16x9 wide angle adapter at DVinfo.net

John Benton · March 31st, 2006, 05:36 AM

Uploaded some footage with the 16x9 adapter:
the stills are better to see the issues
( the footage is quite compressed and sometimes hides these issues)
-you can see the blurrines to the left and right edges of frame
-and also a lot of red and blue borders...
-the enhanced curve works well, but you have to use it correctly -which I did not always do - but I actually like about this adapter
note: I love the wideness.
There is some you can do to compensate alot of these show worst cases -(and cinegamma)
all the footage started @ 1080 60i and toyed with different compressions
no colorcorrection or filters (just presets)

http://www.bentonjohn.com/XLH1
http://www.bentonjohn.com/beach.html

now that I have some server space back I will keep posting

Harry Bromley-Davenport · March 31st, 2006, 01:20 PM

Thanks for the posts. I missed some information: which w/a adaptor is this, please? And what would be, say, the 35mm motion picture or stills equivalent when used in conjunction with the Canon standard zoom?

Thanks

Harry.

Steve Rosen · March 31st, 2006, 07:30 PM

John: I just committed to a job for a client, a portion of which is going to require something wider than the 20X.. I wish Canon had a WA lens available, but they don't, so I had actually considered buying a Sony just for the wide angle footage (it's obviously a decent budget project) and sell it after - I may still do that, but...

I'm aware of the 16x9 converter, it's said to be better than Century's (which they used to call HD but no longer do)...

I can't tell much from internet photos (your's or anyone else's).. In your opinion is the 16X9's image acceptable? What does it look like when down-converted to SD? Is it noticeably mushy?

Also, important - what stop are you shooting at - I've concluded that the 20X seems to do best at f4... do your wide shots at that aperature look better than at other stops? Thanx, Steve Rosen

David Chapman · March 31st, 2006, 07:40 PM

Is it just me or are the frames not de-interlaced? The shot of the nose is really jaggy. How are you exporting the stills and what editing program are you using?

John Benton · April 1st, 2006, 12:25 PM

Hello.
No these are 1080 interlaced and the stills are just screen grabs

I believe I was mostly shooting wide open - 2 - 2.8
and often using the onboard ND filter when outside.

I think it is an acceptable image - mostly I was using some Gamme (cine 1 or 2) which inhances the red & blue borders..
But you need to frame youe subject so that it occupies the central part of the frame !

Century is evidently upgradiing their Wide to work well with the H1 - but it is an 8 - so less curve. But they are hearing the reports on the 16x9

I think that it is noticebly mushy on the left and right edges of from, and will be in SD.
Dan will be using my adapter to shoot something on tuesday and will no doubt be posting somekind of analysis.
Hope this helps.

Daniel Epstein · April 1st, 2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Benton

Hello.

Dan will be using my adapter to shoot something on tuesday and will no doubt be posting somekind of analysis.
Hope this helps.

Hey John and others,
Yes I might use the adapter which you have graciously offered me. Not sure I will actually use it until we get to the location and see if it is necessary.
As for the info about the Century Schneider adapter. Their current .8X HD 72MM is going to have an adapter ring included to use it on the XLH1. Trying to have the adapter rings be ready by NAB although they haven't announced it yet. List is $595
The .7X Century they have is being redesigned for the HVX-200 and then the XLH1 version will be examined. If they do make it work.... don't expect it before June and the price will be higher than the current .7x they sell.

March 31st, 2006, 05:36 AM	#1
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	16x9 wide angle adapter Uploaded some footage with the 16x9 adapter: the stills are better to see the issues ( the footage is quite compressed and sometimes hides these issues) -you can see the blurrines to the left and right edges of frame -and also a lot of red and blue borders... -the enhanced curve works well, but you have to use it correctly -which I did not always do - but I actually like about this adapter note: I love the wideness. There is some you can do to compensate alot of these show worst cases -(and cinegamma) all the footage started @ 1080 60i and toyed with different compressions no colorcorrection or filters (just presets) http://www.bentonjohn.com/XLH1 http://www.bentonjohn.com/beach.html now that I have some server space back I will keep posting

March 31st, 2006, 07:30 PM	#3
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	16X9 WA Converter John: I just committed to a job for a client, a portion of which is going to require something wider than the 20X.. I wish Canon had a WA lens available, but they don't, so I had actually considered buying a Sony just for the wide angle footage (it's obviously a decent budget project) and sell it after - I may still do that, but... I'm aware of the 16x9 converter, it's said to be better than Century's (which they used to call HD but no longer do)... I can't tell much from internet photos (your's or anyone else's).. In your opinion is the 16X9's image acceptable? What does it look like when down-converted to SD? Is it noticeably mushy? Also, important - what stop are you shooting at - I've concluded that the 20X seems to do best at f4... do your wide shots at that aperature look better than at other stops? Thanx, Steve Rosen

March 31st, 2006, 01:20 PM	#2
Harry Bromley-Davenport Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: LA CA Posts: 317	Thanks for the posts. I missed some information: which w/a adaptor is this, please? And what would be, say, the 35mm motion picture or stills equivalent when used in conjunction with the Canon standard zoom? Thanks Harry.

March 31st, 2006, 07:40 PM	#4
David Chapman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 346	Is it just me or are the frames not de-interlaced? The shot of the nose is really jaggy. How are you exporting the stills and what editing program are you using?

April 1st, 2006, 12:25 PM	#5
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Hello. No these are 1080 interlaced and the stills are just screen grabs I believe I was mostly shooting wide open - 2 - 2.8 and often using the onboard ND filter when outside. I think it is an acceptable image - mostly I was using some Gamme (cine 1 or 2) which inhances the red & blue borders.. But you need to frame youe subject so that it occupies the central part of the frame ! Century is evidently upgradiing their Wide to work well with the H1 - but it is an 8 - so less curve. But they are hearing the reports on the 16x9 I think that it is noticebly mushy on the left and right edges of from, and will be in SD. Dan will be using my adapter to shoot something on tuesday and will no doubt be posting somekind of analysis. Hope this helps.