All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter at DVinfo.net

Brad Thomas · October 24th, 2002, 08:55 PM

I'm thinking abut getting a Century Optics 16:9 anemographic adapter to use with a pd150. I would love to hear from anyone who has used one.

Questions:

1. With the image stretched vertically, is it hard to focus manually?

2. To what degree does the image quality deteriorate with a high quality adapter such as this?

3. When editing the footage in an NLE, I assume it will fit it into the right 16:9 format so it is no longer stretched, right? (using VV3)

4. Will the image when played on a 4:3 NTSC TV be stretched vertically or become letterboxed (or if it does not happen automatically, can I put it in a letterbox form for viewing with a NLE?). I assume it will automaticlly show right in a widescreen TV.

5. Any other downsides to using one?

Thanks!

Frank Granovski · October 28th, 2002, 03:29 AM

I can't give you straight answers to your questions but what I do know is that Century makes the best 16:9 adaptor for the VX2000.

Chris Hurd · October 28th, 2002, 07:20 AM

Howdy from Texas,

<< Will the image when played on a 4:3 NTSC TV be stretched vertically or become letterboxed >>

Stretched vertically. It will not be letterboxed.

<< (or if it does not happen automatically, can I put it in a letterbox form for viewing with a NLE?). >>

Yes. How you do this, depends entirely on the particular NLE you're using.

<< I assume it will automaticlly show right in a widescreen TV. >>

That's right. Hope this helps,

Joan d'Arc · October 28th, 2002, 10:52 AM

The best one is the OPTEX lens. There's a web page that has a comparison of both, and the Optex wins. I will look for the link.

John Jay · October 28th, 2002, 01:48 PM

check my post and download some real 16:9 FHA, then all your qs will be answered

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=4417

George A. Ross · October 31st, 2002, 08:58 AM

I would like to shoot in 16x9 using either a Century or OpTex adapter with a VX2000 but have heard that they produce focus & exposure issues while zooming. Does anyone here have some hands on experience with either one?

Matt Stahley · October 31st, 2002, 03:43 PM

do a google search and there is a site that has stills displayed from both the optex and century. im not sure of the link right now if i come across it i will post it here, but the optex rated better as far as zoom and focus over the century. at least by the comparisons made by the testers. i have not used either one.

Mark Thomas · January 4th, 2003, 06:09 PM

I am interested in purchasing a lense that produces a greater wide angle effect than those such as the canon wd-58. How about an anamorphic lense?? What are my options please?

Out of interest, has anyone seen results of using Panavision 35mm lenses attached to the camera?

Chris Hurd · January 4th, 2003, 07:59 PM

An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view... it only changes the aspect ratio of the image frame.

For wide-angle adapters beyond the Canon .7x WD58, see Century Optics at www.centuryoptics.com

For an adapter to mount 35mm Panavision lenses, see http://www.pstechnik.de/datasheets/d_mini35.htm -- VX2000 / PD150 version toward bottom of page. Hope this helps,

Mark Thomas · January 5th, 2003, 07:33 AM

thanks. The century 3x Ultra Fisheeye Adapter looks very cool. At $700 I am not surprised there has been little mention of this lense. Has anyone out there used one?

Neil Fisher · January 5th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Yeah I use one with my 150 for x-treme bike stuff. As they say, it provides about a 180 degree view. So you don't have to move the camera as much.

Although it sure becomes fustrating once you take the lens off, you become so use to not moving the camera, then it seems like your chasing your target.

The video clip on their site is what you record and with a 150 or VX the quality is amazing.

Boyd Ostroff · January 5th, 2003, 07:40 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view... it only changes the aspect ratio of the image frame.

I would like to respectfully disagree with that :-) By defininition, the anamorphic adaptor must produce a wider frame of view since it maintains the same image height but provides a 16:9 aspect ratio. It just squeezes the wide view into the standard frame width where it will be expanded later. It differs from a wide angle adaptor in that it only produces a WIDER field of view, not a WIDER and TALLER field. Quoting from the Century Optics website:

> Now you can capture 16:9 images without sacrificing resolution or angle
> of view. Some switchable camcorders work by effectively masking
> the top and bottom of the chip, utilizing only 75% of the original
> scan lines, resulting in lost resolution and lost angle of view!
>
> The Century Precision 16:9 is a true anamorphic adapter that captures
> the full 16:9 image onto the 4:3 chip, utilizing every pixel for
> a full resolution image.In-camera switching from 4:3 to 16:9 works by
> cropping into the existing frame (top & bottom), so the resulting
> widescreen view is only as wide as the 4:3 image. Century's adapter can
> reach to a full 33% wider angle of view, delivering true widescreen.

There are example images on their website at:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...pter/index.htm

So it's like using a .33 wide adaptor, but only in the horizontal dimension.

Boyd Ostroff · January 5th, 2003, 07:44 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff :
So it's like using a .33 wide adaptor, but only in the horizontal dimension. -->>>

Oops.... typed before I thought! It's a 33% wider image which would really be the equivalent of a .75 wide angle adaptor in the horizontal dimension.... sorry! :-)

Doug Quance · January 5th, 2003, 09:27 PM

So, you would agree with Chris that the anamorphic lens is NOT going to give you a wider field than the WD-58, right?

After .7 you start to take on a lot of distortion...

Boyd Ostroff · January 5th, 2003, 09:50 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Quance : So, you would agree with Chris that the anamorphic lens is NOT going to give you a wider field than the WD-58, right?

True. I guess I was taking Chris' comment out context... now that I re-read the whole thread it appears that he meant the anamorphic isn't wider than the wd-58... when he said "An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view" I thought he meant it wouldn't be wider than the standard lens. Sorry for any confusion....

October 24th, 2002, 08:55 PM	#1
Brad Thomas New Boot Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tahoe City, CA Posts: 5	All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter I'm thinking abut getting a Century Optics 16:9 anemographic adapter to use with a pd150. I would love to hear from anyone who has used one. Questions: 1. With the image stretched vertically, is it hard to focus manually? 2. To what degree does the image quality deteriorate with a high quality adapter such as this? 3. When editing the footage in an NLE, I assume it will fit it into the right 16:9 format so it is no longer stretched, right? (using VV3) 4. Will the image when played on a 4:3 NTSC TV be stretched vertically or become letterboxed (or if it does not happen automatically, can I put it in a letterbox form for viewing with a NLE?). I assume it will automaticlly show right in a widescreen TV. 5. Any other downsides to using one? Thanks!

October 28th, 2002, 07:20 AM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Howdy from Texas, << Will the image when played on a 4:3 NTSC TV be stretched vertically or become letterboxed >> Stretched vertically. It will not be letterboxed. << (or if it does not happen automatically, can I put it in a letterbox form for viewing with a NLE?). >> Yes. How you do this, depends entirely on the particular NLE you're using. << I assume it will automaticlly show right in a widescreen TV. >> That's right. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 28th, 2002, 10:52 AM	#4
Joan d'Arc New Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Valentian Country (Spain) Posts: 5	Best one The best one is the OPTEX lens. There's a web page that has a comparison of both, and the Optex wins. I will look for the link.

October 31st, 2002, 08:58 AM	#6
George A. Ross New Boot Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brown City, Michigan Posts: 20	Anyone using Century or OpTex 16x9 on VX2000? I would like to shoot in 16x9 using either a Century or OpTex adapter with a VX2000 but have heard that they produce focus & exposure issues while zooming. Does anyone here have some hands on experience with either one?

January 4th, 2003, 06:09 PM	#8
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	Anamorphic Lense I am interested in purchasing a lense that produces a greater wide angle effect than those such as the canon wd-58. How about an anamorphic lense?? What are my options please? Out of interest, has anyone seen results of using Panavision 35mm lenses attached to the camera?

October 28th, 2002, 03:29 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I can't give you straight answers to your questions but what I do know is that Century makes the best 16:9 adaptor for the VX2000.

October 28th, 2002, 01:48 PM	#5
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	check my post and download some real 16:9 FHA, then all your qs will be answered http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=4417

October 31st, 2002, 03:43 PM	#7
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	do a google search and there is a site that has stills displayed from both the optex and century. im not sure of the link right now if i come across it i will post it here, but the optex rated better as far as zoom and focus over the century. at least by the comparisons made by the testers. i have not used either one.

January 4th, 2003, 07:59 PM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view... it only changes the aspect ratio of the image frame. For wide-angle adapters beyond the Canon .7x WD58, see Century Optics at www.centuryoptics.com For an adapter to mount 35mm Panavision lenses, see http://www.pstechnik.de/datasheets/d_mini35.htm -- VX2000 / PD150 version toward bottom of page. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 5th, 2003, 07:33 AM	#10
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	thanks. The century 3x Ultra Fisheeye Adapter looks very cool. At $700 I am not surprised there has been little mention of this lense. Has anyone out there used one?

January 5th, 2003, 04:54 PM	#11
Neil Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Saskatoon SK Canada Posts: 136	Yeah I use one with my 150 for x-treme bike stuff. As they say, it provides about a 180 degree view. So you don't have to move the camera as much. Although it sure becomes fustrating once you take the lens off, you become so use to not moving the camera, then it seems like your chasing your target. The video clip on their site is what you record and with a 150 or VX the quality is amazing.

January 5th, 2003, 07:40 PM	#12
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view... it only changes the aspect ratio of the image frame. I would like to respectfully disagree with that :-) By defininition, the anamorphic adaptor must produce a wider frame of view since it maintains the same image height but provides a 16:9 aspect ratio. It just squeezes the wide view into the standard frame width where it will be expanded later. It differs from a wide angle adaptor in that it only produces a WIDER field of view, not a WIDER and TALLER field. Quoting from the Century Optics website: > Now you can capture 16:9 images without sacrificing resolution or angle > of view. Some switchable camcorders work by effectively masking > the top and bottom of the chip, utilizing only 75% of the original > scan lines, resulting in lost resolution and lost angle of view! > > The Century Precision 16:9 is a true anamorphic adapter that captures > the full 16:9 image onto the 4:3 chip, utilizing every pixel for > a full resolution image.In-camera switching from 4:3 to 16:9 works by > cropping into the existing frame (top & bottom), so the resulting > widescreen view is only as wide as the 4:3 image. Century's adapter can > reach to a full 33% wider angle of view, delivering true widescreen. There are example images on their website at: http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...pter/index.htm So it's like using a .33 wide adaptor, but only in the horizontal dimension.

January 5th, 2003, 07:44 PM	#13
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : So it's like using a .33 wide adaptor, but only in the horizontal dimension. -->>> Oops.... typed before I thought! It's a 33% wider image which would really be the equivalent of a .75 wide angle adaptor in the horizontal dimension.... sorry! :-)

January 5th, 2003, 09:27 PM	#14
Doug Quance Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 138	So, you would agree with Chris that the anamorphic lens is NOT going to give you a wider field than the WD-58, right? After .7 you start to take on a lot of distortion... __________________ If you're not the lead dog... the scenery never changes

January 5th, 2003, 09:50 PM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Quance : So, you would agree with Chris that the anamorphic lens is NOT going to give you a wider field than the WD-58, right? True. I guess I was taking Chris' comment out context... now that I re-read the whole thread it appears that he meant the anamorphic isn't wider than the wd-58... when he said "An anamorphic adapter will not produce a wider field of view" I thought he meant it wouldn't be wider than the standard lens. Sorry for any confusion....