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, 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...

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

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-

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.

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,

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

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