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Carroll, I have to agree with you. If you look at my frame grab taken with the builtin lens at full zoom you'll also see CA. I think the Century 1.6x has simply magnified it, like you say.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2006, 08:25 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 127
You'd think Carl Zeiss could do better. 8-)

Carroll Lam
Carroll Lam 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 > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z1 / HDR-FX1

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 AM.


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