All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter

Boyd Ostroff · October 28th, 2004, 03:20 PM

People have been asking about this lens every couple months for the past year, however nobody here has ever seen one. There is some doubt as to whether it's actually a shipping product. On B&H's website they list it as both "out of stock" and "special order" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...namorphic+1.33

Also note that it costs $1,300...

Pat Sherman · March 17th, 2005, 03:11 PM

I know this was for the PD170. However I have a couple PD-150 cameras, and wanted to do a 16:9 ana for it. Are they available for the 150, if so what other accessories would I need to purchase to make it perfect..

Thanks much

patrick

Marco Leavitt · March 17th, 2005, 03:25 PM

I believe there is a bayonet version for the PD170. They also make a 58mm threaded version.

Pat Sherman · March 17th, 2005, 03:31 PM

Any one version better over the other? Sorry for the noobness, in the last 8 months I have been introduced and inducted into doing camera work..

Any places to purchase, model numbers, anything will help.. :)

Marco Leavitt · March 17th, 2005, 03:40 PM

I've never believed in bayonet mounts because you can only use them with one model of camera. Why not get the threaded version? They're only moderately less convenient, are easier to sell, and are more likely to be compatible with future equipment. Keep in mind though, that I almost never remove our anamorphic, so it may be less of an issue for me than for people who constantly need to switch back and forth between aspect ratios.

Pat Sherman · March 17th, 2005, 04:04 PM

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..

Marco Leavitt · March 17th, 2005, 04:11 PM

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.

Pat Sherman · March 17th, 2005, 04:19 PM

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?

Rhett Allen · March 17th, 2005, 04:33 PM

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)

Pat Sherman · March 17th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Thanks so much for the concise information..

It's appreciated..

Ari Shomair · April 22nd, 2005, 10:46 AM

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

Marco Leavitt · April 22nd, 2005, 11:27 AM

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

Troy Aitken · August 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM

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.

Laurence Kingston · August 22nd, 2005, 06:58 PM

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.

Troy Aitken · August 23rd, 2005, 07:18 AM

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.

April 22nd, 2005, 10:46 AM	#86
Ari Shomair Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LA, California, USA Posts: 224	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

August 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM	#88
Troy Aitken New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23	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.

August 23rd, 2005, 07:18 AM	#90
Troy Aitken New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23	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.

October 28th, 2004, 03:20 PM	#76
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	People have been asking about this lens every couple months for the past year, however nobody here has ever seen one. There is some doubt as to whether it's actually a shipping product. On B&H's website they list it as both "out of stock" and "special order" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...namorphic+1.33 Also note that it costs $1,300...

March 17th, 2005, 03:11 PM	#77
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	I know this was for the PD170. However I have a couple PD-150 cameras, and wanted to do a 16:9 ana for it. Are they available for the 150, if so what other accessories would I need to purchase to make it perfect.. Thanks much patrick

March 17th, 2005, 03:25 PM	#78
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I believe there is a bayonet version for the PD170. They also make a 58mm threaded version.

March 17th, 2005, 03:31 PM	#79
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	Any one version better over the other? Sorry for the noobness, in the last 8 months I have been introduced and inducted into doing camera work.. Any places to purchase, model numbers, anything will help.. :)

March 17th, 2005, 03:40 PM	#80
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I've never believed in bayonet mounts because you can only use them with one model of camera. Why not get the threaded version? They're only moderately less convenient, are easier to sell, and are more likely to be compatible with future equipment. Keep in mind though, that I almost never remove our anamorphic, so it may be less of an issue for me than for people who constantly need to switch back and forth between aspect ratios.

March 17th, 2005, 04:04 PM	#81
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	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..

March 17th, 2005, 04:11 PM	#82
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	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.

March 17th, 2005, 04:19 PM	#83
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	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?

March 17th, 2005, 04:33 PM	#84
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	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)

March 17th, 2005, 04:57 PM	#85
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	Thanks so much for the concise information.. It's appreciated..

April 22nd, 2005, 11:27 AM	#87
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	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

August 22nd, 2005, 06:58 PM	#89
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	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.