View Full Version : best (and most cost effective) way to shoot widescreen on xl1s?


Yi Fong Yu
June 16th, 2004, 08:31 AM
i have the xl1s with 16xISII.

what lens will give me similar to this:
http://fongunlimited.com/genmay/gardenstate.jpg

i understand the 3x lens will but it'll cost me $1k+. how about those widescreen $100-200 lenses on ebay? how do those compare?

Adam Burtle
June 27th, 2004, 04:35 PM
wideANGLE or wideSCREEN?

wideSCREEN implies aspect ratio.

wideANGLE implies angle of view.

you will get what you pay for.. a $500-700 adapter for the 16x lens will work very well to get super wide fisheye type shots, but you wont be able to zoom through it much, if at all. the 3x lens works great.. i'm very happy with it.

if you're looking for an anamorphic adapter, that is different than a wideangle adapter.

Yi Fong Yu
June 27th, 2004, 10:24 PM
looking to some widescreen shorts that will look as good as that screencap. is it possible with my 16x? or do i have to get 3x or other adaptors? i'll have to experiment later

Rob Lohman
June 28th, 2004, 03:11 AM
Fastest, cheapest and most cost effective is to simply crop or
add black bars to get a 2.35 aspect ratio (which it probably is).

If you do not want to loose as much resolution (you will loose
anyway with 2.35 for a non true 16:9 camera) you need an
anamorphic adapter and switch the camera also to 16:9. This
will in effect give you 2x 16:9 which is actually more than 2.35
but constitutes an extreme widescreen.

Or you can combine this by using an anamorphic attachment and
crop in post etc. etc.

You will always loose (some) resolution on these prosumer camera's

Yi Fong Yu
June 28th, 2004, 06:41 AM
i really like that 2.35 widescreen look. just wanted to see how others achieve the look.