<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Jacobson : thanks, but what is "high index"? -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Jacobson : thanks, but what is "high index"? -->>>

One factor in lens design is refractive index. A high index material will require less of a radius to produce a give focal length, as compared to a low index material.

In short, high index material it denser and bends light more, low index bends light less.

There are literally hundreds of glass, plastic, even what we would call rock and other materials used in optical design that all offer up various optical properties for the visible and invisible electromagnetic spectrum.

Commonly referred to as “substrates”. Each formulation of these substrates have their own complex properties that help in designing optical systems. A lens makers choice of materials is based on a very large number of factors.

Also, the refractive index measurement is relative to the frequency of light the lens will be used in.

The binders listing optical glass choices etc that I have are literally 2” thick and are a study in optics in them selves.

Look up these glass manufacturers , Schott Glass, Ohara, Hoya, Corning. They have online catalogues that will help you in understanding what goes into a simple lens and may offer more insight.

Best regards,

Rene J. Collins
Collinscraft Canada
The Red Eye Guy

Any chance of producing a Series 9 version? It's commonly used in film. There are currently a lot of people using 16mm cameras that have been modified for Super16, but most of the existing lenses wider than 12mm vignette. People desparately want wider primes in this format, but lenses for 35mm cameras are insanely expensive and hardly anybody is making lenses specifically for Super16. Even those are insanely expensive. I think you'd sell tons if approached this market.

<<<-- Originally posted by Arlie Nava : Rene, how muach would it cost to ship red eye to the philippines? Or do you already have a dealer here?

Thanks -->>>

Hello Arlie, I have a distributor in Singapore who handles sales in your region. Contact Derrick Ang at LSV Enterprise Pte Ltd to arrange for a demo. I’m new to the forum so I hope it’s OK to post the contact info:

Contact:
Derrick Ang
L S V Enterprise Pte Ltd
No.629, Aljunied Road,
#08-14, Cititech Industrial Building,
Singapore 389838
Phone : (65) 744 6775
Fax : (65) 744 3193
e-mail :Derrick Ang
http://www.lsv.com.sg


Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

All the best,

Rene J. Collins
Collinscraft Canada
The Red Eye Guy

thanks Rene. guess i'll be writing you and email soon.

Hello Marco,

I’ve been giving some thought to doing something allong those lines but not exactly a series 9 system. I’ll need to keep those plans for myself for the time being.

However, I have used the 82 mm Red Eye on some 16 mm film commercials. It will work on prime lenses with short focal lengths. The thing is, you may need to adapt the Red Eye in some way so that it will stay on the film lens. As you know, film lenses come in all flavors.

I always encourage people to test first before they commit just to make sure The Red Eye will work for them.

Rene J. Collins
Collinscraft Canada
The Red Eye Guy

<<<-- Originally posted by Marco Leavitt : Any chance of producing a Series 9 version? It's commonly used in film. There are currently a lot of people using 16mm cameras that have been modified for Super16, but most of the existing lenses wider than 12mm vignette. People desparately want wider primes in this format, but lenses for 35mm cameras are insanely expensive and hardly anybody is making lenses specifically for Super16. Even those are insanely expensive. I think you'd sell tons if approached this market. -->>>

Rene, I cannot obviously say how good a lens is until I actually try it out myself, but some of the points mentioned in the review slightly bothered me, such as:

"...I was looking for an opportunity to try on the Red Eye but as I was limited to only one focal length I decided to film without it. Once the Red Eye is fitted on the lens the focus can only be achieved by the use of the macro or by changing the back focus. Changing the back focus is not that great an idea when you are on location..."

"...The Red Eye's curved image managed to show the whole cell and the curved distortion emphasized..."

"...Once outside though, at the mercy of the strong Middle East sun, every little spot of dirt was visible. The lens shade was visible in the corners of the picture. I had to cut down the light with the ND filters and make sure that I used the minimum depth of field and make sure the focus of the lens was set on maximum..."

"...This is not a lens that you have on your camera but rather a lens that you carry with you to get you out of tight situations..."

"...The disadvantage is that it is not a zoom-through lens and that you need to have a lens with a macro facility (back focus can be used instead of the macro but I would not recommend it). The Red Eye has some slight distortion, vertical and horizontal lines close to the lens curve..."

"...My first instinct was to hold it up and gaze at a wonderfully distorted, crystal-clear view..."

"...I have dabbled with the idea of forking out the cash and buying a wide angle lens..."

"...'that occasional wide shot'..."

"...Off comes the lens hood, then off with the clear/UV filter and then on with the wide angle...for the kind of news shot where even that kind of time scale is impractical, I ain't gonna worry about wide angle anyway!"

"...On the downside, by its very nature the Red Eye cannot allow 'zoom-through' operation as zooming dramatically alters the focal length and hence the focus!..."


The above are just some of the comments that made me think twice about the Red Eye. Obviously there are a lot of positive points mentioned in both articles, but to be honest, I did not read any advantages at all over the Optex glass, and would want to realise at least some advantages before forking out extra money.

Both reports seem to emphasise the fact that using the Red Eye wide-angle was almost an afterthought to their main film footage, and only used it when they had plenty of time on their hands, or to get them out of a tight situation for short clips - "...a Red Eye shot or two..." - but rarely for prolonged use. For me, and I'm sure many others, the need for a wide angle is extremely important, not just to 'get that short take when it's difficult to fit everything in', but more so as a main, sharp, glare-free, high contrast wide angle lens for prolonged use.


Please note that the above are not my negative views on the Red Eye, as I have never tried one, but just my thoughts after 'reading between the lines' of reviews made by previous users. I am still very interested in viewing actual footage, and reading more reviews, that will hopefully change any negative thoughts I have, and eventually sway me into trying one.

Tony, we're working with Rene on a Red Eye review for DV Info Net. It'll be as extensive as possible with photos, video clips, etc. I'm not sure it'll be an XL2 Watchdog review or an article for some other part of the site, but I can assure you that it'll be fresh and accurate content. NAB is bearing down on me like a runaway freight train, but I'm trying to get this project coordinated in a timely fashion. Hope this helps,

I look forward to your detailed review, Chris.

So who knows of a wide angle adapter that is sharp but gives a lot of distortion.

I know that I can just get a fisheye but I don't want that wide or that distorted of a lens. In fact I don't care at all about going wider, just the distortion is needed.

And no, I don't want to do it in post.

Are there any special effect lenses that are just for distortion?

There certainly are such lenses Greg. Century make a good barrel-distorting fisheye doublet, but it sure costs. When I need the maximum barrel distortion I film through the front element of my Tecpro 0.5S converter.

This lens unscrews to seperate the +10 dioptre close-up lens and a very powerful (and very distorting) negative element. This covers the full frame, is only half zoom through but is very sharp and well coated.

tom.

I am a broadcast cameraman who primarily works in news and for the past 18 years I have worked (and continue to work) for every major broadcaster in the western world: from BBC to CNN, from ABC News to ITN. I am also one of the cameramen who reviewed the Red Eye wide angle lens for tvcameramen.com some years ago and I’m compelled to reply to the relatively negative comments.

The Red Eye is quite simply an indispensable piece of kit for any professional cameraman regardless of how many other lenses he/she might have in his/her arsenal because it works. It does not ‘pretend’ to be a stand alone lens, nor should it necessarily be seen as a competitor with other similar products on the market: it is a great piece of kit for several reasons.....
1. It has superb optics right across the exposure range and delivers really wide pictures.
2. It is cheap.
3. It is small, simple to use and extremely handy - I keep mine permanently ‘mounted’ on the rear end of my camera’s handle in its little leather pouch, so it is always there when I need it.

I have a dedicated Canon wide angle lens which set me back almost £10,000, but it lets me down at the long end and in practice I rarely use it; I prefer my standard broadcast lens with the Red Eye as it only takes seconds to fit it and I really can’t run around with the Canon lens strapped to my belt!

I’m not sure how to react to some of the comments other than by saying they are just plain silly:
“...every spot of dirt was visible.” Try cleaning it!
“Changing the back focus is not that great an idea when you are on location...” Adjusting the back focus of a lens is a simple affair no matter where you are and is something that should be done on a regular basis anyway. If you find the exercise intimidating I suggest you practice it.
“For me... the need for a wide angle is extremely important... for prolonged use.” Screw it on and leave it there for as long as you want.

I have gone out of my way since the Red Eye came on the market to show it to fellow cameramen all over the world and perhaps Rene Collins isn’t fully aware of how much custom I have put his way! Seriously though, everyone I’ve shown it to has gone out and bought one.

It seems to me there is a little too much dwelling on what such-and-such a lens can do as opposed to another one instead of simply saying what you want to use it for. Quit pussy-footing around, decide what it is you want and go get it.

If there is any doubt at all about a product for goodness sake simply borrow or even hire it for a day and try it out!

Well said Johnny. The amazing compactness of the Red Eye combined with the power of the wide-angle is its great strength. The fact that it gives beautifully sharp results and is immaculately coated to reduce flare sure doesn't harm its reputation either.

tom.

Tom,

Is this an endorsement?!?! In light of Canon's rebate offer for the 3x and XL2 kit purchase ($400), I will either get the Red Eye or the 3x. I do a lot of field work, and the convenience of the Red Eye is quite appealing along with retaining the zoom of the 20x. I was set on the 3x a month ago, but the back focus issues have sent me looking for other options. Eagerly awaiting your findings.

Kevin

I haven't tested the Red Eye on an XL2 Kevin so I can't hand-on-heart recommend that you take that route over the genuine Canon 3x lens option. I have tested the 0.5x and the 0.7x on a VX2000, I have 58 mm versions. There are some points to note however.

Johnny's observations (above) are very true. The Red Eye lens will give you real wide-angle performance for little cost - and certainly when compared to the stand-alone cost of the Canon 3x zoom.

It's light, beautifully coated, comes in a squashy bag that will seemingly protect it from earthquakes. You won't lose any light when using it. Your maximum aperture will remain unaltered. On my Sony both lenses give sharp results, though my tests are not all done yet.

In you case, adding the Red Eye is as easy as adding a filter to the front of the 20x zoom. Think of the other route; you want to add the 3x zoom. So you take off the 20x and store it safely away, lens caps in place. Then you get your 3x, lens caps off, attach it and start shooting again. Suddenly you need more reach. Hells bells - more hassle exchanging lenses all over again.

There are some downsides that may or may not affect you. When you've fitted the Red Eye you won't be able to zoom far. The closer you camera focuses in its raw state, the more you can zoom with the Red Eye in place. On my VX2000 the 0.5x gives me a 6x zoom, from 3 mm to about 18 mm, if this helps your decision.

There's also some noticeable barrel distortion. This is not the lens for you if you're into architectural photography. Some people will never notice it and anyway, as lots of cameras give barrel distortion of their own down the wide end. Canon generally seem more concerned about this than Sony and Panasonic, whatever's engraved around their lens barrels.

tom.

I think that readers should be aware that most of the so-called 'negative' comments mentioned in Johnny Saunderson's post were actually extracted from reviews by Johnny himself after filming in Ireland, and another Red Eye user, David Hands in Lebanon, and not from comments by myself or forum members. And Johnny’s answering comments to those extracted excerpts obviously make sense.

I don't think that any of us, apart from Johnny, can truly provide either positive or negative views until we've given the actual products a thorough testing ourselves.

Johnny’s own experiences have certainly painted a very positive view, and coming from the pen of someone who has seriously tested such lenses, we should sit up and take notice, for long-term testing goes far beyond the normal reviews given by so-called testers that try-out the lenses for a few hours.

Of course, there are always different viewpoints, and people that require different things from their chosen equipment. That is why DV-forum members can look forward to reading more detailed feedback and reviews over the coming months. This can only help us all obtain a more balanced view.

I also will be putting the Red Eye through some thorough testing during future months, but, like Tom, I cannot provide any worthwhile feedback until it has undergone some serious testing under a wide range of conditions.

Thanks Tom!

rene,

did you receive my email?

Hello Arlie,

My internet provider had experienced problems last week and some mail did not get though. All is now working fine.

Kindly re-send your message. I'm out of town until Sunday evening and may not be able to reply until Sunday night.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Rene J. Collins
Collinscraft Canada

<<<-- Originally posted by Arlie Nava : rene,

did you receive my email? -->>>

For those interested in Red Eye distortion, you may be interested in a lens calibration I did today - to evaluate the distortion of a Red Eye 0.5x on a Canon 3x lens on an XL1-S.

The Red Eye is 675mm from the wall and the grid is 1530mm wide.

This link shows the Red Eye on the lens. (The cable ties and stickers are to help me align the camera - not a standard feature!)
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_1.htm

This link shows the set-up.
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_2.htm

This link shows the image from the camera (I apologise for the slight out of focus - its been a long day and I am getting tired!)
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_3.htm

I hope this is of some interest to someone!

Is that at the widest zoom setting on the X3? There is a lot of distortion, and also vignetting in the corners. What aperture was this taken at?
I'd also be interested to see the distortion at the widest setting on the 16X if you can.

>The Red Eye is 675mm from the wall and the grid is 1530mm wide.

Tom, keep in mind that this is a wide angle adapter on top of a wide angle lens. Before people get to excited about bending, these are the distances in feet Richard is talking about. It's rather remarkable that it even works.

Distance to the wall - 675mm millimetres is equal to 2.21 feet

The width of the grid - 1530mm millimetres is equal to 5.02 feet.

A rough “guestimate” makes the angle of view to be greater than 90 and somewhere around 120 degree field of view! Impressive!

Thanks Richard

OK - I admit it - I am an amateur and was running on auto - so don't know the aperture. Yes it was full wide.

In the interests of completeness here are some more combinations - all full wide, all full auto focus.

16x, no Red Eye, 1/50th F5.2
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_4.htm

16x with 0.5x Red Eye, 1/50th F5.2
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_5.htm

3x, no Red Eye, 1/50th F4.0
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_6.htm

3x, with 0.5x Red Eye, 1/50th F4.0
http://www.prismproject.com/images/other/redeye_7.htm

Sorry that I did most of these with a bit of tripod droop, (not a video tripod!) so its not perfect - but it gives you an idea. The distance from the front glass element to the wall was kept the same (although the lens lengths differ of course)

I hope this helps.

Oh,..... one question for anyone who can help - since the 3x wide angle hood does affect the field of view with the Red Eye on the 3x, any suggestions about some means of protection that will not affect the view? - AND - since I will be using it pointing downwards on a high gantry outside, it needs to hold its shape and not become a sail in the wind!

Current thought is to get another 3x hood and attack with a hacksaw to remove the offending petals....... unless someone can suggest a alternative?.... Many thanks

Richard, what's the size of the rectangles you repeated in that grid?

Hi John,

Sorry for the odd scale. It is: 153 x 80 mm line centre to line centre.

Thanks, Richard. I'll be testing an aspheric add-on soon & want to duplicate your grid for the sake of uniformity. Without measurements, your grid gives but a rough visual indication of linear distortion; I'm sure there's some industry-standard image used to demonstrate same. But your grid is simple & useful all the same.

Thanks for setting them up, Richard. Yes, the 16X + Red Eye pics were more of what I was after, with better res and less bending. The curvature will obviously be more than with a .7x anyway, but it is still providing almost double the field of view of the widest setting of a 16X, which is more than my Optex does.

The distortion is still there, and increasing towards the corners along with loss in sharpness. Also, because you are so close to the flat subject, and slightly tilted, this increases any distortion. The further you pull away from the wall, and straighten up, the better it should become.

I will be shooting mainly outdoors, so a lot of the curvature will not be noticed, and when it is, such as when I move in ultra-close, this will add some atmosphere to shots. I'm still worried about the amount of softness towards the corners, but by being careful to keep straight lines away from the edges - which is easy to do outdoors - this should be less of a problem.

I’d really like to see some takes from footage in the real world.

Shots set up on a tripod outdoors would probably give a completely different set of results than a slightly tilted tripod and the flat graph on a wall.
Four short takes such as the following, would be nice to see: One, a wide landscape with no subjects close to the lens (using the 16X alone and then with Red Eye) with at least mid-range aperture, and then one with a similar wide landscape, but this time with a subject, such as a tree, close to minimum focus and off-centre of the frame (again with 16X alone, followed by the same with .5X Red Eye attached).

I’m looking forward to trying it out on a complete array of subjects, including some underwater filming, because that wider field of view could be my savour in many situations. We’ll just have to wait and see!

In the meantime, it’ll be nice to see some more test shots.

Tony wrote: "because you are so close to the flat subject, and slightly tilted, this increases any distortion" etc.

Richard, that reminds me, can you say how close your camera was to the wall when you shot your grid? Best guess, from the front of the lens, will do, as you've doubtless struck the setup. Thanks.

Hi John - I kept the distance from the wall to the closest piece of glass (Red Eye or lens) at the same 675mm, adusting the camera back and forth to suit the effective lens length.

Tony - more outdoor shots are a problem for me - the cameras and lenses are works cameras and we have very tight usage restrictions on our proving ground (confidential prototype vehicles etc). Trying to get them off-site is even worse - no insurance!
If I get chance, I will...... but don't hold your breath!!!

Can anyone else can help out with this one....??

Thanks

i have now bought a red-eye and have some test images. if anyone would like to see them i will email them to you as i have no website. let me know who wants them!

Jon, I'd like to see your images, please.

johnsandel@earthlink.net

I'd like to see them too, and I would be happy to post them to my Web site

Actually Jon, please send 'em to me and that way DV Info Net can host them for you to everyone's advantage. Thanks in advance,

ok folks, they're on their way to you all. let me know if there's any problems.

i should add that i am using an XL2 and the 0.5x redeye.

Thanks Jon,

Uploaded to http://www.dvinfo.net/media/redeye/ -- enjoy,

Thanks to Jon and Chris.

Jon - I notice that even at F11 you are losing sharpness as you move outwards from the centre. I was hoping that was only at the lower F numbers I was playing with......

Has anyone tried a Red Eye 0.5 on a 3x at F16?

there is a note in the instructions that accompany the lens that says 'at f16, everything is in focus, including any dust on the lens!'

Ahh - a heretic - someone who READS instructions!

Seriously though Jon - you are totally correct. I had not appreciated that there was such a dramatic jump from F11 haziness around the edges to F16 absolutely everything in focus.

I suppose the upshot is that if you need sharp focus with a Red Eye you MUST use F16. Thanks for that Jon.

richard - interestingly, i'm currently shooting at f1.6 and everything is completely in focus! it seems to get more blurred around the edges in the higher Fs. hope to post some more images for you guys in the next couple days, if chris will have them. hopefully with experience my images will improve. the shots already posted are literally the first things i've shot, so i wouldn't jump to conclusions as they're far from rigorous tests

also, even at the lower Fs, everything is in focus. in regard to f16, the instructions (burn the heretic!) say that using ND filters decreases depth of field, but it seems that things get more and more in focus towards the lows of the F range.

should you want to join the heresy, the instructions are (more or less) reprinted at http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens.htm

Thats odd. All the shots I did before were with ND filter off. I wasn't sure so just checked some of the set up photos I did - and the ND was definitely OFF - so at F4.0 or F5.2 surely the whole image should be in focus?

I suspect that focus across the image also depends on subject distance.

Perhaps there is more to this focus business than meets the eye....so to speak!

yeah, i don't want to make too many statements before i've had some all-round experience. these are just preliminary observations.

what cam are you using? i have an xl2 and i was wondering if there was something about the 20x lens that might be making the difference.

XL1-S.

From my previous shots, it looks like the focus problem is more pronounced on the 3x than the 16x.

I think that you are right - more experience and trials needed by me too.

Doesn't matter what focal length you're dealing with, remember that diffraction will rob you of visible sharpness at apertures smaller than f/8 if you're capturing onto tiny 1/3" chips. Remember too that the shorter the focal length the more diffraction destroys sharpness, so if you're using the Red Eye and max wide-angle, don't stop down below f/4 if you can help it - bring those NDs into play.

My VX2000 will film at f/11, f/16 and f/22 and it's absurdly easy to demonstrate the resolution loss at these tiny apertures. Many people (usually fresh from 35 mm photography) are confused and suspicious, yet they're convinced after seeing the results. Stay at f/5.6 and above, good people.

tom.

Chris,

I just emailed you some frame grabs for posting. Thanks.

Kevin

Hello all,

I greatly appreciate the input I’ve received from members of this forum.

Based on the feedback I've received and some issues brought to my attention, I've placed a temporary hold specifically on the production of the .5x 72 mm Red Eye until I can resolve some issues.

I have new lens material on order and I hope to be doing testing by the weekend. Once I’m satisfied with the results, I will be sending samples to forum members for evaluation.

If any one has specific questions, kindly contact me directly rene@collinscraft.com

Again, thanks to all for your assistance.

Very best regards,

Rene J. Collins
President
Collinscraft Canada

I guess I have to wait a little longer then. There is a possibility that I might go to Singapore to buy an XL2 PAL, I am planning to drop by SLV to try the Red eye. What issues are you planning to resolve with regards to the .5x 72mm? When will the new version be available?

I really think that your kind of responsiveness to your clients' and future-clients' concerns is impressive.

On the subject of distortion, I have started another thread (link below) which may be of interest to readers of this thread - but it is not RedEye related - more CCD related.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=308366#post308366

I have the red-eye wide angle adapter, which seems to produce acceptable results when viewed on a TV screen (although a little soft on the edges).

However, when viewed on a PC (which shows the overscan area), there is clear barrel distortion at the edges and chromatic aberation (i.e. you see four curves at each corner).

For displaying on a TV this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, however creating files for web display / PC viewing, it is unacceptable. My question therefore, does the Canon 3x lens also produce this distortion at the edges when viewed on a PC ? I can get around the problem by zooming the footage slightly in post until the edges disappear or applying a crop, but I would prefer not to have to do this.

The 3x lens does not produce distortion. The Redeye is considered acceptable since its distortion is outside the TV-safe area of the image. As you've noted, the solutions are to either crop the image or zoom in slightly.