Jon, I'd like to see your images, please.

johnsandel@earthlink.net

I'd like to see them too, and I would be happy to post them to my Web site

Actually Jon, please send 'em to me and that way DV Info Net can host them for you to everyone's advantage. Thanks in advance,

on their way
 

ok folks, they're on their way to you all. let me know if there's any problems.

i should add that i am using an XL2 and the 0.5x redeye.

Thanks Jon,

Uploaded to http://www.dvinfo.net/media/redeye/ -- enjoy,

Thanks to Jon and Chris.

Jon - I notice that even at F11 you are losing sharpness as you move outwards from the centre. I was hoping that was only at the lower F numbers I was playing with......

Has anyone tried a Red Eye 0.5 on a 3x at F16?

there is a note in the instructions that accompany the lens that says 'at f16, everything is in focus, including any dust on the lens!'

Ahh - a heretic - someone who READS instructions!

Seriously though Jon - you are totally correct. I had not appreciated that there was such a dramatic jump from F11 haziness around the edges to F16 absolutely everything in focus.

I suppose the upshot is that if you need sharp focus with a Red Eye you MUST use F16. Thanks for that Jon.

richard - interestingly, i'm currently shooting at f1.6 and everything is completely in focus! it seems to get more blurred around the edges in the higher Fs. hope to post some more images for you guys in the next couple days, if chris will have them. hopefully with experience my images will improve. the shots already posted are literally the first things i've shot, so i wouldn't jump to conclusions as they're far from rigorous tests

also, even at the lower Fs, everything is in focus. in regard to f16, the instructions (burn the heretic!) say that using ND filters decreases depth of field, but it seems that things get more and more in focus towards the lows of the F range.

should you want to join the heresy, the instructions are (more or less) reprinted at http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens.htm

Thats odd. All the shots I did before were with ND filter off. I wasn't sure so just checked some of the set up photos I did - and the ND was definitely OFF - so at F4.0 or F5.2 surely the whole image should be in focus?

I suspect that focus across the image also depends on subject distance.

Perhaps there is more to this focus business than meets the eye....so to speak!

yeah, i don't want to make too many statements before i've had some all-round experience. these are just preliminary observations.

what cam are you using? i have an xl2 and i was wondering if there was something about the 20x lens that might be making the difference.

XL1-S.

From my previous shots, it looks like the focus problem is more pronounced on the 3x than the 16x.

I think that you are right - more experience and trials needed by me too.

Doesn't matter what focal length you're dealing with, remember that diffraction will rob you of visible sharpness at apertures smaller than f/8 if you're capturing onto tiny 1/3" chips. Remember too that the shorter the focal length the more diffraction destroys sharpness, so if you're using the Red Eye and max wide-angle, don't stop down below f/4 if you can help it - bring those NDs into play.

My VX2000 will film at f/11, f/16 and f/22 and it's absurdly easy to demonstrate the resolution loss at these tiny apertures. Many people (usually fresh from 35 mm photography) are confused and suspicious, yet they're convinced after seeing the results. Stay at f/5.6 and above, good people.

tom.

Chris,

I just emailed you some frame grabs for posting. Thanks.

Kevin

.5x 72 mm Red Eye production hold
 

Hello all,

I greatly appreciate the input I’ve received from members of this forum.

Based on the feedback I've received and some issues brought to my attention, I've placed a temporary hold specifically on the production of the .5x 72 mm Red Eye until I can resolve some issues.

I have new lens material on order and I hope to be doing testing by the weekend. Once I’m satisfied with the results, I will be sending samples to forum members for evaluation.

If any one has specific questions, kindly contact me directly rene@collinscraft.com

Again, thanks to all for your assistance.

Very best regards,

Rene J. Collins
President
Collinscraft Canada

I guess I have to wait a little longer then. There is a possibility that I might go to Singapore to buy an XL2 PAL, I am planning to drop by SLV to try the Red eye. What issues are you planning to resolve with regards to the .5x 72mm? When will the new version be available?

I really think that your kind of responsiveness to your clients' and future-clients' concerns is impressive.

Other Image Distortion Subject
 

On the subject of distortion, I have started another thread (link below) which may be of interest to readers of this thread - but it is not RedEye related - more CCD related.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...366#post308366

Wide Angle - Barrel Distortion
 

I have the red-eye wide angle adapter, which seems to produce acceptable results when viewed on a TV screen (although a little soft on the edges).

However, when viewed on a PC (which shows the overscan area), there is clear barrel distortion at the edges and chromatic aberation (i.e. you see four curves at each corner).

For displaying on a TV this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, however creating files for web display / PC viewing, it is unacceptable. My question therefore, does the Canon 3x lens also produce this distortion at the edges when viewed on a PC ? I can get around the problem by zooming the footage slightly in post until the edges disappear or applying a crop, but I would prefer not to have to do this.

The 3x lens does not produce distortion. The Redeye is considered acceptable since its distortion is outside the TV-safe area of the image. As you've noted, the solutions are to either crop the image or zoom in slightly.

Thanks Chris. Debating whether to get the 3x lens or not, seems alot of money, but if the quality is much better then I may go for it at some point.

I boght the 3x despite some strong negative comments made by people on this board. I have never been anything but pleased with it (despite the fact I blew the fuse in it by taking it off with the cam on! and needed a replacment).. It is a good lens and worth the money.

Red Eye
 

Dear fellow criminals in the film- and XL2makers community.
I did not buy Century Optics or buy via BHPhotoVideo, both who I strongly recommend from my own, personal, experience.
I did buy the Canadien add-on lens Red Eye to fit on my 20x standard XL2 (72mm #5) and it works very well thank you.
Now I have wide angle with no hassle, great quality (really, really great), and not adding anything beyond 2mm to my lens.

Dear Admin, lock this thread for not promoting any of our sponsors. Unfortunately Red Eye could not be acquired through BHPhotoVideo, although I tried. But the lens is a w s o m e .

As someone that lives in the UK, and therefore does not have easy access to the DVi sponsors, I'm sure DVi won't object to me adding a comment here!

I also bought the Red Eye and despite the fact that it is obviously not zoom through (which isn't a major issue for me), I think it is a lovely piece of glass.

In certain conditions I have noticed some minor colour fringing and distortion but generally I'm very happy.

The only real disappointment was not being able to use it in conjunction with my Formatte matte box because the adaptor for that is also a screw in. No wide horizons with the grad ND for me!

Hey Peter,
I own an XL2 also and was looking into getting a Wide Angle Lens - would you ming posting up frame grabs of your default lens and the red wide angle in action.

Thanks

Peter, that's not a problem. The problem comes when you try to promote buying what our sponsors carry from someone else... such as the XL2 from XYZ Camera Co.

I've heard nothing but good things about the Red Eye from news photographers. Sounds like your experience mimics theirs so far.

-gb-