Wide Angle Adaptor (20X Lens)

Marty Hudzik · February 2nd, 2005, 02:40 PM

Here are a few more images that confirm something isn't right. I went through the trouble of setting up a tripod and using a 17" production monitor to check focusing. I set the gain to -3 so that I could have the iris wide open through the range. I zoomed in to a sign on the far wall and set critical focus. I then zoomed out to a preset point that both the 20x and WA could fit into the frame. I did not touch the focus after initially focusing on the sign.

Right Click and save as:

www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/tripod-test.jpg
http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/...ipod-test2.jpg

Tests were performed under the exact same conditions. Nothing was changed from shot to shot except for the WA adapter was placed on the lens. There is even a slight shift in color when the WA is on the unit. Note the electrical cord hanging from the ceiling on the left side of the shot. It is quite blurry with the WA adapter.

Also understand that none of these anomalies are visible through the viewfinder...it just doesn't resolve enough to see this.

I am about to send my lens and camera back to canon to have them inspect it again and maybe this time reset the backfocus properly. But this just seems downright screwy! And I hate to be a whiner.....but why do I always get stuck with the equipment that doesn't work quite right and then have to jump through hoops just to get it to do what everyone else is getting right the first time? It must be karma or something because every camera I have purchased has had something weird wrong with it. Just something slight that screws up image quality or audio and I have to deal with the manufacturer and practically beat them just to realize there is a problem.

Oh well. If anyone sees these and can shed some light on the issues please do.

Thanks
Marty

Marty Hudzik · February 2nd, 2005, 10:03 PM

OK. NOw I guess I would like to ask the few of you who have the Xl2, 20x and .7x adapter to post a few grabs like I have using the same basic parameters. Iris wide open, zoom in on distant subject, focus, zoom out....capture frame. Then repeat with the wide angle lens on. I am getting really poor results as you have seen in my screen grabs. I have been trying to convince myself that it is something I am doing wrong but I can't find the problem.

If I could see a few grabs showing much better results than mine I would be encourage that this is fixable. I understand that there is going to be a slight loss in qulaity anytime you put extra galss in front of the lens. But what I am seeing is unacceptable. I am hoping one of you can inspire me that indeed this .7x and 20x dilemma might still work for me.

Thanks in advance and I really hope someone can step up and ease my tired weary mind!!!

Richard Hunter · February 9th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Hi Marty. Sorry to take so long to get these. not sure if they tell you much except that my editing room lighting is no good for shooting video. The first 2 are shot in 25p, the other 2 are 50i. I didn't deinterlace or anything else.

In 2 of the shots you can see the 0.7X converter on top of a speaker. This is a check on whether I labelled the shots correctly.

You can't tell by zooming in, but all the shots were focussed on the Viewsonic logo at the bottom of the right-hand LCD monitor.

Richard

http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_1.bmp
http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_2.bmp
http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_3.bmp
http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_4.bmp

Rob Lohman · February 10th, 2005, 05:13 AM

Richard: I have added your new thread to the old one. Did you
get a specific error message when replying?

Thanks for the grabs!

Richard Hunter · February 10th, 2005, 05:20 AM

Hi Rob, thanks. The message was specific, but I forget the exact wording. it was something about my reply not being related to any particular thread.

Edit: Anyway, I've just managed to reply to your post, so at the moment there is no problem. :)

Richard

Marty Hudzik · February 10th, 2005, 08:09 AM

Richard,
Are these shot in 16x9 mode or 4x3? The aspect that it is showing is square pixels but I am wondering if I should stretch it to get the true image. Nevermind. I stretched it and got the proper aspect. Images don't look too bad. I still see some distortion (barrel) and I see some chromatic abberations toward the edges. It is a lot better than my .7x for sure. I am assuming that you were almost wide open iris on these shots to get proper exposure? Thanks again.

Thanks
Marty

Richard Hunter · February 10th, 2005, 09:11 AM

Hi Marty. They are 4:3. Yes the iris was very close to fully open. Do you see how the 50i shots are sharper than the 25p ones? I had Vertical Detail set to Normal for all of these shots, so I think the comparison is fair. It shows what I had felt through usage to be the case - switching to 25p produces softer images. I'm not sure why that should be so and I would love to hear from someone who can explain that.

As a matter of interest, were your sample shots taken in p or i mode, and have you compared the results in both modes?

Richard

Marty Hudzik · February 10th, 2005, 09:47 AM

I shot in 24P for my tests. I can try shooting interlaced to compare sharpness. Could you try shooting a few in 16x9? It occurred to me that most of the softness I see is on the outer edges....but mostly left and right. I don't have my camera with me but when I look at my images on the PC I can clearly see that if I cropped my 16x9 to 4x3 most of the chromatic shift and softness is gone. Based on the way the CCD is sampled from the middle of the CCD to create the 4x3 in camera this should be a similar process to what happens in camera. What I am wondering is if you can go to 16x9 and see if the ammount of blur or chromatic abberation increases out on the edges in the area that you could not see in 4x3? Essentially you will be capturing more of the light that is bent on the outer edges of the adapter when in 16x9. Possibly 4x3 is masking this area and that is why I am the only one seeing issues as of yet.

Century Optics confirmed that they are not seeing the issues I have had with the adapter when they tested one of their .7x in house on their XL2. However they do mention that the adapter has a bit of a fall off and chromatic shift at the edges that is consistent with glass in this price range (but don;t see it to the extent as in my samples). They do not mention directly wether they tested in 16x9 or not so it is possible that the 4x3 mode is "looking" through the best part of the glass and not seeing the part that I am seeing. At least in theory.

Maybe in time I will get to the bottom of this. I am trying out a Canon 3x wide and honestly I am leaning toward that now unless a solution is found for my problem.

Thanks....

Richard Hunter · February 10th, 2005, 05:56 PM

Hi Marty. I'll try 16:9, but it won't be soon because I'm working overseas for a couple of weeks. I'll do it when I get back.

Richard

February 9th, 2005, 08:47 PM	#33
Richard Hunter Trustee Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines Posts: 1,110	XL2 20X lens With 0.7X Converter Hi Marty. Sorry to take so long to get these. not sure if they tell you much except that my editing room lighting is no good for shooting video. The first 2 are shot in 25p, the other 2 are 50i. I didn't deinterlace or anything else. In 2 of the shots you can see the 0.7X converter on top of a speaker. This is a check on whether I labelled the shots correctly. You can't tell by zooming in, but all the shots were focussed on the Viewsonic logo at the bottom of the right-hand LCD monitor. Richard http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_1.bmp http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_2.bmp http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_3.bmp http://www.jaegercat.com/~richard/XL2Cap20050210_4.bmp

February 10th, 2005, 05:13 AM	#34
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Richard: I have added your new thread to the old one. Did you get a specific error message when replying? Thanks for the grabs! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 2nd, 2005, 02:40 PM	#31
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Here are a few more images that confirm something isn't right. I went through the trouble of setting up a tripod and using a 17" production monitor to check focusing. I set the gain to -3 so that I could have the iris wide open through the range. I zoomed in to a sign on the far wall and set critical focus. I then zoomed out to a preset point that both the 20x and WA could fit into the frame. I did not touch the focus after initially focusing on the sign. Right Click and save as: www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/tripod-test.jpg http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/...ipod-test2.jpg Tests were performed under the exact same conditions. Nothing was changed from shot to shot except for the WA adapter was placed on the lens. There is even a slight shift in color when the WA is on the unit. Note the electrical cord hanging from the ceiling on the left side of the shot. It is quite blurry with the WA adapter. Also understand that none of these anomalies are visible through the viewfinder...it just doesn't resolve enough to see this. I am about to send my lens and camera back to canon to have them inspect it again and maybe this time reset the backfocus properly. But this just seems downright screwy! And I hate to be a whiner.....but why do I always get stuck with the equipment that doesn't work quite right and then have to jump through hoops just to get it to do what everyone else is getting right the first time? It must be karma or something because every camera I have purchased has had something weird wrong with it. Just something slight that screws up image quality or audio and I have to deal with the manufacturer and practically beat them just to realize there is a problem. Oh well. If anyone sees these and can shed some light on the issues please do. Thanks Marty

February 2nd, 2005, 10:03 PM	#32
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	OK. NOw I guess I would like to ask the few of you who have the Xl2, 20x and .7x adapter to post a few grabs like I have using the same basic parameters. Iris wide open, zoom in on distant subject, focus, zoom out....capture frame. Then repeat with the wide angle lens on. I am getting really poor results as you have seen in my screen grabs. I have been trying to convince myself that it is something I am doing wrong but I can't find the problem. If I could see a few grabs showing much better results than mine I would be encourage that this is fixable. I understand that there is going to be a slight loss in qulaity anytime you put extra galss in front of the lens. But what I am seeing is unacceptable. I am hoping one of you can inspire me that indeed this .7x and 20x dilemma might still work for me. Thanks in advance and I really hope someone can step up and ease my tired weary mind!!!

February 10th, 2005, 05:20 AM	#35
Richard Hunter Trustee Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines Posts: 1,110	Hi Rob, thanks. The message was specific, but I forget the exact wording. it was something about my reply not being related to any particular thread. Edit: Anyway, I've just managed to reply to your post, so at the moment there is no problem. :) Richard

February 10th, 2005, 08:09 AM	#36
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Richard, Are these shot in 16x9 mode or 4x3? The aspect that it is showing is square pixels but I am wondering if I should stretch it to get the true image. Nevermind. I stretched it and got the proper aspect. Images don't look too bad. I still see some distortion (barrel) and I see some chromatic abberations toward the edges. It is a lot better than my .7x for sure. I am assuming that you were almost wide open iris on these shots to get proper exposure? Thanks again. Thanks Marty

February 10th, 2005, 09:11 AM	#37
Richard Hunter Trustee Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines Posts: 1,110	Hi Marty. They are 4:3. Yes the iris was very close to fully open. Do you see how the 50i shots are sharper than the 25p ones? I had Vertical Detail set to Normal for all of these shots, so I think the comparison is fair. It shows what I had felt through usage to be the case - switching to 25p produces softer images. I'm not sure why that should be so and I would love to hear from someone who can explain that. As a matter of interest, were your sample shots taken in p or i mode, and have you compared the results in both modes? Richard

February 10th, 2005, 09:47 AM	#38
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I shot in 24P for my tests. I can try shooting interlaced to compare sharpness. Could you try shooting a few in 16x9? It occurred to me that most of the softness I see is on the outer edges....but mostly left and right. I don't have my camera with me but when I look at my images on the PC I can clearly see that if I cropped my 16x9 to 4x3 most of the chromatic shift and softness is gone. Based on the way the CCD is sampled from the middle of the CCD to create the 4x3 in camera this should be a similar process to what happens in camera. What I am wondering is if you can go to 16x9 and see if the ammount of blur or chromatic abberation increases out on the edges in the area that you could not see in 4x3? Essentially you will be capturing more of the light that is bent on the outer edges of the adapter when in 16x9. Possibly 4x3 is masking this area and that is why I am the only one seeing issues as of yet. Century Optics confirmed that they are not seeing the issues I have had with the adapter when they tested one of their .7x in house on their XL2. However they do mention that the adapter has a bit of a fall off and chromatic shift at the edges that is consistent with glass in this price range (but don;t see it to the extent as in my samples). They do not mention directly wether they tested in 16x9 or not so it is possible that the 4x3 mode is "looking" through the best part of the glass and not seeing the part that I am seeing. At least in theory. Maybe in time I will get to the bottom of this. I am trying out a Canon 3x wide and honestly I am leaning toward that now unless a solution is found for my problem. Thanks....

February 10th, 2005, 05:56 PM	#39
Richard Hunter Trustee Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lipa City Batangas, Philippines Posts: 1,110	Hi Marty. I'll try 16:9, but it won't be soon because I'm working overseas for a couple of weeks. I'll do it when I get back. Richard