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!

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.

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,

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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,

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?

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.

<<<-- 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 &amp; 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/products/dv/2/16x9_adapter/index.htm

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

<<<-- 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! :-)

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...

<<<-- 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....

I'm not sure if this is the link you mean...

http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm

I've used an optex unit on my pd 150 and on a trv-900. When I researched the purchase various parties that I came across including some test pictures showed that the optex unit gave you a little more zoom while still keeping focus. Both units are high quality real glass. I liked the feeling and look of the english made unit and bought it despite the higher price. It really fits nice on the pd-150/2000. I mounted a chrosziel matte box on it with a selection of filters and I liked what I could get out of it. There is a slight reduction of sharpness however. You gain way more, however than the sharpness you lose by just cropping the 4:3 image. Overall it's a nice unit. I have a century adapter for a pc-110 w/a 37mm lens front and it seems somehow a little less sharp. I don't know if this smaller/ lower price unit is lower grade glass somehow than the next size up. It wouldn't seem to be the case. This is purely subjective as I haven't shot resolution charts or anything and I couldn't really compare two different cameras. The pdx-10 makes real nice widescreen pictures at full resolution (it seems) and I like the look of this better on a large projected image than I do the optex on my pd-150. It's a bit sharper and the feel of the image is somehow nicer to me. The ergonomics of the pd-150 is much nicer though. I love that camera and I'm selling it because I have two pdx-10s for a matched look and it's the best/cheapest thing going right now in native widescreen(now I just need to get some custom ballast machined for those little guys to smooth out the jitters) Until we have high-def or at least 4:2:2 palm cameras probably. Who knows at what rate the technowizards will let us have the goods.

Adam Wilt reviewed both the Optex and Century in http://www.dv.com

I didn't have a good experience with a Century adaptor on a PD150. More pixels, but at the same time the extra glass softens things. It makes it "smoother." Not sharper. I couldn't accept the loss of control. It limited you to medium focal lengths, it would vignette at wide, and at telephoto it would slowly creep into losing focus, so that you wouldn't notice sometimes and certian shots would be ruined.

However, it's a nice look when you can get it right. Some people swear by them. I sold mine to a guy who needed a matching pair. Personally, I think that you can get "better images" by having the freedom to compose them properly, which the adaptors took away from me.

Adaptor free and staying clean.

Yeah, I kind of tend to agree with you.
I think the next crop of cameras comeing out the pd-150 replacement and the xl-2 will probably be native 16:9 or something like they did on the pdx-10 with megapixel chips. Although probably just a dedicated chip in the beloved 1/3 inch segment. Then it's moot unless you are after a novelty really stretched 2.35:1 type image. The anamorphic adapters do soften the image to my eyes and I'm happy shooting with my little pdx-10's for that reason alone. Even though I want a camera with the size/weight/fetures of the 1/3 inch class. I have my mantra I'm repeating for the new pd-150. Native 16:9. Progressive 24,25,30 (why not drop the distinction between pal/ntsc market, just make one for the global community) with interlaced capability. Full featured both ways. More detailed menus a 72mm lens front like the Panasonic and if we lived in a world that wasn't about marketing and progressive technological spoon feedings; how about the ability to use the camera as a head that can output not only a dv-25 signal but also a 4:2:2 dv50 if you wanted to record direct to disk. Then go ahead and make a portable device in their line to do just that for remote battery operated capture but a lap top could do it too. I truly am dreaming here aren't I.
Oh I forgot, totally redesigned mic pre's with better A/D converters. How many of us would buy this camera for 5,300 or less. I'll take two in the same dark grey metal body of the 150.

well i just bit the bullet and got a pd150, it'll be here by the end of the week.

the first piece i'm shooting will be in 16:9 and i wanted to know if it's worth it to get an adapter to make the piece look less distorted.

here's the url for the century optics choice:
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/2/16x9_adapter/index.htm

so, any thoughts? i'm going to bed now, but i'll check the thread in the morning.

-justin

Well worth having a look at the Optex anamorphic as well Justin. Test pictures here on the web show it to be a better performer than the Century, which is a turn-up for the books.

If you decide to simply use the native 16:9 built into the 150 then be aware (be very aware) that you've sacrificed 25% of your vertical resolution, and there's no going back.

tom.

I wouldn't shoot using the built-in electronic 16:9, it's just too soft.

The Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic adaptor is excellent and highly useable.

Century Optics also offers their LCD Magnifier which is an excellent solution that allows you to properly view your anamorphic image with the flip-out LCD panel on the camera.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/lcd_magnifier/

- don

Adam Wilt tested both the Optex and Century, from what I recall, and he rated them both the same; but he liked the Century a bit better (for reasons I can't recall). Both tests where published in DV Magazine a few years ago. Perhaps they are still posted somewhere on the http://www.dv.com website.

Don,

Do you have and use the Century LCD magnifier? If so, would you report on its use and good/bad features in a separate post?

I am interested in attachment speed and whether it will allow me to use the LCD screen without wearing my reading glasses.

hey, i'm awake. thanks guys. if i get an adapter, does this mean i should shoot and edit in 4:3? does the adapter do all the work?

No, what you get is a 'squished' image if you attempt to edit in 4:3 aspect ratio.

I'm not certain just what settings you would have to make other than select 16:9 which should squeeze it the other way and make it look OK.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/understanding_16_9.html

oops, i miss typed. i knew i had to edit in 16:9, what i was asking was should i leave it in 4:3 on the camera.

this thing is pricey!!! anyone know if i can rent one in the san francisco bay area?

Mike,
I use the LCD magnifier by Century and I will tell you that it depends on how bad...err I mean how strong your reading glasses are as to whether on not you can ditch them. 1st the magnifier is slightly adjustable AND can be used as a sunshade when needed. 2nd, it slips on easily and to get it off you pull with some pressure. It does make a difference, depending on how tired my eyes are, most of the time I do not have to wear my reading glasses and since I use the LCD about 95% of the time, it makes for a more comfy night shooting. Hope that helps
Don

Justin, yes.

Don, Thanks

mike,

so you do know a place round here that rents such a beast, eh?

i floated you an email about this.

-justin

I haven't seen the email yet.

I'd give Adoph Gasser's a try. Or call Century and ask them who has it for rent.

Gasser's ain't got it. but i will try calling Century, that's a good idea.

almost considered the PDX10 for this reason, but we have the 950s at school and i don't like them. plus i wanted the low light capability and i like the built-in handle when you have a big honking mic off the front.

wish i could have waited to see if an update was in store at NAB, but my project is now.

I am prepping to shoot a feature-length film on DV. I was planning to do this anyway, but after just seeing PERSONAL VELOCITY, I am even more encouraged.

I like the 1.85 shooting ration. Actually, I'd love to shoot wider in something like Cinemascope if it were available.

The camera will be a SONY PD-150.

This camera has 16:9 capability, but I've been hearing about ANAMORPHIC adapters and that shooting in 16:9 reduces the number of picture lines and resolution. I thought that 16:9 squeezed the 4:3 lines down - or widened them out.

Could anyone explain the technical difference?

Thanks.

Mike there have been tons of threads concerning this here on DVinfo. I tried to post a link to the search but it only linked the search page not the results. Do a search here and you will find all kinds of input. Here is another link that may help.

http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm

Yes, there really has been extensive discussion of this recently. I suggest you browse through the PDX-10, XL-1 and PD-150 forums going back a week or two. Some of the discussions are ongoing still.

But in a nutshell, the PD-150 creates the 16:9 effect by just cropping off the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. Then it stretches it anamorphically so it will be recocognized on a widescreen TV. But basically you've reduced the horizontal resolution of your image to 360 lines. See some examples I posted at http://greenmist.com/pdx10

Also, not to nitpick, but the correct aspect ratio for 16:9 is 1.78. However if you'd like to play with the cinema effect I suggest you visit this site http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm. Here you can download some chroma key mattes and put them on a memory stick, then use the memory mix function to letterbox at 1.85 or 2.35. Of course in doing this you are even further reducing your vertical resolution, but it might be fun to experiment with...

There are a couple inexpensive cameras now that can shoot in "real" 16:9, notably the PDX-10 and DV-953 from Panasonic.

Boyd,

You meant to say that it reduces the vertical resolution to 360 lines, didn't you?

Oops, yep you're right Mike, mea culpa!

Is anyone using a widescreen adaptor (such as the ones sold by century optics or optex) with their vx2000/2100 or PD-150/170?

How do you like it? Are you getting distortion or vignetting?

The reason I'm asking is because it looks like for the next several years, the best sub-$5000 widescreen camera setup for wedding videographers (i.e., those who need good lowlight performance) is going to be a VX2000/PD-150 with an anamorphic adaptor. But I've heard mixed reviews on them. Would love to hear more from those who have actually used them.

There are mixed feelings about using anamorphics. First off you won't be able to focus so close and you'll lose a lot of wide-angle (though you'll gain a bit from the amamorphic itself - which is a wide-angle converter in the horizontal plane only). Your side-screen and viewfinder will both be distorted (horizontally compressed images) and this will take some getting used to if you're not using a 16:9 monitor while shooting. You'll get more flare and you'll need a good 16:9 hood.

On the plus side you'll beat the 16:9 of the PDX10 hands down. You'll be confident that the next camera up that's just noticeably better costs 3x as much. But remember this - 16:9 footage is less backwards compatible than 4:3. Older TVs will show it distorted and I find (doing lots of weddings a year) that if I shoot 4:3 then they can show it on whatever TV they like - the TV remote control can squeeze it, push it, bend it, shape it anyway they want it. Hey - this sounds like a song from the Small Faces in the 1960s.

tom.

On the plus side you'll beat the 16:9 of the PDX10 hands down.

How so?

Gosh, where do I start? Low light sensitivity (3.5 stops better) more wide-angle, better DOF control, know what aperture and ND you're shooting with. much less CCD smear, longer battery life, 6 bladed diaphragm and reliable 'display' info. But then it's a lot more money, weight and bulk...

tom.

I see how those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality but just comparing widescreen to widescreen the PDX10 is of higher resolution than a VX2000/VX2100 with an anamorphic adapter.

Hi there I am practically new here, I would like to purchase a camcorder mainly for short films, and am considering mainly the pd170.
how does the 170's 16:9 hold, would anyone who shoots in this mode with the 170 for a competition be crazy do you feel that an anamorphic adapter is the way to go?
I have been reading reviews all over the place. some say that the panasonic dvx100 is the way to go if you want to do films. but the 100 and 170 are very close to colour reproductions and so on.
could anyone suggest me the way to go? sort of I feel that although the pana is a later technology the sony is still very good.

Tommy, I'm sure you're right - though I haven't done the test myself to confirm. But your words, "those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality" hit the nail on the head. Picture quality comes from a whole host of disciplines, a few of which I listed. It reminds me that some Hifi buffs in the 80s used to think that a flat frequency response was the be and end all of Hifi. Open reel tape deck manufacturers went to great pains to pump out decks that were flat from 20 to 20k, often at the expense of other - far more important parameters.

Cars too are made to perform well in the 0 to 60 test, regardless of the fact that this can give gearing not best siuted to modern driving. I feel Sony have gone this route slightly with the PDX10. It does indeed give wonderful picture quality, but out there in the real world, where the light levels vary, you need a camera that makes more level headed compromises.

tom.

I agree Tom.

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

:)

Tom: thanks for that reply. You make a good point regarding backwards compatibility. But I'm not sure that showing a 4:3 production on a widescreen TV isn't just as bad ... either you get the gray/black bars on the sides, which is unsatisfying, or you get the picture unnaturally stretched to fill the 16:9 dimensions ... which is what most people will probably do, whether they realize it or not. To me either looks terrible, but I guess if the client doesn't mind ...

unfortunately we're in the middle of a transition and there's no decent solution other than to wait until 16:9 becomes the norm for consumers.

On reading these forums, and a couple of others, my company and I each purchased the Century Optics adapter for the PD170 cameras. On multiple cameras this adapter seems to cause focus problems, with much soft focus, and an inability to find the focus even on manual. This adapter has caused nothing but problems. Has anyone else had these problems? I haven't seen anyone report about it online.

My second posting down in this list describes what you've found Jonah, that using an anamorphic brings a solution but also brings problems.

Don't forget that you're adding a cylindrical element in front of your camera's lens and this in itself is designed to distort the image. You're shooting with more distortion in the hope that the TV will correct this later.

It does work, but it demands that you curtail the zooming and the close focusing and accept a distorted viewfinder. These are big prices to pay in my book, and we haven't even started talking about the big price up front or it's weight and the light loss. In a side-by-side comparison on a good big 16:9 TV the anamorphic footage will look better, but this is like saying the PDX10 gives better widescreen footage than the VX2000. Yes, it does in controlled conditions, but out there in the real run 'n' gun world, it most certainly doesn't.

tom.