Greetings again DVX owners!

Although I am excedingly happy with the relatively wide angle lens that comes glued to this camera, there are many times when a wider angle lens is really necessary.

Indoors in cramped areas, of when you just want that super wide angle effect.

I haven't seen a 72mm .3X lens for this camera yet, and certainly not one under a gazillion dollars.

So I made one.

I used a Raynox .3X clip on as a base, and I have found my lens to do everything I wanted it to. Total cost is about $100, and its pretty darn easy to put together.

Enjoy the detailed instructions with photos here:

Thanks, and enjoy

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html

Neil: the photos on this page don't load for me, just like your LCD hood project. However your jib, GL-2 lens, boom pole and wind pal pages all display fine.

Fixed it--- I started using a new web page editor-- missed something. Thanks

neil, i would love to see some shots w/ this modified lens...thanks...

Will do-- give me a day or so, before Mon. for sure-- I'll put them up on the web page..

cool very cool.. !

got my cheap glass on order....how is the quality of the glass?? can you please post some shots from that lens setup like that?

Thanks for the post and site - excellent directions. But what about the glass quality?

DV is extemely vulnerable to contrast and sharpness loss at wide angles - do you have some high rez grabs to compare resolution with Century Optics models?

I added some comparitive photos on the web page now, look at the bottom of the page:

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html

There are a couple of things to keep in mind concerning this lens, but none of these should disuade anyone from using or making such a project.

1) We are using a single element Raynox llens as a base. This is not a multi-element lens, but it is also only going to cost you $100. I have not noticed any apparent practical quality problems arrising from this lens under normal use. I don't get flaring, false colors, or loss of sharpness. It looks very good to me. If you are using your footage on normal TVs, believe me, the amount of quality loss you experience is going to be a great deal more than you would ever see between this lens and any other lens anyway.

Additionally, This is a .3X wide angle lens, not a .5X wide angle lens like the commercially available DVX adapters, so you can't directly compare.

Know that a wide angle lens moves the images VIRTUALLY farther away from the camera's central focal point, and more so the further you go from the center of the picture. Naturally, objects will lose detail as the move away from the virtual camera image, so don't expect the same level of detail on edge objects using the lens, as you would get not using the lens. It's impossible because they are virtually farther away from the camera.


2) You CAN'T make high resolution still grabs with the DVX. It's not made for that purpose. You are limited to the pixel resolution of the CCD, unlike other consumer cameras that allow 1 and 2 megapixel still photos. The highest resolution still you can get from the DVX is a mere 327 X 240.

Although the still images look pretty meek, there is still not a camera under $30,000 that produces sharper and higher quality video that I've heard of.
Of course, this will change before you know it.....! Doesn't it always? The JVC HD camera has severe limitations in terms of color and sensitivity that the DVX does not.

Of course, this will change before you know it.....!

It's pricey, but Century Optics has added a .3x fisheye for the DVX100:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/dvx100/3x_ultra_fisheye/3x_ultra_fisheye.htm

This gives a 130 degree FOV - what FOV does your kit offer?

The Century Optics lens is $800....!

Normally, I would say that this is like comparing apples and oranges.

However, my educated guess is that there little detectable difference, no where near as much difference in performance between these two lenses as you might find between a $100 camera and an $800 camera.

Sometimes, you get what you pay for, other times, the difference is very minimal.

Raynox has a good reputation, and all of my Raynox adapter lenses are satisfactory for me. And I am not blind, and have a rather discriminating eye.

When I use my lens in front of my Leica lens, I see no reduction in apparent quality. And that's the botom line.

Both are rated .3X so the focal length should be the same. The sample video on the Century Optics site looks just like the kind of widest video I get with my lens. Look at my web page pictures too.

Per vignetting, The Optics ad says "vignetting occurs". My lens has a direct 72mm screw mount which puts the back part of the lens right next to the DVX square cut out inner lens shade. This is as close as ANY lens can get without removing the inner shade.

If you look carefully at the sample video on the Century description page, you see a little vignetting in each corner. I've avoided this in three corners of mine even at the widest setting when viewed on a TV.

Also not, Century OPtics says, "No zooming".

2/3 of my zoom ability is retained with my lens- no refocussing necessary. 4.5-17 setting on my camera lens markings.

The Century Optics lens is 2 Element, and the front diameter is 112mm, whereas the Raynox is single Element and only about 72mm front diameter. Yes, I would imagine the Century lens is a fine lens, and optically- on paper and under the microscope- a better lens.

But I am excedingly happy with the DIY one, and I haven't noted any problems in any circumstance. Go get one, make mine, and let us know the differences ;-)

I've done a lot of work with wide-angle converters on DV cams, and you might like to go here:
http://www.fortvir.net/index.php
and have a look at tom's photo album. I show the Bolex Aspheron on the VX2k and the one magnificient overriding beauty of this lens is the complete lack of barrel distortion.

I've used wide-angle lenses made by Century, Raynox, Kenko, Cavision, Canon, Panasonic and Schneider, but none comes close to this Aspheron. I just got sick of having door frames bend and bow outwards as I went through them.

tom.

<<<-- Originally posted by Neil Slade : The highest resolution still you can get from the DVX is a mere 327 X 240. -->>>

That's a curious statement. When in progressive mode, every frame the DVX shoots is a 720 x 480 still. Your capture software should allow you to extract one of those frames. You definitely can get 720x480 stills, although they'll be at DV aspect ratio, you'll probably want to re-size 'em in PhotoShop to be 640x480.

1) Barry, Oh yes yes-- I goofed, when I made my grabs from my DVX progressive stills I had my Vegas Video project settings incorrect, set for 29fps interlaced. . Fixed, now and I reposted the pictures twice as big, and a much better representation. The lens seems to actually perform better the wider you zoom out.
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html



2) I looked at the Aspheron lens and a couple of things of notice- It is a .5X lens, and I do note the lack of barrel distortion (pretty darn cool)- but this lens, other than used examples, can't be found on the web. It looks like it was manufactured for 16mm film cameras.

Once you get into semi-fisheye and fisheye lens (.3X and greater) barrel distortion is just part of the equation. It's normal optics.

The Aspheron seems to be made very small diameter lenses and unadaptable for large diameter cameras like the 72mm DVX or anything even close to this. I'm only guessing, but the absense of barrel distortion may be a combination of the.5X strength and the very wide ratio of front lens diameter to rear lens diameter, i.e. to require this kind of performance on a 52mm or larger lens would require a lens a foot across. (like I said, only guessing here)-- and that's why you don't see them made by anyone. I would love to hear from a real technical lens expert on this-- something I am not.

Please note, even the normal Leica lens on the DVX starts to show barrel distortion at the widest setting.


Thanks

You're absolutely correct Neil - the Bolex Aspheron was made for the 16mm Switar zooms and is only available new from Bolex in Switzeralnd - at frightening cost. You say:
''barrel distortion is just part of the equation. It's normal optics.''
but it's only ''normal optics' if you talk of spherical lenses. Aspherical lenses (like the Aspheron) can be made any power you like, and barrel distortion will be controlled.

Interesting point you make about the DVX100 as the Aspheron works beautifully on that camera. So no - you don't need a lens a foot across. And my guess is that (like on my VX2k) it removes the inherrent barrel distortion that comes supplied as free with the original zoom. The lens actually has a small amount of pincushion distortion to correct such faults.

tom.

amazing! got mine done it's awesome, a new creative shooting style! LOVE IT!!! Neil would you say that it is as good as a 800$ wideangle glass lens?

neil, is there anyway you can compare it to century's .3x fisheye(at it's widest setting before it vignettes)? also, any way you can post another picture w/ a foreground object or persons face close to the lens to truly see its distorted capabilities? thanks!

A few new frame grabs posted on the page to show the extreme distorted effects-
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html

***Note- there is NO VIGNETTING with my lens seen on a TV or monitor or on the camera's LCD screenEVER. EVEN AT THE WIDEST SETTING. Thank you thank you, Frontal Lobes Lens Design at work here. You'll only see out outside the "safe" area when editing on your software ONLY in 4:3 at the very widest setting. You won't see vignetting it AT ALL in widescreen letterbox on either a TV oreven when editing. Good news if you're making a movie or working widescreen.

Again, my guess is that the $800 probably looks better under a microscope, but I don't think most of us who are even considering building our own stuff would even care if the difference is minimal for 1/8th the cost. I am sure it's not a GREAT difference if there are differences- just an educated guess since I don't have my hands on the Century Optics .3X.

Again, its almost certainly not like the difference between a $100 CAMERA and an $800 camera. I'm happy with it, and it sounds like the first guy here to build his is pretty damn happy with his too. The Century Optics is 2 element, and quite a bit bigger at 112mm outside front diameter. Mine is just 1 element and conveniently compact, 75mm outside front diameter- simple as it gets.

**************
By the way, I think it is SO COOL when somebody else makes something you invent yourself... and it works just like you said it will. Congratulations to Obin!
Anything you would like to add concerning the construction, Obin?

**************

Tom, thanks for the info on Aspherical lenses, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew of such lenses, but had filed this under irrelevant since I can't afford such a seemingly wonderful product. Maybe they're available used?
Anyway, you must have adapted it to your DVX with a step-up ring? step down ring?

How DO you attach your Asperon to work with the DVX?

The DVX is 72mm, and it looks like the back side (towards the camera) is a much smaller diameter-- yes? no?

Thanks

Raynox sells the same .3x lens in a 58mm thread mount. I wonder if using a 72mm-58mm step-down ring would be suitable? The rear surface of the 3x lens would be a little further from the front surface of the DVX lens, but it might be fine. Possibly a litttle bit of vignetting. Anyone try this?

Neil your instructions are AWESOME! one thing I did was cut the corners off the lens shade to kill any plastic showing up in the wideangle viewframe ;) also if anyone has a table sander like I do just take your lens shade that Neil says to CUT and sand the hell outa the back till it's flat and it looks sooo much nicer then cutting it ;))

Neil you should see the focus puller that I and my brother are making it is SICK@@@@!!! we are going to sell it when it's ready!

Best to remember Neil that a lot of video projectors project the FULL frame onto the screen, so what I do in such circumstances is have a black rectangular frame applied along the length of my timeline. This is never visible on a conventional TV because of the screen masking (ug!) but when the film's projected it's just that little more 'letterbox' up there.

Well spotted. The Aspheron actually has an 85mm attachment thread halfway up the back of the lens. You can get an adapter to go from this to 72mm, 62mm, 58mm - whatever you want.

Barry - I think you're asking for blacked out corners with your Raynox .3x converter. The 72mm filter thread of the Leica lens sure looks cool but it limits the lenses that can be sucessfully used without vignetting.

Obin - remember that the most efficient hood is a petal hood, not a circular or even an aspect ratio hood.

tom.

Tom-- I think you might have things a bit mixed up. The large 72mm filter diameter on the DVX makes it LESS likely that filters or add-on lenses will vignette. This is why you can use an add-on lens like the Raynox that is designed for lenses with filter threads up to 67mm.

Neil's mod still plugs into the 72mm filter threads--it just uses the Cokin 72mm filter adapter. The question is what are the distances between the rear surface of the Raynox lens and the front surface of the DVX lens with each configuration. And just as important, how critical is that distance?

The 58mm screw-in version (MX-3000PRO) is the same lens with a threaded mount instead of a clip on mount (XL-3000PRO), but it also lacks the "hood" of the clip on version--it has a small lip around the lens (for protection). So on that account, it may be less prone to vignetting.

Bottom line is, someone needs to try it out and see if it works. If so, there's no reason for the glueing and grinding. Just order the MX-3000PRO and a 72mm-58mm step-down ring and you're set.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/semi-fisheye/egmx3000pro.htm

i was checking the raynox site and found the DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye which will produce slightly more distortion. from reading its specs, i believe it has a 62mm thread so one will need a 72mm-62mm step down ring. do you guys think it will vignette? i need a fisheye for an upcoming music video shoot so i'm willing to be the guinea pig on this one if nobody has tried it out yet. check out the video clip of the car driving by!

Jaser, you don't need anything more then this lens for music vid...this thing is WIDE and WEIRD if you put it in someones face ;)

OK, tom's thoughts.

Jaser - a true fisheye lens intentionally vignettes any rectangular frame by putting a circular image within the frame's perimeter. The true fisheye sees 180 degrees in all directions. Semi-fish eyes vignette less, and FFFE (full frame fisheyes) don't black the corners at all. Yes, the Raynox 0.24 will vignette but then it's designed to, it's part of its appeal.

Barry, I obviously confused you with my wording, and I assure you I'm not mixed up. I have a Panasonic MX300 (43mm filter thread) and a VX2k (58mm filter thread) I have 3 wide-angle converters that don't vignette the Panasonic's image yet they all vignette when used on the Sony. They vignette even more on the DVX100, partly due to that Leica lens seeing wider in the first place, and partly because the entry pupils on the converters are so small.

One good thing about the DVX is the OIS, and being internal means that the front element really is a front element. On Sony's VX/PD range the front element of the zoom has this whacking great flapping vari-angle prism attached to it - meaning that wide-angle converters are pushed further away and will tend to vignette even more.

tom.

tom, what do you think about barry's thoughts on the mx-3000pro 58mm screw in vs. neil's mod xl-3000pro? if i can avoid the glueing and grinding, the all the better...thanks...

Jaser,

The DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye and the MX-3000PRO are both good candidates to try on the DVX.

The DCR-FE180 would be the superior choice--it's a newer 5 element/4 group design as opposed to the single element MX/XL-3000PRO. If you look at the comparison photos, you can see the DCR-FE-180 is sharper and has better contrast. Which it should for $350.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcrfe180pro/dcrfe180proindexeg.htm

Just to (hopefully) clear up some haze here-- the difference between a fisheye and semi-fisheye lens is the degree of f-theta distortion of the lens. f-theta distortion is the amount that objects are distorted as they move away from the center of the frame.

A semi-fisheye lens will distort objects to a lesser degree as they move away from frame center. How much less? Not much, by looking at Raynox's comparison images. In fact, it looks like they have roughly similar degrees of hemispheric distortion, but slightly different angles of view.

The distinction Tom is making above actually refers to the difference between full frame fisheye lenses and circular image fisheye lenses, however both are still considered true fisheyes (because the f-theta distortion mapping is similar).

Both Raynox lenses are full frame fisheyes.

per the above-- my lens sits up RIGHT against the rectangular inner lens shade-- and I barely escape vignetting.

Using the raynox with 58mm threads you are going to experience significant vignetting unless the less projects backwards from the stepup ring, unlikely scenario. I don't think this will work nearly as well as the DIY set up.

Neil--I still think it's worth trying. Do you notice a marked increase in vignetting as you unscrew the cokin ring? If not, the step-down ring config may be fine. Also, what do you mean by significant vignetting? I consider vignetting significant if it intrudes into the safe area of the image--otherwise it's a minor annoyance.

Barry

I sure like mine on the dvx....I am going to use it for a 30sec spot really soon...gona be fun, put it right up aginst someones face for the wide "effect" gona make the poor actor look like cartoon freak ;)

hey obin, i would love to see more clips if you can! how's about a car slowly driving by? thanks!

i'll pay for someone to build me one, will pay up front, just too busy ....

HOWEVER, a quick little FUND to a BETA TESTER could be a quick find/answer to this question
1)estimate return s&h fees at $20
2)DVinfo members in this thread/interested parties send $4, 3, 2, or $1 to the BETA TESTER FUND to cover return s&h charges on the equipment
3)BETA TESTER buys from b&h:
lens + step down = $166
4)BETA TESTER
posts pics and clips of the .3x in action for all to judge for themselves if they'd individually like that setup
5)if BETA TESTER personally keeps setup, returns each members FUND donation
6)if BETA TESTER personally is not satisfied/returns/sells setup, keeps each members FUND donation and returns/sells the setup
7)BETA TESTER must not accept over $20 total in donations for this projects....
8)everyone should list just a simple YES or NO if they are willing to contribute UP TO $4, if only 5 people say YES, we've got a solution
9)make sure beta tester can do this timely....

...................................i'd be willing to send $4 to a more reputable member willing to do this as well... if 5 people contribute, should easy

anyone that contributes to the FUND could just post here..to confirm they sent money

this is a community, just offering a solution


this is the joy of credit cards, return policies and a DEMAND for answers to questions


so I am 1, only need 4 more people...........................................................................................

Hello,

Just wondering if anyone has tried the MX-3000Pro on the DVX-100(a) using a 72mm-58mm step down ring. Did it work? Is it worth going through the DIY project or just order the MX version of the lens with an adapter?

Thanks,

Matt

The problem with any smaller diameter lens on the DVX100 is that you've got to get the back end of the lens right next to, and as close as possible to the standard lens to avoid vignetting. If you simply use a standard step down ring-, the back of the wide angle is going to sit up off the normal lens far enough the vignetting will occur to a good extent.

This DIY design prevents that, because the lens sits barely above the standard lens, and so, the camera can make use of the full wideangle, even though its smaller than the 72mm thread on the camera.

PS
In regards to BETA testing-- hey folks-- I already did that! The pictures are on the web site, and people regularly report back that they are very happy with this project.

I don't make any money on this whatsoever- its just a freebee. (though I admit, it gets some people over to my web site.)


I just used the lens on my feature film project which is now out as well, and entered in the Denver International Film Festival. The DVD is already selling well.
See http://www.neilslade.com/Mirror.html

By the way, in regards to the teeny teeny tiny bit of vignetting in two of the corners in the most extreme wide position- if you want to maintain the fisheye effect- just crop this little bit- you won't lose any perceptual resolution, and the wide effect will totally remain.

Note: Other DIY projects on the web site too, as well as this new page
http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html which has now been proven totally glitch free, despite all the completley uninformed and wrong advice to the contrary.

wow, i like that

This came to me the other day regarding another person who made this lens project. I've heard from many who did it and were very happy with the results...

"hey i've posted 2 video clips using your fisheye online, if you log onto www.kingcoyote.net/videos you will see a dvxfisheye.mov clip and a phil180.mov clip, check those out, you can download them and put them on your website if you'd like. just give me credit! haha. when i put the lens shade on mine i actually had to file out the inner circle of the lens shade so that it would fit over the lens. but things worked out great as you can see. i use fcp and i've actually noticed the widescreen thing before where things just dont look correctly displayed. i dont use vegas since i am on a mac but thats awesome. i completely see what you mean. message board idiots can get a hair up there ass over the most minute things. retards. thanks for the info, i appreciate it.

Michael McQueen

King Coyote Productions

205 Lyndon Street Suite Z

Greensboro, NC 27401