<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : I agree Tom.

What scared me is how much I would be willing to pay for a native 16:9 VX2000!

:) -->>>

Well then, a DSR-570WS should be ok then, right? :-))))

I guess I should have put a spending cap on that dream sequence. :)

How good is the century optics 16x9? Anyone actually got one?

it works well but with so many limitations (specially into zoom) that the price make it really an expensive for the few lines you save by using it.
Frankly if you can afford for another solution it worth to try.

Their products are great, but very pricey.

I'm using the Century 16:9 adapter on a Sony PD150P. Together with a mattebox and 4x4 filter holders the setupp is a quit god one.

The adapter has its limitation. You can't zoom outside of the 1/4 and 3/4 range. I use to zoom only from the 1/3 to the 3/4 max. The picture quallity is much more like "film" . Not film but it is more soft.

A note - You have to be very careful in run & gun scenarios where you are trying to focus using the small lcd and time is against you. I've had some footage where the bg was in focus and the subject in foreground was not.

The LCD isn't good enough to focus in most situations, especially compared to the viewfinder or an external monitor.

I have the Century anamorphic and really like it. I find that it doesn't really interfere with the autofocus on my GL1. I even shot a wedding reception with it. No focus problems whatsoever. On manual you can zoom in, let the autofocus make its best guess, put it back on manual and zoom out and you will have a very sharp picture. An external monitor would be very nice with this adapter, but it's not 100 percent necessary if you can deal with its quirks. I never shoot with the zoom at more than a quarter of the zoom range with this adapter, so there are definitely some limitations.

Has the PD170 nativ 16:9?

Century optics has a 1.33 anamorphic adapter with full zoom. Has someone tested on a PD150?

I guess a combination of the Century 16:9 with the Century 75 mm telelinse is a god solution. The tele adapter is for the Canon but fits on the 16:9 adapter. I could help with the shallow focus.

The Century zoom through adapter is a bit of a mystery. Nobody seems to have ever seen one, and B&H has listed it on back order ever since the thing was announced a year or so ago. I’m not convinced Century has ever shipped any. Been meaning to call and ask them about that.

I’m also curious to know how well the Panasonic anamorphic performs with cameras that have 58 mm threads, like the GL2 and VX2000. Anybody tried it?

Interesting comment about the “tele adapter” from Century. Are you referring to the 1.6x tele-converter? Have you tried it? How do you mount it? Would love to see some screen shots.

No, I didn't have any tele converter but.... look at this:

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/filmstylePD150.html and the link to Century : http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/65-75/16x_tele-converter/index.htm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=142095&is=REG

I guess the adapter is from the DVpro list.

-------------------

How do you add a link here?

Pretty neat. I've always wanted to try piggy backing a wide angle adapter. I wonder if that's the Century zoom through? It looks like it could be the regular Century anamorphic.

Yes , it is a regular 16:9 and a WA on the picture. But if it works than it has to work with the tele converter. More tele -> more shallow focus.

I am planning on buying a Optex 16:9 adaptor, and a Century Optics Mattebox. Does the matte box have enough room on the bars to mount a 16:9 adaptor lens between it and camera lens?

Yes, I guess. But take a look at this:

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4ClampOn.htm

it is better and cheaper as I know.

Is there such a thing as a fully zoom through anamorphic adapter for the PD170? From the posts I searched, the Century Optics adapter does not seem work well at extreme tele and wide.

Are there any other manufacturers that produce quality anamorphic adapters for the Sony PD170 that work at any focal lengths in auto focus? Also, is it possible to screw on wide angle or telephoto adapters? Or am I just dreaming?

Century's new anamorphic is fully zoom through, but hard to get. You can buy one from them, but at retail. Nobody else seems to be able to keep it in stock. DV Mag recommends the Panasonic, which is between the price of the top end and lower end Century adapters. At this stage, I'd probably stick with the original Century. You can get good used deals.

I just purchased mine from B&H in NY. They didn't have it in stock, but if you sign up for the Notify Me When In Stock, you will get a pretty quick reply.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Really? I think you are officially the first person on these boards to have reported even seeing one. How do you like it?

No, it's not possible to use supplimentary wide-angle and /or telephoto converters when you use an anamorphic. You could use a close-up lens though.

tom.

Several years ago I asked Century about adding a wide angle adapter to the anamorphic and was told by one of their techs that some people used a clamp-on adapter ring to mount one of their professional wide angles. She didn't seem to think it was a very good a idea, but people were definitely doing it. I agree about the close-up lens. I've tried both a drop in lens and Series 9 dual element achromatic and they both work surprisingly well, but only at a very precise distance. It significantly extends the zoom range too, but after doing a few tests, it doesn't appear to extend the range quite as much as I had once thought.

Me am like the anamorphic adapter alot... ALOT... ALOT I SAY!!!

I put my name on the notify list at B&H and within two days got an email saying it was available for purchase. It arrived a few days later. I've had it for about two weeks now.

I spent an afternoon shooting with it, the wide angle adapter, normal mode, and the fake 16:9 the camera does to compare. Wide angle adapter and anamorphic are no comparison, but the anamorphic compared to the fake 16:9 is a blessing. It looks so much more clear when viewed on my Sony Pro Monitor in the edit bay.

The only bad thing is making sure you get the lens lined up correctly. There were a few shots where the rotating lens was not perfectly perpendicular. The shots look okay, but you can tell there is a slight wonkyness to them.

Other than that... ALOT I SAY!!!

Cheers

I found it's a lot easier to get the lens aligned after putting on the sunshade -- the bottom edge gives you a nice long line that you can align with the bottom of the camera. Of course, that's assuming you got it on the adapter right. I'm dying to come up with a reason to rotate the lens while shooting. A drug sequence maybe? You can get pretty funky effects.

Hi,

Thinking of getting one of these:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/pdf/CpPD170.pdf

anyone had any experience of using one?

bryan

People have been asking about this lens every couple months for the past year, however nobody here has ever seen one. There is some doubt as to whether it's actually a shipping product. On B&H's website they list it as both "out of stock" and "special order" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=BBhgtHxo46!1005504542?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=century+anamorphic+1.33

Also note that it costs $1,300...

I know this was for the PD170. However I have a couple PD-150 cameras, and wanted to do a 16:9 ana for it. Are they available for the 150, if so what other accessories would I need to purchase to make it perfect..

Thanks much

patrick

I believe there is a bayonet version for the PD170. They also make a 58mm threaded version.

Any one version better over the other? Sorry for the noobness, in the last 8 months I have been introduced and inducted into doing camera work..

Any places to purchase, model numbers, anything will help.. :)

I've never believed in bayonet mounts because you can only use them with one model of camera. Why not get the threaded version? They're only moderately less convenient, are easier to sell, and are more likely to be compatible with future equipment. Keep in mind though, that I almost never remove our anamorphic, so it may be less of an issue for me than for people who constantly need to switch back and forth between aspect ratios.

Well I have two PD-150's and plan to use it full-time on one of them. So it's a just a matter of resale and convience between them?

Also, does either one require a new sunshade/box or any other accessories?

Thanks so much for your help..

I don't believe there is any performance difference. Our anamorphic is surprisingly resistant to flare, but we have the earlier, more inexpensive version. I can't speak for the new one. We do use a sunshade though, although we could almost get away without it. The sunshade is also the only way to use filters, as Century never puts threads on their adapters.

So.. $1200 bucks for the 1.33 Anamorphic and $799 for the 16:9 widescreen..

So without sounding too dumb and looking like I am trying to get my number of posts up.. What's the diff?

If you call Century, they don't recommend the screw in version on the PD-150 because when you zoom out it will vignette. The threads on the front of the lens are plastic too and could easily cross-thread or break off.
The bayonet version (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=173584&is=REG) fit's nice and tight and once you get it adjusted properly you don't need to readjust it when you remove it and reattach it.
The newer model (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=287711&is=REG) will allow a full range of zoom but needs to be fine tuned depending on the focus distance. There are marks on the lens to assist in this. Yes, if you want a matbox, you will need to buy a new one. The Century Matbox (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=331121&is=REG) is a nice fit and is supported by rods instead of the lens as most others are but I've seen both kinds used without problems.

You can order any of these items from B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/). (a DVinfo.net sponsor)

Thanks so much for the concise information..

It's appreciated..

Hey Everyone -
I just checked on ebay and Panasonic Anamorphic Adapters (AG-LA2700G) commonly go for $500 range on ebay new, while Century 16x9 adapters are normally closer to a thousand. Is there any reason you can't just use a Panasonic Anamorphic Adapter with just a 72mm->58mm stepdown ring?

Exuse my ignorance if there is :)

Thanks
Ari

DV Magazine says you can use the Panasonic on the XL1 (you'll have to register). Presumably it would work on other cameras as well.

http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/wilt0804_rvw

Greetings from the Bahamas!

Anyone finding the focusable Century Anamorphic Adapter a little soft compared to normal 4:3 shooting? I see at times some artifacts in Premiere Pro after stretching. However, after rendered and put on DVD I find the image a little softer compared to normal shooting (4:3). It seems a slight degredation is occuring. When I shoot in normal mode and then put black bars at top and bottom the image is comparatively sharper. Any comments would be greately appreciated.

Thank You.

Well I'm no fan of the anamorphic adapter, but you really need to use a widescreen tv to do a fair comparison. From your description I can tell you are using a regular 4:3 tv. The reason this is important is because anamorphic video looses every 4th line and gets deinterlaced when it is played back on a regular set. This damages the picture considerably renders any advantage of the anamorphic adapter moot.

Now if you did the same comparison on a 16:9 TV, the anamorphic footage shot with the Century lense would fill the screen and look much sharper while the letterboxed footage would be stretched horizontally and still have the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

Makes sense to me. Thank you for your response. Now on a computer with windows Media Player 9 should it be sharper? It still appears softer to me.

16:9 video has a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2121 NTSC or 1.4568 PAL. PC video always has a square pixel aspect ratio of 1 (equal height and width). Regular 4:3 video is quite close to a square pixel (.9091 NTSC or 1.0926 PAL) and translates most efficiently to PC playback.

Got it. That explains it. I will view my footage on a 16:9 T.V to see if it gets sharper. If not I will send it in to Century. Thanks.

There will always be slight losses when using an anamorphic, even a comparatively mild 1.33:1 version as this Century is. When using film we used 2:1 anamorphics, and the losses are consequently greater of course.

An anamorphic is a wide-angle converter but in the horizontal plane only, and the cylindrical elements are never perfectly cylindrical, it's never perfectly centered on the zoom's axis and the elements introduce more flare. They also tend to restrict the zoom's range and vignette at the wide end, so you can see I'm not a fan.

Their days must be numbered though. It's cheaper to buy an FX1 and shoot native wide-screen than it is to get a VX2000+Century anamorphic.

tom.

If there is one thing I miss in my PD-170s, it is a native 16:9 option. I've also been weighing the SD vs HD thing and have come to the conclusion that what I really need over the next 2 years is a 16:9 solution.

As many of you probably know, the CO lens is costly at around $1,200 at B&H. Aside from the cost, does anyone have any practical experience with this lens on a PD-170 or 150? In particular, experience shooting wedding ceremonies and receptions. I'm interested in hearing the good, bad or ugly.
Thanks for any info.
Bob

Bob, I'm in the exact same boat you're in. 2 PD170's which I really love for their color and low light performance, and a need for 16x9 output. I'm not ready to make th HDV move either. No one has asked me for HD and I too estimate about two years before I really see the ability to sell it around here. I keep going back to the anamorphic thing. I would spend the money for the adapters if I knew the output would be as good as what I am currently getting in 4x3 and if I knew that once setup corectly I could maintain full zoom through and and focusing capability. If anyone shoots with this adapter "Cetury Optics Anamorphic 1.33 Converter DS-WS13-SB" please tell us you thoughts.

You've got to realise that anything you put in front of your PD's zoom lens will degrade the image to a greater or lesser degree. A 1.33:1 anamorphic is a wide-angle converter in the horizontal plane only, and cylindrical rather than speherical (or aspherical) elements do the light bending.

But the big payoff is that you get to use the whole of the 1/3" chip to capture the 16:9 image, so even with the anamorphic's losses the gains generally outweigh them. Of course there will be side-effects (there always are). You'll need a new lens hood, you might well curtail your 12x zoom range, edge definition won't be as good as without the lens and focus will be more problematic.

But as you both rightly point out - 16:9 is a here-and-now requirement whereas HiDef most certainly isn't. So the CO lens will enable you to squeeze more life out of the hugely versatile and low-light king called the PD170.

I can't speak for the PD170 however for the PD150P, I found the Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic lens does yield a clearly better result than the electronic stretch which sheds about 25% of the vertical resolution.

If you letterbox the footage and take care to de-interlace the images, the image looks to be on a par with the image from the HDRFX1 if this is intercut and also letterboxed.

If you don't de-interlace the PD150 image, it will appear somewhat like looking through flywire when there is a lot of fine high contrast detail like rows of windows on high-rise buildings, checkered tablecloths or fine ripples on a lake.

An old report on the web, which has since disappeared, suggested that the Optex 16:9 lens was better. This lens is apparently no longer available. But it is a while since I last enquired so it may be findable again.

I found the Century vignetted a little on the left edge as viewed with the PAL camera when the lens was at its widest setting. It does not pick up the right corners or edge.

This seems due to the optical path of the PD150P and PD170P which has the lens centre slightly offset relative to the centre of the CCDs. There is apparently a few more pixels with the PAL CCDs though I don't have the confirmation of that suggestion. The NTSC models may not do this.

If you don't believe me about the offset, lock your cam off on a tripod after you have zoomed in and centred a target. Retreat the zoom back to wide and see if that target is still centred.

I filed off about another 0.75mm off the inner left edge and corners of the plastic spacer between the two glass elements of the Century to cheat a little more field of view without the vignette but I would not recommend this practice to anyone other than lens-smiths.

The corners are still vignetted slightly on full wide in an underscan image but are well gone from the TV safe-area. To fix this, a little more might have to be taken out of the existing left-side cutouts on front of the lens but in my opinion there is little point to doing it as the same field of view as the camera's own lens is already available wit a little bit of zoom-in.

When you set the zoom to frame the exact same width of mage as you were getting without the 16:9, there will be no vignette. The 16:9 confers a little more wide-angle than the camera's own lens.

Obviously standard DV is not the way one would want to show off HDV footage but if you are using a mix of both in a standard definition end-product to DVD-Video then the 16:9 anamorphic lens is well worth using and recommended.

Whilst I had the 16:9 lens dismantled, I observed some very small chips in the outer corners of the rear element on the right side.

This seemed to be due to some shock damage so I suggest very great care in handling this lens in the field and avoid knocking it, especially from the side.

Thanks for the info Bob. This sounds good. My workflow includes deinterlacing with DV Filmaker anyway so that would not be a change.

How is it to work with? Is the full zoom available? How about focusing? I was reading some info at the Cent Optics site about setting up the adapter and it appeared that there was a procedure for focusing that had to be followed. Apparently there is a seperate focus ring on the adapter. Is this something that is set up once and then left alone or does it require adjusting for every focus change you make. This will probably be a deciding factor for me since most of my work is event coverage. I would think having to work two focus rings would really be tough during events. How does that affect autofocus? I use autofocus about half the time depending on the circumstances.

Thanks again for the detailed response.

If there's a choice between the screw-on and bayonet, go for the bayonet. As you're shooting through a cylindrical element it must be accurately aligned vertically, and the bayonet ensures this happens quickly every time.

The downside is that the anamorphic can't be used on other cameras using step-up rings, and this limits its second-hand sales appeal.

tom.

Lamar,
Century Optics website makes focusing sound easy. They claim you should go full telephoto on your subject, focus and then zoom to wide. The image will stay in focus throughout the focal range.

Wish I could get my hands on one of those for a test. Can't find anything on the net about them which seems to indicate that there aren't many out there. No wonder at $1,200 each which for me would need to be a $2,400 investment for a 16:9 wedding.

Wouldn't Sony have added so much more value to the 170 if they had just included native 16:9?

Decisions, decisions...