Century Optics 16:9 Quick Resolution Test
 

I have a new GL-2 with the Century Optics 16:9 bayonet adapter.

I shoot theatricals and I am usually wide open, often in gain up, and at the back of the house using the telephoto end of the zoom range.

From these threads I learned that "limited zoom through" meant "Doesn't work so hot wide open or zoomed out". Damn!

I have just got done with a rough and ready resolution test with John Beales resolution wedges taped to my garden shed in the corners of the frame. I kept consistent side to side framing. It was about 3/4 zoomed out and shot brief tests at both f2 and f5.6. The clips were imported into Vegas and letterboxed (which is how I am currently making my DVDs). A 720 by 480 bmp was saved and viewed with the Windows picture viewer.

Here are the results:

Century 16:9 Anamorphic F2.0.
Large horizontal wedges (vertical resolution) resolved for 40% of their length. Color casts were quite mild.
Large vertical wedges (horizontal resolution) resolved for 90% of their length. Mild color casts and no artifacting.
Edges were straight, parallel lines were parallel.

For the same vertical framing, it took in slightly less horizontally than the in camera 16:9 or 4:3 modes. (The geometery seems to vary slightly between all three modes).

In Camera 16:9 F2.0
Large horizontal wedges (vertical resolution) barely resolved at large end. Strong color casts.
Large vertical wedges (horizontal resolution) resolved for 110% of their length (middle sized bars resolved for 10% of their length. No color casts but compression artifacting on high contrast edges.
Edges were straight, parallel lines were parallel.

Slightly more horizontal distance shown for same vertical framing.

Normal 4:3 Mode F2.0
Large horizontal wedges (vertical resolution) resolved for 20% of their length. Strong color casts.
Large vertical wedges (horizontal resolution) resolved for 70% of their length. Mild color casts and no artifacting.
Edges were straight, parallel lines were parallel.

More horizontal and vertical image shown than the In Camera 16:9, but the camera was not moved or zoomed (I think). The geometry between In Camera 16:9 and 4:3 appears slightly different which would account for the differences between the Century Optics adapter and In Camera 16:9 geometry.

F5.6 Almost NO differences from the results at F2.0!! The one significant difference was in 4:3 mode the large vertical wedges (horizontal resolution) went from 70% to 110% but without the artifacting on the edges that occured in In Camera 16:9.

Conclusion. The Century Optics 16:9 Adapter does deliver increased vertical resolution and comparable horizontal resolution to the In Camera 16:9 mode, at least at 3/4 zoomed out towards telephoto and wide open. Geometry seems fine and there was no noticeable pincushion or barrel distortion.

-Tom-

Thanks Tom,

A few of us have asked for some feedback from a GL2 user who has tried an anamorphic 16:9 adaptor, and I (maybe we) appreciate your evaluation. Any chance I could get a look at your test pictures?

Brad

Brad,

I see you are another Vegas user!

I don't have a personal web site to post them on, but I can email them to you. My email address is in my profile.

-Tom-

I would love to see these too! Could you e-mail them to marcoleavitt@ibackup.com? Thanks.

I just checked out the pics, and the 16:9 shot does appear to be an improvement, but I was shocked that there wasn't a bigger difference. Is this because the pictures are letterboxed, which would seem to play to the incamera 16:9 mode's strengths (since the vertical resolution gets downgraded)? Would there be a more pronounced difference if the vertical resolution was left at 480 and the horizontal resolution was stretched appropriately? Something like this is what would happen on an HD TV isn't it? I'm just really amazed that the incamera 16:9 looks this good.

Zoom through anamorphic adapter from Century!
 

Sorry about the double post, but I think this is of extra interest to GL2 owners. The huge zoom range on this camera is one of its biggest selling points, and the limited range from previous adapters was an especially big bummer.

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/new/index.htm

Wow, that's great. But good God, $1500 list???!?!?!

Kind of defeats the purpose of trying to save money by upgrading your equipment instead of buying a new camcorder doesn't it? The PDX10 is only $700 more! Plus, if you want a wider angle, you still have to buy the old adapter. What a racket. I'd like to believe the price is going to come down, but that doesn't seem to have happened with their original adapter. Does anyone know what the old adapter cost when it was introduced?

I think it usually went for around $800.

Great. In a couple of years it'll only be $1,300.

Yeah this lens is a total rip-off. You're better off going with a true 16x9 CCD if you really need 16x9 that bad. Even the JVC HD cam is probably preferable to a Canon GL2 + Anamorphic lens if anamorphic is that important.

PLUS, and I'm sure I'll get blasted on this, but I think Canon GL2's hardware anamorphic ain't half bad. Unlike other cameras, the GL2 doesn't take a 720 x 480 image, crop it to 720 x 360, and then stretch 360 to 480. Instead it uses less CCD pixels, of which there are already more than 720 x 480. So you're not sacrificing as much resolution as you might be if you do the crop in post or with other cameras. So all in all I'd say this product is a total waste.

Are you sure about that? I had understood that it does indeed crop to 360, but you get a slight improvement on the image quality because it runs the compression routine after the crop, so it doesn't waste resources on material that's just going to get cut anyway. I've used digital 16:9 on my GL1 a lot, and it looks great on a regular television, but I've never had a chance to compare the image on an HD monitor with footage that was produced with an anamorphic lens. I've never seen screen shots making these comparisons on a GL1 or GL2 either. Boyd Ostroff posted some shots showing the VX2000's digital 16:9 and they looked bloody awful.

Another strategy might be to get a PAL camera. They have more scan lines to start off with. This is how they filmed "28 days later", by cropping a PAL XL-1s frame to 16:9.

Something else I've been wondering, is there any way to reclaim the pixels lost outside the "picture safe area?"

Someone might have a link to the website that explains it (I don't remember where it is) but it describes 4 ways of doing anamorphic from best to worst: 1) native 16x9 CCD, 2) anamorphic adapter, 3) Canon GL2's way, 4) Sony's way.

Sony's way is to only use 720 x 360 pixels and stretch 360 to 480. Canon definitely doesn't do that. I thought I remember it saying that it crops the pixels off the CCD to still make a 720 x 480 image, but I could be wrong. Either way it's the best way it can be done via software.

As for saving the picture safe area, that is already included in the 480 lines. Picture safe is only a concept on viewable televisions and has nothing to do with these types of cameras. When you watch a DVD in 16x9 anamorphic, there basically is nothing cut off vertically for picture/title safe, or at least very little.

Century Optics 16:9 Widescreen Adapter
 

Looking for one of these. Anyone have any info about how well they work. Also, if anyone wants to sell one? I just wanted to ask the GL2 owners directly.
Thanks.
EJ

16:9 the easy way, no cost
 

In Premiere 6.5 titler you can create black bars and super them over your video. Turn on the 16:9 guide lines in your GL2 and film, then add black bars post production with Premiere.
It looks great..just remember to shot as if your camera was a 16:9 format.
Hope this helps.

16x9
 

Thanks. Now, where can I get a copy of Premiere 6.5 titler?

16x9
 

Can I do it in Apple's Final Cut Express?

Cropping is no substitute for using an anamorphic adapter. I've been using the Century for a couple of weeks, and the difference is really dramatic. The old footage we shot in digital 16:9 looks like the lens is covered in sludge. If you're serious about shooting wide screen, go for the adapter. You could get one for less than $400 used. It's much easier to use than I had thought it would be.

16x9
 

Marco, Thomas I believe was saying to shoot in 4:3 ratio (with the 16x9 guide lines on) then in post simply black out the top and bottom to look like you shot in 16x9 without losing any resolution. This seems like a good way to do it.

Eddie, could you tell me how to turn the 16:9 guidelines on?

thanks,

Rosie

Yeah, letterboxed on a regular television it would look about the same, although it might be slightly sharper with the adapter. If you were to play it back on a wide screen TV though, your footage would be much, much sharper with the adapter.

Oh. Thanks. That makes sense o me.

New Century Anamorphic Now Available For GL1/2
 

Finally. Full zoom through. At B&H. Someone
should get it and write a review.
Hurry, before they're back-ordered.
I'd do it but I don't have that camera.

Thanks -- been watching for this to actually show up on the market.

"Caveat emptor" before you order, though folks! The Century Optics web site still shows this in its "New Products" section (no update to the web site for a couple months, at least) and B&H shows it as a 7-14 day special order, no cancellations or returns and you'll be charged upon order, NOT when shipped! Makes me wonder if it is REALLY available yet. Haven't had a chance to check other vendors yet...will probably have a chat with my favorite, Zotz, tomorrow.

I'd personally rather hold out for the next crop of HDV cameras, but will be traveling to some unusual places this spring and will drop the bucks on this adapter if it is as good as we all hope, and no new HDV cameras are out by mid-April (hope springs eternal, eh?). If I get the adapter, I will post all about it!

Cheers,

Vignetting
 

Sounds like good news, but does it suffer from vignetting at all?

" Someone should get it and write a review. "

Sure - so who do I talk to about DVInfo.net buying it for me to review? :)

New Century Zoom-through Anamorphic
 

Anyone know of anyone, anywhere that has
acquired this lens? Supposedly available
now for the GL1/2. I suggested awhile back
on the GL board that someone should
get it and write a review.
Look into my eyes.
Ponder: frame mode, true 16:9, better low
light than PDX. Now: purchase. Now: write review so that we all know if you wasted your money. : - )

Maybe if you would front the $1,300 that this baby costs then someone would bite ;-) But seriously, that's a pretty expensive piece of glass to put on a $2,000 camcorder. I suspect very few people are going to be ordering one of these, although it does sound nice.

It's a really strange price point isn't it? I can appreciate they're hard to make, but seriously... There was some speculation in here a while back that Century hadn't even shipped any because nobody seems to have it in stock. B&H still doesn't have it, and I'm starting to wonder if Century is rethinking the whole deal. Who would buy this lens when Canon is starting to put decent 16:9 modes on its low-end camcorders and Sony has introduced the PDX-10? There's probably going to be a whole slew of native 16:9 prosumer cams this year, and maybe even HD. The only reason I can think of to buy it is out of the hope that you will be able to use it on an HD camcorder in the future. How cool would that be? But who knows if it can even resolve enough lines to make it worth the trouble.

Yeah, I was waiting and watching for this glass to show up, but with a new crop of HDV cameras just around the corner (or so we all believe!), I've decided to wait for the new cameras and not spend the money on it even if the adapter actually becomes available.

Don't know whether these adapters will actually become available, but the market seems to be shrinking by the day so can't see how it would be profitable for Century Optics.

Anybody using the Century Optics 16:9 adapter?
 

Hey, I'm stuck with a GL1 for awhile, since the new Sony Pro HDV camera is a ways off, and I'm looking at upgrades and stuff I can get for the GL1 in the meantime. Anyway, I was wondering, is anybody using the Century Optics 16:9 adapter? What's the differece between that and the 1.33x Anamorphic adapter? I'm asking because I'd like to get one, but the 1.33x Anamorphic adapter is like $1000, while the 16:9 adapter is $700. So what's the difference, aren't they both the same thing? Any good?

Jack,

I haven't actually used either one, but the older adapter, DS-1609-GL, is not full zoom-through. The newer 1.33x, the DS-WS13-GL, is supposed to be full zoom but very expensive and either was not released or at best is hard to find. The last time I checked a few months ago, it was not actually available anywhere. B&H currently still shows it as a special order, just as it was months ago. I'm not aware of anyone who has tested one...that question was asked a few months ago here on DVInfo.net also and nobody seemed to have seen one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=9&image.y=9

Naturally it is up to you, but I'd be doubtful about dropping big cash on the anamorphic adapter at this point in time -- even if you can get the full zoom-through -- unless you really need it to be able to make $$$.

This is a personal choice, of course, but I decided to just make do with the GL2's in-camera 16:9 with a WD-58H adapter slapped on the front...until I could get an HDV camera. Then Canon released the XL2 and I couldn't resist! I'll now be very happy to wait patiently until I'm confident HDV makes it worth parting with the XL2 (for probably not all that much of a loss -- well-cared for XL's seem to hold their value well).

Here's a couple of thread links:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ury+anamorphic

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ury+anamorphic

Cheers,

B&H lists the 1.33 anamorphic for $1,300, special order as you say. That seems real overkill for a GL-1. You can get a new PDX-10 with real 16:9, XLR's, short shotgun mike, DVCAM, etc for $1,850 at B&H. Could you get $1,100 if you sold your GL-1? Might be a better use of the $700...

Hmmmm, true. But my parents, my current source of income, want me to do something with the GL1 to show them that my skills are worthy enough to warrant a new camera. However, they were the ones that turned cheap on me when the camera buying was taking place, so I had to settle with the GL1. So, in order to actually "do" anything like what they're thinking, I need the accessories and that means the 16:9 adapter. I guess I'll just get the moderately less expensive 16:9 adapter instead of the 1.33x Anamorphic adapter and see what happens next. But I also see this as an opportunity to really hone my video skills for the future HDV cameras to come, so until then I'll be in training with my GL1. (Besides they would refuse me buying another camera even if it's a $400 ZR80 or something =) )

Well if this is all an excercise to prove yourself to your parents, then why not just use the GL-1 without the anamorphic adaptor?

Jack: the tool doesn't create the art, you do. You can create a
compelling and interesting story with any camera basically. Yes
a "better" camera "might" help. The GL1 is an EXCELLENT piece
of equipment. Don't get hung on having the latest and greatest!

I dont actually own one (though I'd like to), but I did spend a good amount of time trying one of the original 16:9 adapters (the $700) version out on a GL-2 at DVexpo. I really liked it.

Its much smaller and lighter than Canon's wide angle lens (WD-58), which I have but dont use much because its such a massive hunk of glass for that camera. The 16:9 adpater is easy to set up. Since I shoot in 16:9 basically all the time I would just leave it set up on the camera.

From what I could tell in my limited test it does improve the quality of the image.

It does reduce your Zoom range--by 33% easily and perhaps as much as 50%. This shouldnt be much of a problem as it doesnt make much sense to put on a wide angle adapter and then zoom in very far.

The only things holding me off are the $700 price tag (its nice to know its a quality piece but that still a lot for an adapter to a $2000 camera) and the lack of front threads for filters (I'm pretty sure I could get a 95mm filter stuck on there though).

i do own one: fire your questions
 

there is no substitute for artistic creativity... let me just get that out of the way... ok.

now. the CPO 16:9 adapter on my GL-2 is amazing. if you are shootoing to 16:9 on this camera, this is the way to go. it actually adds a bit of more 'film-like' thing to it... hard to describe, but that's my HOP.

Yes there is some zoom reduction, but for wide shots, i've blended shots with the canon wide and the 16:9 with little notice... fix the res blend in post... all good.

they are expensive, but i got mine on ebay for about $400. look for people going from gl-2 to xl-2... they'll be selling out very soon. think about it.

the killer? i've used this adapter to shoot ala 'Marla" into a Nikon. Wow, so close to true wide angle... thought i was Paul Thomas Anderson... then woke up.

Crap.