All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter

Tom Hardwick · May 16th, 2004, 12:30 AM

Tommy, I'm sure you're right - though I haven't done the test myself to confirm. But your words, "those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality" hit the nail on the head. Picture quality comes from a whole host of disciplines, a few of which I listed. It reminds me that some Hifi buffs in the 80s used to think that a flat frequency response was the be and end all of Hifi. Open reel tape deck manufacturers went to great pains to pump out decks that were flat from 20 to 20k, often at the expense of other - far more important parameters.

Cars too are made to perform well in the 0 to 60 test, regardless of the fact that this can give gearing not best siuted to modern driving. I feel Sony have gone this route slightly with the PDX10. It does indeed give wonderful picture quality, but out there in the real world, where the light levels vary, you need a camera that makes more level headed compromises.

tom.

Tommy Haupfear · May 16th, 2004, 04:54 AM

I agree Tom.

What scared me is how much I would be willing to pay for a native 16:9 VX2000!

:)

Dave Lammey · May 17th, 2004, 08:26 AM

Tom: thanks for that reply. You make a good point regarding backwards compatibility. But I'm not sure that showing a 4:3 production on a widescreen TV isn't just as bad ... either you get the gray/black bars on the sides, which is unsatisfying, or you get the picture unnaturally stretched to fill the 16:9 dimensions ... which is what most people will probably do, whether they realize it or not. To me either looks terrible, but I guess if the client doesn't mind ...

unfortunately we're in the middle of a transition and there's no decent solution other than to wait until 16:9 becomes the norm for consumers.

Jonah Lee Walker · May 27th, 2004, 08:42 PM

On reading these forums, and a couple of others, my company and I each purchased the Century Optics adapter for the PD170 cameras. On multiple cameras this adapter seems to cause focus problems, with much soft focus, and an inability to find the focus even on manual. This adapter has caused nothing but problems. Has anyone else had these problems? I haven't seen anyone report about it online.

Tom Hardwick · May 28th, 2004, 12:56 AM

My second posting down in this list describes what you've found Jonah, that using an anamorphic brings a solution but also brings problems.

Don't forget that you're adding a cylindrical element in front of your camera's lens and this in itself is designed to distort the image. You're shooting with more distortion in the hope that the TV will correct this later.

It does work, but it demands that you curtail the zooming and the close focusing and accept a distorted viewfinder. These are big prices to pay in my book, and we haven't even started talking about the big price up front or it's weight and the light loss. In a side-by-side comparison on a good big 16:9 TV the anamorphic footage will look better, but this is like saying the PDX10 gives better widescreen footage than the VX2000. Yes, it does in controlled conditions, but out there in the real run 'n' gun world, it most certainly doesn't.

tom.

Mike Rehmus · May 28th, 2004, 09:59 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : I agree Tom.

What scared me is how much I would be willing to pay for a native 16:9 VX2000!

:) -->>>

Well then, a DSR-570WS should be ok then, right? :-))))

Tommy Haupfear · May 31st, 2004, 04:53 PM

I guess I should have put a spending cap on that dream sequence. :)

Michael Struthers · August 23rd, 2004, 11:15 AM

How good is the century optics 16x9? Anyone actually got one?

Giroud Francois · August 23rd, 2004, 02:15 PM

it works well but with so many limitations (specially into zoom) that the price make it really an expensive for the few lines you save by using it.
Frankly if you can afford for another solution it worth to try.

Ray Echevers · August 23rd, 2004, 06:40 PM

Their products are great, but very pricey.

Lasse Bodoni · August 25th, 2004, 11:29 AM

I'm using the Century 16:9 adapter on a Sony PD150P. Together with a mattebox and 4x4 filter holders the setupp is a quit god one.

The adapter has its limitation. You can't zoom outside of the 1/4 and 3/4 range. I use to zoom only from the 1/3 to the 3/4 max. The picture quallity is much more like "film" . Not film but it is more soft.

Kevin Lee · August 25th, 2004, 11:35 AM

A note - You have to be very careful in run & gun scenarios where you are trying to focus using the small lcd and time is against you. I've had some footage where the bg was in focus and the subject in foreground was not.

Mike Rehmus · August 25th, 2004, 11:42 AM

The LCD isn't good enough to focus in most situations, especially compared to the viewfinder or an external monitor.

Marco Leavitt · August 25th, 2004, 07:10 PM

I have the Century anamorphic and really like it. I find that it doesn't really interfere with the autofocus on my GL1. I even shot a wedding reception with it. No focus problems whatsoever. On manual you can zoom in, let the autofocus make its best guess, put it back on manual and zoom out and you will have a very sharp picture. An external monitor would be very nice with this adapter, but it's not 100 percent necessary if you can deal with its quirks. I never shoot with the zoom at more than a quarter of the zoom range with this adapter, so there are definitely some limitations.

Lasse Bodoni · August 26th, 2004, 01:23 AM

Has the PD170 nativ 16:9?

Century optics has a 1.33 anamorphic adapter with full zoom. Has someone tested on a PD150?

I guess a combination of the Century 16:9 with the Century 75 mm telelinse is a god solution. The tele adapter is for the Canon but fits on the 16:9 adapter. I could help with the shallow focus.

May 27th, 2004, 08:42 PM	#49
Jonah Lee Walker New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 19	Majors problems with the Century Optics 16:9 On reading these forums, and a couple of others, my company and I each purchased the Century Optics adapter for the PD170 cameras. On multiple cameras this adapter seems to cause focus problems, with much soft focus, and an inability to find the focus even on manual. This adapter has caused nothing but problems. Has anyone else had these problems? I haven't seen anyone report about it online. __________________ -Jonah Lee

May 28th, 2004, 09:59 PM	#51
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : I agree Tom. What scared me is how much I would be willing to pay for a native 16:9 VX2000! :) -->>> Well then, a DSR-570WS should be ok then, right? :-)))) __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

August 23rd, 2004, 11:15 AM	#53
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	How good is the century optics 16x9? Anyone actually got one? __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

August 23rd, 2004, 06:40 PM	#55
Ray Echevers Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 148	Their products are great, but very pricey. __________________ Sony VX-1000 G5 1.8 dual 91 Turbo MR2

August 25th, 2004, 11:42 AM	#58
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	The LCD isn't good enough to focus in most situations, especially compared to the viewfinder or an external monitor. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

May 16th, 2004, 12:30 AM	#46
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Tommy, I'm sure you're right - though I haven't done the test myself to confirm. But your words, "those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality" hit the nail on the head. Picture quality comes from a whole host of disciplines, a few of which I listed. It reminds me that some Hifi buffs in the 80s used to think that a flat frequency response was the be and end all of Hifi. Open reel tape deck manufacturers went to great pains to pump out decks that were flat from 20 to 20k, often at the expense of other - far more important parameters. Cars too are made to perform well in the 0 to 60 test, regardless of the fact that this can give gearing not best siuted to modern driving. I feel Sony have gone this route slightly with the PDX10. It does indeed give wonderful picture quality, but out there in the real world, where the light levels vary, you need a camera that makes more level headed compromises. tom.

May 16th, 2004, 04:54 AM	#47
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I agree Tom. What scared me is how much I would be willing to pay for a native 16:9 VX2000! :)

May 17th, 2004, 08:26 AM	#48
Dave Lammey Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Simsbury, CT Posts: 247	Tom: thanks for that reply. You make a good point regarding backwards compatibility. But I'm not sure that showing a 4:3 production on a widescreen TV isn't just as bad ... either you get the gray/black bars on the sides, which is unsatisfying, or you get the picture unnaturally stretched to fill the 16:9 dimensions ... which is what most people will probably do, whether they realize it or not. To me either looks terrible, but I guess if the client doesn't mind ... unfortunately we're in the middle of a transition and there's no decent solution other than to wait until 16:9 becomes the norm for consumers.

May 28th, 2004, 12:56 AM	#50
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	My second posting down in this list describes what you've found Jonah, that using an anamorphic brings a solution but also brings problems. Don't forget that you're adding a cylindrical element in front of your camera's lens and this in itself is designed to distort the image. You're shooting with more distortion in the hope that the TV will correct this later. It does work, but it demands that you curtail the zooming and the close focusing and accept a distorted viewfinder. These are big prices to pay in my book, and we haven't even started talking about the big price up front or it's weight and the light loss. In a side-by-side comparison on a good big 16:9 TV the anamorphic footage will look better, but this is like saying the PDX10 gives better widescreen footage than the VX2000. Yes, it does in controlled conditions, but out there in the real run 'n' gun world, it most certainly doesn't. tom.

May 31st, 2004, 04:53 PM	#52
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I guess I should have put a spending cap on that dream sequence. :)

August 23rd, 2004, 02:15 PM	#54
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	it works well but with so many limitations (specially into zoom) that the price make it really an expensive for the few lines you save by using it. Frankly if you can afford for another solution it worth to try.

August 25th, 2004, 11:29 AM	#56
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	I'm using the Century 16:9 adapter on a Sony PD150P. Together with a mattebox and 4x4 filter holders the setupp is a quit god one. The adapter has its limitation. You can't zoom outside of the 1/4 and 3/4 range. I use to zoom only from the 1/3 to the 3/4 max. The picture quallity is much more like "film" . Not film but it is more soft.

August 25th, 2004, 11:35 AM	#57
Kevin Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 224	A note - You have to be very careful in run & gun scenarios where you are trying to focus using the small lcd and time is against you. I've had some footage where the bg was in focus and the subject in foreground was not.

August 25th, 2004, 07:10 PM	#59
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I have the Century anamorphic and really like it. I find that it doesn't really interfere with the autofocus on my GL1. I even shot a wedding reception with it. No focus problems whatsoever. On manual you can zoom in, let the autofocus make its best guess, put it back on manual and zoom out and you will have a very sharp picture. An external monitor would be very nice with this adapter, but it's not 100 percent necessary if you can deal with its quirks. I never shoot with the zoom at more than a quarter of the zoom range with this adapter, so there are definitely some limitations.

August 26th, 2004, 01:23 AM	#60
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	Has the PD170 nativ 16:9? Century optics has a 1.33 anamorphic adapter with full zoom. Has someone tested on a PD150? I guess a combination of the Century 16:9 with the Century 75 mm telelinse is a god solution. The tele adapter is for the Canon but fits on the 16:9 adapter. I could help with the shallow focus.