Well I have two PD-150's and plan to use it full-time on one of them. So it's a just a matter of resale and convience between them?

Also, does either one require a new sunshade/box or any other accessories?

Thanks so much for your help..

I don't believe there is any performance difference. Our anamorphic is surprisingly resistant to flare, but we have the earlier, more inexpensive version. I can't speak for the new one. We do use a sunshade though, although we could almost get away without it. The sunshade is also the only way to use filters, as Century never puts threads on their adapters.

So.. $1200 bucks for the 1.33 Anamorphic and $799 for the 16:9 widescreen..

So without sounding too dumb and looking like I am trying to get my number of posts up.. What's the diff?

If you call Century, they don't recommend the screw in version on the PD-150 because when you zoom out it will vignette. The threads on the front of the lens are plastic too and could easily cross-thread or break off.
The bayonet version fit's nice and tight and once you get it adjusted properly you don't need to readjust it when you remove it and reattach it.
The newer model will allow a full range of zoom but needs to be fine tuned depending on the focus distance. There are marks on the lens to assist in this. Yes, if you want a matbox, you will need to buy a new one. The Century Matbox is a nice fit and is supported by rods instead of the lens as most others are but I've seen both kinds used without problems.

You can order any of these items from B&H. (a DVinfo.net sponsor)

Thanks so much for the concise information..

It's appreciated..

Possible to use Panasonic Anamorphic adapter on VX/PDs?
 

Hey Everyone -
I just checked on ebay and Panasonic Anamorphic Adapters (AG-LA2700G) commonly go for $500 range on ebay new, while Century 16x9 adapters are normally closer to a thousand. Is there any reason you can't just use a Panasonic Anamorphic Adapter with just a 72mm->58mm stepdown ring?

Exuse my ignorance if there is :)

Thanks
Ari

DV Magazine says you can use the Panasonic on the XL1 (you'll have to register). Presumably it would work on other cameras as well.

http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.jht...w/wilt0804_rvw

Anamorphic Adapter
 

Greetings from the Bahamas!

Anyone finding the focusable Century Anamorphic Adapter a little soft compared to normal 4:3 shooting? I see at times some artifacts in Premiere Pro after stretching. However, after rendered and put on DVD I find the image a little softer compared to normal shooting (4:3). It seems a slight degredation is occuring. When I shoot in normal mode and then put black bars at top and bottom the image is comparatively sharper. Any comments would be greately appreciated.

Thank You.

Well I'm no fan of the anamorphic adapter, but you really need to use a widescreen tv to do a fair comparison. From your description I can tell you are using a regular 4:3 tv. The reason this is important is because anamorphic video looses every 4th line and gets deinterlaced when it is played back on a regular set. This damages the picture considerably renders any advantage of the anamorphic adapter moot.

Now if you did the same comparison on a 16:9 TV, the anamorphic footage shot with the Century lense would fill the screen and look much sharper while the letterboxed footage would be stretched horizontally and still have the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

Anamorphic Adapter
 

Makes sense to me. Thank you for your response. Now on a computer with windows Media Player 9 should it be sharper? It still appears softer to me.

16:9 video has a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2121 NTSC or 1.4568 PAL. PC video always has a square pixel aspect ratio of 1 (equal height and width). Regular 4:3 video is quite close to a square pixel (.9091 NTSC or 1.0926 PAL) and translates most efficiently to PC playback.

Anamorphic Adapter
 

Got it. That explains it. I will view my footage on a 16:9 T.V to see if it gets sharper. If not I will send it in to Century. Thanks.

There will always be slight losses when using an anamorphic, even a comparatively mild 1.33:1 version as this Century is. When using film we used 2:1 anamorphics, and the losses are consequently greater of course.

An anamorphic is a wide-angle converter but in the horizontal plane only, and the cylindrical elements are never perfectly cylindrical, it's never perfectly centered on the zoom's axis and the elements introduce more flare. They also tend to restrict the zoom's range and vignette at the wide end, so you can see I'm not a fan.

Their days must be numbered though. It's cheaper to buy an FX1 and shoot native wide-screen than it is to get a VX2000+Century anamorphic.

tom.

Century Optics 1.33 anamorphic lens?
 

If there is one thing I miss in my PD-170s, it is a native 16:9 option. I've also been weighing the SD vs HD thing and have come to the conclusion that what I really need over the next 2 years is a 16:9 solution.

As many of you probably know, the CO lens is costly at around $1,200 at B&H. Aside from the cost, does anyone have any practical experience with this lens on a PD-170 or 150? In particular, experience shooting wedding ceremonies and receptions. I'm interested in hearing the good, bad or ugly.
Thanks for any info.
Bob

Bob, I'm in the exact same boat you're in. 2 PD170's which I really love for their color and low light performance, and a need for 16x9 output. I'm not ready to make th HDV move either. No one has asked me for HD and I too estimate about two years before I really see the ability to sell it around here. I keep going back to the anamorphic thing. I would spend the money for the adapters if I knew the output would be as good as what I am currently getting in 4x3 and if I knew that once setup corectly I could maintain full zoom through and and focusing capability. If anyone shoots with this adapter "Cetury Optics Anamorphic 1.33 Converter DS-WS13-SB" please tell us you thoughts.

You've got to realise that anything you put in front of your PD's zoom lens will degrade the image to a greater or lesser degree. A 1.33:1 anamorphic is a wide-angle converter in the horizontal plane only, and cylindrical rather than speherical (or aspherical) elements do the light bending.

But the big payoff is that you get to use the whole of the 1/3" chip to capture the 16:9 image, so even with the anamorphic's losses the gains generally outweigh them. Of course there will be side-effects (there always are). You'll need a new lens hood, you might well curtail your 12x zoom range, edge definition won't be as good as without the lens and focus will be more problematic.

But as you both rightly point out - 16:9 is a here-and-now requirement whereas HiDef most certainly isn't. So the CO lens will enable you to squeeze more life out of the hugely versatile and low-light king called the PD170.

I can't speak for the PD170 however for the PD150P, I found the Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic lens does yield a clearly better result than the electronic stretch which sheds about 25% of the vertical resolution.

If you letterbox the footage and take care to de-interlace the images, the image looks to be on a par with the image from the HDRFX1 if this is intercut and also letterboxed.

If you don't de-interlace the PD150 image, it will appear somewhat like looking through flywire when there is a lot of fine high contrast detail like rows of windows on high-rise buildings, checkered tablecloths or fine ripples on a lake.

An old report on the web, which has since disappeared, suggested that the Optex 16:9 lens was better. This lens is apparently no longer available. But it is a while since I last enquired so it may be findable again.

I found the Century vignetted a little on the left edge as viewed with the PAL camera when the lens was at its widest setting. It does not pick up the right corners or edge.

This seems due to the optical path of the PD150P and PD170P which has the lens centre slightly offset relative to the centre of the CCDs. There is apparently a few more pixels with the PAL CCDs though I don't have the confirmation of that suggestion. The NTSC models may not do this.

If you don't believe me about the offset, lock your cam off on a tripod after you have zoomed in and centred a target. Retreat the zoom back to wide and see if that target is still centred.

I filed off about another 0.75mm off the inner left edge and corners of the plastic spacer between the two glass elements of the Century to cheat a little more field of view without the vignette but I would not recommend this practice to anyone other than lens-smiths.

The corners are still vignetted slightly on full wide in an underscan image but are well gone from the TV safe-area. To fix this, a little more might have to be taken out of the existing left-side cutouts on front of the lens but in my opinion there is little point to doing it as the same field of view as the camera's own lens is already available wit a little bit of zoom-in.

When you set the zoom to frame the exact same width of mage as you were getting without the 16:9, there will be no vignette. The 16:9 confers a little more wide-angle than the camera's own lens.

Obviously standard DV is not the way one would want to show off HDV footage but if you are using a mix of both in a standard definition end-product to DVD-Video then the 16:9 anamorphic lens is well worth using and recommended.

Whilst I had the 16:9 lens dismantled, I observed some very small chips in the outer corners of the rear element on the right side.

This seemed to be due to some shock damage so I suggest very great care in handling this lens in the field and avoid knocking it, especially from the side.

Thanks for the info Bob. This sounds good. My workflow includes deinterlacing with DV Filmaker anyway so that would not be a change.

How is it to work with? Is the full zoom available? How about focusing? I was reading some info at the Cent Optics site about setting up the adapter and it appeared that there was a procedure for focusing that had to be followed. Apparently there is a seperate focus ring on the adapter. Is this something that is set up once and then left alone or does it require adjusting for every focus change you make. This will probably be a deciding factor for me since most of my work is event coverage. I would think having to work two focus rings would really be tough during events. How does that affect autofocus? I use autofocus about half the time depending on the circumstances.

Thanks again for the detailed response.

If there's a choice between the screw-on and bayonet, go for the bayonet. As you're shooting through a cylindrical element it must be accurately aligned vertically, and the bayonet ensures this happens quickly every time.

The downside is that the anamorphic can't be used on other cameras using step-up rings, and this limits its second-hand sales appeal.

tom.

Lamar,
Century Optics website makes focusing sound easy. They claim you should go full telephoto on your subject, focus and then zoom to wide. The image will stay in focus throughout the focal range.

Wish I could get my hands on one of those for a test. Can't find anything on the net about them which seems to indicate that there aren't many out there. No wonder at $1,200 each which for me would need to be a $2,400 investment for a 16:9 wedding.

Wouldn't Sony have added so much more value to the 170 if they had just included native 16:9?

Decisions, decisions...

Thanks Tom, if I get it I will definitly go with the bayonet. I have read other posts about the importance of alignment with anamorphics. Do you know the outside diameter of the front of the adapter? I would need hoods or matte boxes but I can't find the diameter specified anywhere including the CO website.

You aren't kidding. Its THE only thing that these great little cameras really fall short on. I just dropped Century Optics Sales a note with a link to this thread. Maybe they will come up and offer up some more info.

See post below which somehow got doubled with this one.

My 16:9 has no added focus ring. There is a movable ring on the front which locks using a small thumbscrew. This is for adjusting the vertical alignment of the lens.

The bayonet version is what I have. It fits to the camera lenshood mount. The 58mm filter thread mount version is not necessarily inferior. With either bayonet or threaded version you really have to follow best practice and realign the lens everytime you dismantle it from the camera and everytime you take the assembled camera and lens out of the case after transport.

The bayonet style fitting uses a clamping arrangement which does not go onto the camera exactly the same as it came off. Once fitted however, it is less likely to move in use than the threaded version.

The instruction sheet which comes with the lens describes the method of attachment to the bayonet fitting which is very different to the method of attaching the camera's own lens hood.

If the alignment is slightly off you will get a skewing effect on the stretch of the image and the focus may go off slightly. There is also greater chance of vignette on diagonally opposite corners once the lens starts to turn.

You may find you are better off using manual focus. Also recommended on that website was operating the camera as much as possible on the f5.6 aperture setting.

There are no fittings on front of the 16:9 lens for filters or hoods. Anything you attach to the lens barrel would have to be some sort of clamping sleeve arrangement. The outer diameter of the lens barrel at the front is 75mm and is 7.5mm from front to another slightly wider main body section which has a grip rim. The front section turns inside the main lens body for adjustment when the thumbscrew is slackened

I would not recommend attaching filter boxes or lens hoods to the lens barrel as bumping or adjustment of the hood might turn the lens and skew the image stretch. A separate self-supporting hood or filter holder would be a better solution.

The 16:9 comes with its own push-on plastic lens caps for front and rear.

Adjusting the lens alignment takes a little practice and is assisted by having a test card which has at least a vertical and horizontal line crossing at the centre.

The 16:9 lens causes a barrel distortion at the wide end of the zoom which may cause you a problem if you re-align the lens in the field and rely on horizontal and vertical edges in the environment.

You must make sure the lines cross at 90 degrees in dead centre of the image and at the same hieght above the floor as your cameras lens centre. If you just fit a rightangled corner such as a window or doorframe into a corner of the viewfinder frame and attempt to re-align to that, barrel distortion may cause you to adjust the lens to a skewed position.

It is possible to make adaptors to mount the bayonet mount 16:9 lens to other lenses with a front filter thread and I have done so to a Micro-Nikkor 55mm fitted to an AGUS35. The lenses must have internal focussing otherwise the 16:9 is skewed off alignment by the action of focussing the prime lens.

Bob,
Thank you so much for taking the time to help. I feel confident that technically this is a good option for me now. I have to figure out the cost/benefit analysis and see if it works that way. $1250 US plus rods and matteboxes for two cameras is a lot of cash. I don't know if I can make the money back for it in two years by offering a 16x9 product which is what I'd have to do to make it pay for itself before I buy new equipment. Like the other Bob said earlier, decisions decisions.....

And the easy decision is to sell the 4:3 PD 170s while they still have solid market value and buy into the FX1 + beachtek DXA-4 and have 16:9 right out of the box. You get the Zeiss T* coating which really shames the Sony coatings as used on the PD/VX, though you lose the wonderful long telephoto of the PD, its fast f/2.4 max aperture and the quite amazing low light capability.

But the price of the FX1 must/should make you dither over the stop-gap anamorphic. These lenses are taking their last gasp of air of course, as more and more cameras shoot 16:9 onto native widescreen chips.

C'mon, you know it's the way to go. All your Li-ions will carry over and you'll feel right at home with the FX1 within the hour. Better yet, bite the bullet and go for the Z1, that way you'll be set up for the next 5 years, not just the next two.

tom.

Yes, I know. Thats been tormenting me now for some time. I like the pro features the Z1 offers. Does it use the same type of automatic audio gain limiter as the PD170 or is it the pumping style Auto Gain?

It just has to be the same or better Lamar. Why would Sony degrade the excellent limiter as used in the VX/PD when the next generation of cameras were announced?

Bob & Tom - Thanks for the in-depth information. I think it will help with a big decision some of us will have to make.

I'd have to cast my vote with Tom - give the FX1 and Z1 some serious consideration. They are the logical next step from the VX and PD with lots of nice upgrades. An with the Z1 you can shoot both PAL and NTSC.

I agree with you both and the Z1 is tempting because it's the 16:9 viewing format that has real value right now. But we are talking about a $9K camera upgrade since I would need 2 Z1s. And that's if I shoot 16:9 for SD only. From what I gather, the price goes much higher for a full HD conversion.
Bob

Why is that? Can't your computer and software handle HDV? You might also consider using FX1's for one or both cameras. But regardless, buying anamorphic lenses wouldn't interest me. I made that choice 3 years ago when I needed to work in widescreen. I bought a PDX-10 instead of an anamorphic lens for the VX-2000. That's another low cost option for SD work. The PDX-10 was just discontinued, but you can probably still find them. Last I checked, B&H had them for $1,700.

Or how about an FX1+Beachtek and an HC3 as backup? The HC3 is top loading and is Sony rated at 5 lux as against the HC1/A1 at 7 lux. It looks a tempting little cam.

tom.

Boyd,
I have a realtively new Dell 8400 P4 w/2GB RAM and 250GB of internal storage. I have Matrox RTx.100/PP1.5.1 and I think Matrox has an HD upgrade available. If I go HD, I'm assuming I'll need an HD VTR(will not use camera), HD recorder(when DVDs are available), player and widescreen monitor. From what I gather, I'll need more computer storage also. I'm sure I'm missing other needs. Heck, I just spent $200 on an ArtBeats SD 4:3 clip for future projects. Looks like any 4:3 video libraries would have to be updated also.

I agree that there are negative aspects of an anamorphic lens that I don't like but whatever direction one chooses, the upgrade will be costly. I'm a fan of HD having bought an HDTV over 3 years ago. But, we have not had one client ask for HD. Recently, 2 have asked about widescreen.

FX1 and ZU1 are options but both of these cams including the PDX-10 have been reported to be poor in low light.

My original post was about the CO 1.33 anamorphic lens and for $1,200+, I'm now thinking it might not be the answer for wedding work based on what people have posted. Hopefully, time will show the way.
Bob

I think your last paragraph summarises it nicely. As to the Z1's low light ability, it's but one stop off the PD170 - the known king-of-the-hill. That puts it ahead of nearly every other cam on the market - especially at this price point.

Have you seen our low light "sticky"?...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

Personally I would guess that the FX1 was more like 1.5 stops slower than the PD-150/VX-2000 - but Tom may very well be right. And anyway, the clean gain boost helps to level the playing field a lot. Also, if working in SD you can gain another stop by using 1/30 (or 1/25 PAL) shutter speed without losing any resolution on the Z1, unlike the 50% hit you take on the SD Sony cameras.

Isn't only the new full zoom thru Century Anamorphic that costs that much?

The partial zoom thru is considerably less[I think around $700?]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=0&image.y=0


I also see a used onE on B&H for $549.

16:9 Century Optic Anamorphic lens question
 

My friend has just loaned me a 16:9 Century Optic Anamorphic lens. The lens came with a bayonet mount for the PD150/VX2000. I am unable to SECURE the bayonet without it turning.....can't get it to lock in.

Maybe, some Century Optics owners can help?

BTW: I went to the CO site and read the instructions to no avail.

Thanks,
LOU

I haven't used their PD-150 lenses, but I have a couple for my Z1 and am *guessing* they might be the same. There's an outer ring that has a little white dot on it. Turn this ring until it aligns with another white dot on the lens itself. The dots need to be together in the 12 o'clock position when you put the lens on, and it should the bayonet. Now, hold the outer ring and rotate the lens body clockwise (facing the front of the camera) while keeping the ring stationary. This should engage the lock tightly as you turn.

Like I said, that's the way the Z1 lenses work but it could be different on your camera...

The bayonet fittings look similar on the mounting ring to the lens hood but the method of securing is different.

The two dots are aligned as described above, the device is slipped on over the bayonet lugs, rotated clockwise with both dots kept close together until the rotation stops, then the device (one dot) itself is furthur turned clockwise inside the outer ring until it binds onto the front face of the camcorder lugs.

The two dots end up about an inch apart by the time this position is reached.

This has the effect of clamping the device firmly to the camcorder around the entire circumference of the mount, rather than a small thumbscrew lock which would permit the heavy lens to rock.

The Sony lens hood is plastic.The lens is metal and to have metal as a tight fit with a permanent clamping spring would wear the plastic camera body fairly quickly. The method adopted by Century Optics is obviously intended to avoid that.

Once the lens has been firmly secured, you then need to go to the the thumbscrew on the lens, back this off so that you can then rotate the optics inside the lens body to align the stretch, then lock the lens with the thumbscrew again.

It is only the front 7mm or so which sticks out in front that you can rotate. This turns the whole optical assembly inside the outer body.

It may be that the camera mount is already worn or the 16:9 lens has been tampered with. It is an easy fix.

Your will see on a raised section towards the mountface, a small flatheaded screw sheltered in a recess. This is a screw which is a simple limit stop.

It allows the clamping collar only a certain amount of movement otherwise it would be to hard to find the right clearance for mounting the lens and then tightening up without a lot of botheration.

If the inner body of the lens is striking the limit stop and not screwing in to clamping pressure on the camcorder lugs before the limit stop is reached, you could try backing this screw off until the inner body moves freely again furthur clockwise to screw in furthur to clamping pressure.

Depending on any wear to the camcorder body, retightening the limit stop screw may put it in the wrong position for dismounting the lens or it may even bind the lens and ring tight.

If there has been no wear, then it might simply be a case of the limit screw having been loosened by casual experimentation, the mount having been disturbed whilst off the camera, then the screw tightened in again with the ring one full thread out of position.

In a circumstance of face wear on the camcorder, to restore the position of the inner body you might need to compensate for wear by making a very thin washer of shim foil and placing this inside the mount where the face bears against the camcorder.

Wear of this magnitude is a very unlikely circumstance and if the mount is hitting a stop before the inner body tightens up against the face, then the most likely fault will be the limit stop screw having been loosened and the stop inadventently altered.

The mounting method is not easily learned even with the written instructions provided. The most common cause of mounting problems is not knowing or being able to work out the method. Once learned it is easy and convenient.

Re-alignment of the centre section after each dismount is recommended as despite popular belief, this lens does not go back on again in the exact postion every time. If left mounted to the camera in transport, the position can also become altered.