any users got any comments on/criticisms of the 'Red-eye'?

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Turner : any users got any comments on/criticisms of the 'Red-eye'? -->

I have never heard of this. What is it and could you post a link?

http://www.red-eye.tv/

i guess you have no comments then! ;-)

check it out, anyway. i'm interested because it's cheap, and invented by a cameraman.

It didn't say so on the main page but when I selected it to see the price I found that it says it is an aspherical lens. Which is good as these typically they have very little distortion. Can anyone convert these prices to a rough US dollar equivalent so I can get an idea what they cost? It definitely seems intriguing.

this is my local supplier:

http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens.htm

conversion rate at bottom of page suggests a price of $281.80 for the 0.5x, and $252.00 for the 0.7x

very reasonable, and tempting! that's why i'd like some user feedback!

it seems to be worth looking into but I'd like to see some full res sample images first. I currently have the .6x Century adapter and it works great but it has a lot of angular distortion. Colors are great but straight lines are bent at the edges.

IF this "red-eye" is truly an aspherical design like the Bolex WA then it might be worth the investment.

Anyone ever use this? I'm not being trying to be a pessimist but if this is really the cats meow why hasn't the XL community embraced it up until now? I didn't get the impression that i was brand new but maybe it is.

I am just cautious as that old saying: "If it seems too good to be true it probably is."

But still hoping it proves to be the rare find that breaks the rules.

you will be interested in...

http://www.tvcameramen.com/equipment/equipment11.htm

Interesting. Marty, you may be able to save yourself some spondulix ...

I emailed Tom Hardwick to see if he'll weigh in, here. Anybody else have experience with these add-ons?

The tvcameramen review says "[T]he Red Eye, manufactured by cameraman Rene Collins in Canada."

Here's Collins's website (with prices in US$):

http://www.collinscraft.com/

That lists www.communiquip.com as the US reseller.

While it says it is an aspherical design there are many references to vertical and horizontal bending in the reviews I have seen. This is in direct contradiction to the Bolex which shows no bending and claims that the aspherical design is what allows that.

Anxious to hear what Tom Hardwick has to add since he currently uses the Bolex.

John, did you get your Bolex working yet? Curious to hear your experiences.

Peace!

Yeah, I saw that, too. I guess you get what you pay for; here, the lower price (compared with, say, Bolex's aspheric, one of which just sold on Ebay for $845) may also buy you some barrel distortion.

My Bolex is at Century Optics, being fitted. Their backlog on a one-off like mine is more than a week, so I'm suffering its absence while they craft the mount. But I'll note that I could hold the Bolex up to the front of my Canon 14x manual zoom---the rear of the Bolex's housing fitted nicely to the front metal lip of the Canon, preventing scratches to the Canon--and I saw *zero* barrel distortion on the XL2's viewfinder & on my studio monitor. And the angle-of-view was amazing.

Is there anybody on this forum who has a RedEye add-on & can relate their experiences, esp. as to barrel distortion? Any screen-shots to share, perhaps?

Thanks for the wake-up call John. I have been interested in getting hold of one of the aspherical RedEye wide-angle adapters for test (they make spherical and aspherical versions). But no luck so far, and I'm certaibly not going to spend that sort of money without doing some tests first. People I've spoken to want to sell me the lens before I try it. No-go.

I've had a look at the lenses, but without trying it on a camcorder all I can say is that the lens is a moulded plastic aspheric (nothing wrong with that) and that it's beautifully multi-coated. The red circle that gives it its name wasn't 100% perfect on the sample I saw, which I thought a bit suspicious.

Of course there's aspherical surfaces galore - more permutations than any spherical lens of course, so until it's tested folks, I can't give it any sort of recomendation at all. The Schneider Kreuznach lenses sold here:

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php

will remove any barrel distortion (as will the magnificient Bolex Aspheron of course).

tom.

Plastic???

Think I'd pass on that one.

- don

So you'll be passing on your XL2's 20x zoom lens as well then will you Don? Or maybe you have the XL1s - you won't want to be using that 16x lens either. Why? Well you can bet top dollar that both of them have injection moulded plastic elements in their line-up. There's no way you are going to get a whole camera with two aspherical surfaces in the 12 element zoom for $3500 if you want them all to be polished glass.

tom.

There's a Zeiss Distagon Aspheron on 'bombay' at the moment - out of my reach with the 20% duty an' all - but hey - Ive been tracking it -- as soon as it hits $500 -- the seller drops 50 $ each listing



who knows

Bolex = 'B' grade Zeissed glass all made by Kern

Zeiss = Zeiss

Tom,

With all respect, you are incorrect about the 20X XL and 16X XL lenses. It's pretty well known that the elements inside these two lenses are manufactured from glass. Wer'e talking Canon glass here. Not trying to cop a Sales Pitch on ya now, but it aint no secret that Canon Knows How to make glass with a lot of resolving power for the money. Also double-checked with Canon regarding this and it was again confirmed that these lenses do not utilize plastic elements. Please be mindful of this, thank you.

Just consider this: regardless of the elements inside the lens - would you really want to settle on placing a piece of plastic at the *front of the lens*? Come now. It's ever more critical at the front of the lens. There's a reason why photographers insist on using glass filters for best image quality. Even if this plastic adaptor came a mile close to performing like glass, I question how long it would perform before losing its' properties with increased useage and time. Especially with prolonged exposure to heat and light. It simply isn't the same as glass... That was my point when I commented on using plastic. I trust that you understand what I mean?

I think it would be prudent for some to re-evaluate their expectations regarding the performance of a $250 wide angle adaptor, especially one constructed out of plastic. Realistic expectations: less resolving performance from edge to edge in comparison to a well crafted piece of glass (it costs time & money to craft good glass) - the ability to resolve all colors tightly and uniformly in a rectilinear fashion from edge to edge, not just in the center as most lower grade pieces of glass (or plastic variants) do - expect to see noticeable chromatic aberrations, soft edges, inconsistencies over time and use, etc.

I'm hoping that people don't really expect to gain measurable better performance with a plastic wide adaptor over some of the other proven solutions such as Century Precision Optics glass. Heck, I'd reach for the Canon 3X XL wide lens before I would ever settle for a plastic adaptor. It seems that some people may feel "better" or "best" is defined by "cheapest cost", sadly,,, if you want to continually strive to use the cheapest solution out there, I'm not going to stop you, it's your world - enjoy. Live and learn. But,,, if you think like a photographer, then you will inevitably reach for what makes a better picture.

You are somewhat correct about the price point though, there is no perfect camcorder in the $3500 price range. You get what you pay for. I doubt that rule will ever change.

I'm sincerely hoping that you are all doing well. Now, time to get back to work.

Salut,

- don

Chris and Tom,

I sent you an email pertaining to the Red Eye.

Hello Donald,

My name is Rene J. Collins. I'm the maker and manufacturer of the Red Eye wide angle
adapter. I'm also a cameraman and photographer by trade.

I came across your thread on DV Info net. I'm a bit concerned about your
adamant opinion of my product, one which I'm sure you're never seen let
alone tested. I'm told that this forum is widely read and quite
influential. So I'm more than a bit concerned about your statements. I can
only say that you are dead wrong in your opinions and you are basing your
opinion on a dated and false premise.

It saddens me that a cameraman of your experience is making such unfounded
statements sight unseen about my product. We use both glass and optical monomers or as you
say, "plastics" in our products. Your inference is that The Red Eye is
somehow made with stuff akin to plastic cups.

It happens that the current aspheric lenses, made of optical monomers, out performed the spherical glass ones we were using, otherwise I'd still be using the glass stock I have. They work better and last longer. Breakage is no longer a concern for the owners of a Red Eye. The risk of scratching is no worse than for our glass lenses. They're lighter, smaller, resistant to airborne environmental damage, have great sharpness and contrast and have virtually no light loss.......

......... So what's the issue?

I am always interested in the thoughts and opinions of the cameramen who use my product. Based on their feedback, I continually make adjustments and
improvements in the design to meet THEIR needs.

This is not an easy thing to do and still make the Red Eye affordable. I am always accessible and respond the questions put to me. Any new design is field tested by independent cameramen BEFORE they go to market.

FYI, I will be making a .7x and a .5x 72 mm adapters available to the folk who run the DV info board for review.

I will make this offer to you as well. Let me know the diameter of your camera lens and I will send you one for evaluation.

All I'll ask of you is that the review be fair and not based on false premise.

I've never made great claims about the abilities of The Red Eye adapter, that has been left to the cameramen that own them. My goal as a cameraman was to use my experience to produce this much needed adapter at a reasonable cost for fellow cameramen and do it to the best of my ability.

There was a time when I shot news before the Red Eye. There were many instances where I would half to run and go. I would carry the basics, camera, spare
battery and tape. My Century adapter was to big to fit anywhere and spent most of it's time in my camera van. My TV station didn't own a wide angle zoom lens. I needed something I could fit in a pocket, that would let me shoot inside cars and air plane cockpits. I developed The Red Eye. It's small and light weight and gave me 30% more field of view. I was also affordable.

The Red Eye is not likely to make me rich at the current prices. I'm still the only full time employee. I have subcontractors perform work when needed.

It's now been 11 years since The Red Eye been on the market. That it has taken on a much larger dimension in global sales and popularity has largely been due to the simple fact that it does exactly what it claims to do. A fact that most of my fellow cameramen seem to appreciate.

That many have not heard of it is not surprising since the world is a big place and word of The Red Eye has spread largely by word of mouth. Not due to hype or promotional campaigns. This should say something about my product.

It's a simple wide angle adapter, designed by and for the professional cameraman. It has found a place in the Pro-Sumer market which is where for what ever reason, most of the questions and concerns are arising from.

My objective in creating The Red Eye was to help get the much needed wide shot when needed and do it cost effectively. I've been a cameraman since 1978, I continue to work as a freelance cameraman with The Red Eye production as another aspect of my business.

If there are issues with The Red Eye, it's with the expectations that people have, not with any claims I’ve made. The rest is covered under my 1 year warrantee.

Does it do the job well? Yes . How well will depend on your needs and expectations. It may not suit the needs of some and that's fine.

Century makes a great range of products and I'm their biggest fan. They don't however make an adapter like the Red Eye that suited my needs and that of many cameramen. I can say that their product is worth every dollar. Mine does something similar, but in a cost effective and practical way.

There are well over a thousand Red Eye owners over the years who do feel that The Red Eye suits their needs. I don't expect anyone to believe this next statement, but it's true, I've only had four (4) returned to me since 1994, one because it didn't produce enough barrel distortion!


Is it cost effective? Yes
Does it do the job? Yes
Does it have anti reflective coatings? Yes
Does it have a hard coating to reduce the possibility of scratching? Yes
Does the price include a Leather pouch? Yes
Can you use it with your matt box or lens shade? Yes
Do I know the needs of cameramen? Yes
Do I have repeat clients? Yes
Do I care about the cameraman's needs and satisfaction? Yes
Do you need to spend more money on accessories to use it? NO
Is it perfect? No...... but dam close....

* Does it produce some barrel distortion?

Yes, so do many single element adapters of this type to some extent, depending on their design. To
correct the barrel distortion would require:
1) multiple elements,
2) weaken the power of the lens
3) reduce the radius of both surfaces and use of a high index substrate,
4) produce multiple aspheric surfaces.

- Apparent barrel distortion can also be subjective when you know a line to be straight. i.e. a door frame. It's not so evident in a car or plane for example.
- When a wide angle adapter of this type is used on a camera's lens, it forms part of the overall optical system. If your camera's lens is already prone to some barrel distortion, you will see more. If you start with a
good camera lenses, barrel distortion will be less evident.

* Does the use of aspheric lenses reduce overall aberration? Yes, including lateral chromatic aberration. There are five types of monochromatic aberration, as well as lateral, transverse chromatic aberration and geometric distortion (barrel and pincushion). These are present in all lenses and all lens systems. The trick with designing an optical system or lens element is to know where to make the compromise to help achieve the desired results.

It's true that we've now incorporate monomer injected aspheric lenses for the current Red Eye lenses. Even though they are more expensive to produce, there is less waists compared to glass during the manufacturing process. The reason was to keep the cost for the cameraman as low as possible while keeping up with technology and improving the optical performance of the Red Eye.

I would encourage the serious cameraman to actually research the developments in optics to help gain an appreciation to the advances that have been made as well as costs involved in lens manufacturing.

It's NOT cheap, which is the dilemma for manufacturers who's clients are always looking for the lowest price.
I can produce better expensive adapters, YES, quite easily, it's the good low cost ones that are the challenge.

There are a number of factors involved in our choice of optical substrates. Great care goes into matching the optical substrate with the anti-reflective coating material. Each of the monomer based lenses are formulated to match the anti reflective coatings used for that specific lens.

Many glass lenses do not offer as much flexibility in this regard resulting in a "best match" scenario. It's rather complex to explain but the formulation is based on the square root of the refractive index of the substrate material and that of the coating materials.

For the same money, we now actually achieve better results for optical performance with the aspheric monomer Red Eye adapters than the spherical glass ones, especially with the high index low dispersion materials.


Our glass and monomer lenses have always used multi layer anti reflective coatings for increased sharpness and contrast as well as a leather case to protect the lens. I dare say, we were one of the first to do so. That others now offer it may be in part thanks to the Red Eye.

Although admittedly not as hard as some types of glass, our monomer lenses have a hardness very close to that of glass (roughly 75% as hard) due to the hard coat
applied to each of the monomer based lenses.

Regardless of what a lens is made from, NONE will appreciate being hit by rocks, screw drivers, keys, excessive heat or dust. Treat you lenses nicely as any professional would and they will last for many years.

Bottom line is, you can likely afford to buy two Red Eye adapters for the cost of one of the others. Just make a smart choice based on your needs and your budget.

I encourage any one from this form to contact me directly by e-mail rene@collinscraft.com. I will also be at NAB this year attending the VF Gadget booth.

Best regards,

Rene J. Collins
President
Collinscraft Canada

Rene,
I'm very glad you posted in here. I'm very curious about your product. Do you think it would work in conjunction with a Century anamorphic adapter, assuming I can find a way to mount it? I have a Canon GL1.

That's a good question. If Century's adapter mounts using the bayonet mount, then it should.

The 72 mm threads onto the lens itself and made to be used with the XL's lens shade.

You should be good with the .7x but the .5x may be to wide.

Are you thinking behind or in front of the anamorphic adapter?

To answer your question, I'm not sure. I've never tried it. But its worth testing.

I'm awaiting word from the DV Info people so that I can send them samples for them to try. I'll expect them to run it through it's paces and this would be a good test.

Most of my work is with broadcast, film and HD systems and my experience with the XL1/2's is limited.

If there was to be an issue, it might be with vignetting.

Thank you Marco and talk to you again soon.

Rene

rene, do you have any comparisons available (i.e. shots taken without, then with the adapter?). i think we'd all be interested to see some stills.

There is 1 sample shot here:

http://www.vfgadgets.com/redeye.html

is that sample the .5x or the .7x? It is too small to really judge but barrel distortion is minimal in that shot. I am more concerned about chromatic abberation myself.

Don - we agree to differ. Canon make great play about the fluorite element used in the 20x zoom, but as you probably know, such crystalline 'grown' elements are extremely vulnerable, very soft and cannot be used in free air, they have to be sealed to glass elements to protect them.

If you consider that about 90% of all spectacle wearers look through plastic elements all day long, you'll realise that (although the refractive index can never quite match ground glass) the optical properties certainly can match glass elements. The higher refractive index simply serves to make the (negative) lenses thicker at the edges than the equivalent glass element with the same focal length. Please don't see the adjective 'plastic' as being negative.

Good to hear from you Rene, and thank you for your contribution to this very interesting thread. I've tested many wide-angle lenses in my time (and would appreciate testing one of yours too). I've used many single element injection moulded plastic aspherics made by Schneider Kreutznach and have found them to be everything they claim to be. Inexpensive, light, compact and without a hint of barrel distortion.

I use a Bolex Aspheron - glass, 0.5x, single aspherically ground element, and again it too completely removes the inherent barrel distortion found in very many camcorders produced today. It doesn't seem to matter what's engraved around the circumference of your lens - Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Zeiss or Leica - I've found that they all barrel distort to a greater or lesser degree. The new FX1 is no better than the rest.

So I'd dispute your claim that ALL single element aspherics produce barrel distortion, as I have two in my possession that are as near faultless in this department as it's possible to be. My Sony 34" TV actually produces more barrel distortion than the VX2k+Aspheron.

tom.

I've sent an e-mail to the Cameraman in Toronto that took those shots for the web site. I'll see if he can put them on a stand alone page for you.

From our experience using the aspheric lenses, there's no noticeable chromatic aberration. I'm sure there is a residual amount with this type of adapter, we just can't see any.

Don was gracious enough to give me a call today. He has taken me up on my offer and will be conducting some test of his own with the .5x and .7x 72 mm Red Eye aspheric adapters.

Thanks Don, I greatly appreciated you call :-)

Rene J. Collins

Dear Don, and anyone else reviewing Rene's Red-Eye: don't forget to let us know the results of your tests!

May I also add that this is without doubt the best result i've had from any thread i've started! The maker of the equipment posts a reply and sends out review copies of his hardware! Do you think Spielberg will comment if i post on the 'War of the Worlds' discussion board on IMDB? And invite me to a private screening? ;-)

Yes Jon, thank you for starting the thread. When I initially read the thread I was intrigued and then put off by Tom being turned down by distributors to evaluate the product, so I emailed Rene from his website stating it may be beneficial to send out evaluation units to some of the lead members of the board. He replied immediately and offerred to send me both the .5x and .7x via Fedex for evaluation. I graciously declined due to my inexperience with wide angle adaptors and forwarded the email to Chris Hurd and Tom Hardwick. I also included the DVinfo thread in my email to Rene, so I take it that's how he came to post. I am very anxious to see what Chris, Tom, and Don find with the Red Eye.

Kevin

good job, Kevin!

it's rare to get answers of this calibre, even by the high standards of dv info net!

I'm sure you could imagine my reaction when I opened up the email response from Rene stating that he'd send me evaluation pieces via Fedex...Today! This definitely goes a long way in my book in terms of credibility and the confidence he has in his product. Rene is going to be at NAB as well and stated if I was there I could return the lenses to him there or pass them along to other members for evaluation.

The anticipation is building, looking forward to some write ups and screens.

Kevin

VFGadgets.com has been been working with Rene Collins and representing his Red Eye lens for just over 2 years now. We can most certainly attest to the excellence of this product and have never had a dissappointed client. I would like to invite anyone who is interested in the Red Eye and who is attending NAB this year to visit our VFGadgets booth (C2163) and see the lens for yourself and hopefully meet Rene himself.
The product page for the Red Eye is on the following webpage of our site
http://www.vfgadgets.com/redeye.html

Rec'd your email, Kevin -- thanks -- I'm travelling today but will take care of things this weekend. Much appreciated,

No problem Chris. Tom was included on the email as well but it came back undeliverable.

Undeliverable?? I'm here, waiting with bated breath.

Sent it again just now.

I apoligize if I did not seem to respond to any posts or e-mails directed my way. I am new to discussion groups. Kevin, did you want to ask me something regarding the Red Eye?

Just joined the forum - at Rene Collins suggestion. I have been using a couple of XL1-Ss at work for a couple of years. I need a wider angle than the 3x that I have (in addition to the 2 16x standard lenses) - so today I tried a Red Eye 0.5x on the 3x at Hagues in Nottingham.
Its a nice piece of kit & worked fine (especially for that price) - although I may need to go even wider in future. All I need to do now is get the £200 signed off by my boss.....

Hi all

I've been thinking of buying the 3x lens as I find I need the wider angles every so ofter. It's exensive and it#'s actually hard to get in Ireland. All the website I know of seem to be out of stock.. have canon stopped selling them?

Anyway, this red-eye would suit me fine I think, I just need somebody who has one to put it on a 20x lens on the XL2 and see what happens. Does it work? Is there a lot of distortion? Which one is better for the 20x, the .5 or the .7? Could we get screen shots with both in full size so that we can analyse.

Many thanks
Donie

yeah, we're just waiting for the new reviewing team of chris, tom, and don to get it together and post some links!

Tom,

Still no dice, comes back undeliverable a day later. If you have another email I can send it to you there.

Kevin

Hi all,

I've got a back order of the 72 mm right now and will ship two lenses to Don Berube as soon as this current order is filled.

Hopefully you should see some frame grabs in the next week or two.

Thank you all for your interest and will talk to you soon.

Rene Collins
The Red Eye guy

Hi Rene,

I've sent you an email regarding this topic. Thanks,

As good as his word, René has sent me the 58 mm 0.5x and 0.7x Red Eye lenses for test. First impressions? Beautifully made, superbly coated and when stacked one on top of the other, give an absolutely amazing field of view. I'll have lots more to say later.

tom.

Pls do that Tom, i'm sure many people are waiting for your "review" of the red eye lense. I am wondering if red eye lenses produce less distortion that Century's.

Thanks

Optex also have a 'stacked' system for making that angle a little wider...although there is of course added problems when stacking two adapter optics on the end of multi-element zoom lens...

I'm going to be spending a total of 5-months filming on location in USA this year, and have decided on using the Optex .7X optic (on the 16X manual lens) for a lot of my wide-angle work. However, the Red Eye really has got me interested. Like others, I am not too keen on it being a non-glass element...but if it can deliver the goods, then I'm keen to try it out!

Having now thoroughly read through the reports shown earlier:

http://www.tvcameramen.com/equipment/equipment11.htm

...I cannot honestly see any advantages over the Optex glass - which I've found to be extremely good so far.

I look forward to reading the DV forum reviews or seeing the results with my own eyes, but both reviews on the website - The Red Eye in Lebanon & The Red Eye in Ireland - have slightly dampened my enthusiasm for the Red Eye.

I am actually in the market for a wide angle that gives the MOST distortion without having to use a fisheye. Sharpness is important. Price does not matter.

So go with a red-eye or a non-zoom through Century?

Hello Greg,

If you're looking for distortion, The Red Eye may not be for you.

When I've had request for a fish eye effect from my customers, I’ve suggested they turn The Red Eye adapter around so that you’re looking at the lens from the wrong side. It seemed to work for them. Of course it's not designed for this but it will produce slightly more barrel distortion that way and possibly save you some money.

As I mentioned on a previous post, one of the 4 returns over the past 11 yrs was because the Red Eye did NOT produce enough barrel distortion for him.

You may want to try other adapters to see if that trick works for you.

Typically, this trick will work best on low index, spherical glass adapters with a larger radius. Barrel distortion (AKA geometric distortion) is influenced by the type of material used as well as the radius of the lens.

Depending on the lens design, high index or aspheric lenses are less prone to this effect.

Optex and Century make great products. When your testing there adapters, test the Red Eye as well.

So, make your choice based on your needs and budget.

Best regards,

Rene J. Collins
Collinscraft Canada
The Red Eye Guy

Hello Tony,

I'm interested in knowing which aspect of the tvcameramen.com Red Eye review concerned you. I may have some answers for you.

In the end, both of the cameramen that did the review bought the demo units I sent. I keep in touch with them and they seem very happy with their adapters.

Johnny Saunderson has since purchase a number of the 82 mm Red Eye adapters. I have their e-mail address's if you wish to contact them for their thoughts.

Kindly let me know when you get the chance. redeye@collinscraft.com

Very best regards,

Rene J. Collins
President
Collinscraft Canada
The Red Eye Guy

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Davies-Patrick : Having now thoroughly read through the reports shown earlier:

http://www.tvcameramen.com/equipment/equipment11.htm

...I cannot honestly see any advantages over the Optex glass - which I've found to be extremely good so far.

I look forward to reading the DV forum reviews or seeing the results with my own eyes, but both reviews on the website - The Red Eye in Lebanon & The Red Eye in Ireland - have slightly dampened my enthusiasm for the Red Eye. -->>>

thanks, but what is "high index"?

Rene, how muach would it cost to ship red eye to the philippines? Or do you already have a dealer here?

Thanks