I saw a GL1 today with a wide angle lens adaptor called Cadivision or Cadvision. Does anyone know more about this lens adaptor?

Are you sure it wasn't Cavision, Frank?

That's it, Cavision. Thanks. It looked more like a fisheye. Is Cavision a brand, or the type of adaptor?

Cavision is a lens accessory manufacturer, Frank... check 'em out at http://www.cavision.com/ -- their glass comes from China; the company is in Canada. Hope this helps,

Chris,

With respect to all the lenses on Ebay, is there anything to watch out for? (other than the seller) Seems like most sub $100 lenses are Japanese. Is this good or bad or no issue. Is there generally more distortion is lower priced lenses?

Thanks,

Tom

BTW, got my bus. degree from SWTSU back in '87. Great town.

Hi everybody.

Is any input of Century Optics DS-65CV-GL vs. Canon WD-58H.

Please have a look at:
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/1.htm

Any info should be appreciate.

Ignacio

Hi.
Ignacio again.

Sorry to all forum readers. The post was already done with the "search" option: Century Optics

Just curious if anyone knows of a website or other resource that shows a side-by-side image comparison of a GL-2 image with and without the WD-58H Wide Angle adapter. I'm curious to see the effect of the adapter and see visually how much wider it makes the image.

I'd appreciate any guidance.

:)
NA

The closest I know is the Century Precision Optical site. They show their .65 wide angle adapter here http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/65x_wac/index.htm It is 5% wider, but I think it will give you a good idea how much wider the WD-58H (.70 wide angle adapter) is than the standard lens.

Jeff

I ordered one a short while ago and I expect it in the mail any time now. Once I get it, I will post a side by side from my GL-2 on my site for you to see.

I think this will do it, though the shots were made with a vx-2000:
http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_xlwide.htm#xl-7000

I'm already waiting for the WD-58 for 3 weeks now here in Germany.

That Raynox is one of those low-cost fisheye type lenses, where the distortion is intentional. The Canon wide angle is just a straight wide angle. No funky distortion is intended for it, so I'm sure it's image will widely (no pun intended) differ from that of the Raynox...

Century makes also a 0.7x wide angle converter for the XL1s, which has nearly the same focal length wide-end as the XM2. So, take a look here: http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/xl1/7x_wac/index.htm I think it will change like this.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Härtl : I think this will do it, though the shots were made with a vx-2000:
http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_xlwide.htm#xl-7000

I'm already waiting for the WD-58 for 3 weeks now here in Germany. -->>>

Hi, what is the price for a WD58H in Germany, i was thinking of buying one.

greetzzz Erwin Kolman

Hi Erwin,

I ordered it for 220 € at my local dealer. But the price range is only +- 5 €.

BTW: Did you bought your Sabah Oceanic batteries?

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Härtl : Hi Erwin,

I ordered it for 220 € at my local dealer. But the price range is only +- 5 €.

BTW: Did you bought your Sabah Oceanic batteries? -->>>

Not yet, i`ll wait 2 weeks (low on money)

Erwin

Thanks everyone! The suggested sites were very helpful and gave me a good idea of what to expect from that lense.

Thanks for the help...

:)

When I received my GL2, I quickly took few still pictures to verify the wide-angle.

The picture below (about 60Kb) shows the same scene side by side with zoom at 0 and 20X

http://www.natzo.com/GL2-WD58H.jpg


Dany

PS: Sorry for the complete lack of interest or composition of the above picture...

What the hell is this red thing, Dany? :)

Welp, I finally got my WD=58H yesterday and I came back to post my sample pics, but looks like Dany already did the same. It seems like a great lens!

Worth a buy.

The red thing is just a sponge.. nothing alive !

Imran, I'ld still love to see your comparison with/without pics of the WD-58H.

Unfortuneatly the barrel distortion at 0x zoom seems quite noticable.

Does anyone know if you can attach a WC-DC58 to the GL2?
If so, to what affect compared to the WD-58H?


ta,
Happy 2003

The WC-DC58 would fit, as it is a 58mm thread also. It offers the same 0.7X magnification. If you already have for a Canon digital still camera you might just go ahead and try it. It should give the same results. I don't know if the cost of the two adapter are the same, so that might be a consideration. The other factor is the thickness. If the WC-DC58 is longer, it might cause the lens to vignette at the widest settings.

Jeff

Well, my results pretty much matched Dany's. I had taken a similar picture, and it would just be more of the same... Yep, there is distortion. Not ideal, but it still is a nice, clear lens.

Imran.

Could someone post a pic or comment on using the WD-58H with 16:9 recording mode on.

Thanks.

Presently, I do not have a wide angle adaptor for my GL2, but I am entertaining the possibility of obtaining one (most likely the Canon 0.7X).

This is my question: does a wide angle adaptor have any influence in the sharpness of the GL2's wide angle footage. As noted in other threads, the picture sharpness on the GL2 can suffer from a lack of sharpness in the wider shots. Does this (or any) wide angle adaptor increase/decrease the sharpness of the footage if the framing of the shot was matched; by matched I mean that a zoom was applied to the adaptor to create the same frame as taken without the adaptor.

In addition to the Canon model, I am also curious as to the clarity/picture that might come from a Century 16:9 adaptor. My wife tells me she feels cheated by the lack of a full picture, but that never stopped me from doing what I wanted to do. If you have any input on this subject (the adaptor not the marriage), I would be interested as well.

As always, I am grateful for your assistance.

Hi Brad,
Well, since nobody's chimed-in here I'll take a swing.

Many folks would say that cameras with chips smaller than 2/3rds inch are generally poor for wide-angle shots, and the wider the shot the worse it gets. To some degree I agree.

Nevertheless, that's what we have to work with, eh? I frequently use the WD58 adapter with my GL2 and have not noticed degradation. In fact I think it's probably the best accessory investment you can make, aside from a good mic.

I've used this Canon accessory in some really tight places. Couldn't have done it without it.

Degradation? I'm not techie enough, but I do come from a background of 3 opticians in the family and my Optics courses in school did tell me that the more "glass" you put in front of a camera or an eye come to that, will "absorb" to some extent the light coming through it.

That being said, I'm fussy about what I see on the final product I do. If you've got a chance to do a Look 'n Feel - Try before you buy, see if you can convince your local cammy shoppe to allow you to do an in-house test - yeah?

I will say that the WD58H does make the XM2 a little front heavy. This is my only criticism.

Sorry Brad - I just re-read your wide-angle adaptor post. Is this the WD58? Sorry for being a bit dense on this!

If you add a wide-angle converter and zoom up to match the camcorder's zoom lens at it's widest angle, you should have *exactly* the same shot. Easy to verify, and all tests I do with wide-angle converters have this as one of the parameters. Stills taken to memory can then be opened in Photoshop for detailed examination.

Of course adding three more elements in front of your 20x zoom's 12 elements won't go un-noticed, but a good widie should be almost transparent to this test. Of course there are losses in that flare is increased, there's a small light loss and de-centering of elements can cause slight sharpness losses. A perfect converter won't degrade the image at all, but we're far from perfect.

tom.

Sage remarks, Tom. Which prompts me to add that whatever wide-angle adapter you choose, Brad, be sure to get an appropriate les hood with it. Canon's WD58H comes with a hood. You will inevitably encounter lens flare, some of which can be eliminated by a good hood.

Thanks for all of your feedback.

Concerning the lens flaring issue raised by Ken: Do I need to be concerned about this indoors?

And concerning the 16:9 adaptor: Would such a device have a significant influence on the video if I were to compare it with generating black areas above and below standard (4:3) video?

I really like what PBS is doing with the newer semi-widescreen documentaries. Does anyone know what equipment/techniques they are using?

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Higerd :
Concerning the lens flaring issue raised by Ken: Do I need to be concerned about this indoors? -->>>

Yes, you do Brad. Especially if you light your scenes. But even if you usually just use existing light any point-source lights can cause flare, even common table lamps or track lights.

Looking at Century's w-a adapter offerrings, it looks like they do not provide for a hood. I hope that this is incorrect. It's hard to believe that Century would not appreciate the value of such an accessory, although Canon sold the WD-58 sans hood for several years.

Brad, not something I know a lot about, but my impression is that by adding a 16:9 adaptor (anamorphic), it will allow you to shoot 16:9 footage while still using the full resolution of the camera. The image will be "stretched" in the vertical, but this can then be corrected in post.

Thus if you use standard shooting mode and add black bars afterwards, you throw away resolution. If you use an anamorphic lens instead, you shoot in full resolution.

Another example (of something I know a lot more about) is anamorphic DVDs. Most movies are presented in some kind of widescreen format. If the DVD is 16:9 aspect ration but not anamorphic, part of the resolution will simply be thrown away by recording the black bars at top and bottom. Your effective resolution will thus not be 720x576 but rather 720 x 432 since the rest of the vertical lines are just black bars.

If the DVD is instead anamorphic, the 16:9 image will be stretched vertically to utilize all of the 576 vertical lines. If you play back on a widescreen capable device the image will be squashed back to the correct aspect ratio so that within the black bars you still have 720 x 576.

In other words non anamorphic throws away 25% of the resolution.

Another example would be 35 mm film. Sometimes movies are shot "matted" so that black bars are present on the 35 mm negative. This throws away film resolution too. A better alternative is to put an anamorphic lens in front of the camera, so you shoot a stretched image on the whole of the 35 mm negative. In the theater you will then put a "squashing" lens on the projector so that the resulting image is widescreen but still using the maximum resolution of the medium.

The numbers given are for PAL. For NTSC it will be pretty much the same ratios, just different numbers.

Now did that clear up anything or just further obfuscate the matter?

Hans Henrik

Hans,

What I'm trying to make sense of is that the resolution provided in my rendered DV video will seemingly negate that extra horizontal lines of resolution gained by the 16:9 adaptor. Will the vertical compression of the 16:9 footage really be any better in post?

Brad

Brad:

I guess it really depends on your target medium. If you are going for VHS or regular broadcast, the anamorphic squeeze will not help you at all since all the preserved resolution will be lost in the final copy.

If however you go for a DVD (anamorphic mode) or some kind of high res application, there should definately be a difference.

Be aware though, that resolution isn't everything. One of my most beautiful DVDs is James Cameron's "The Abyss" which for some reason was done non anamorphic. It still looks great due to other factors such as careful compression etc.

Tell me more about your project if you need better advice.

Hans Henrik

I'm sure I'm right in saying that Cameron has always shot Super 35 since The Abyss, Hans. This has meant that if you buy the 4:3 version of T2 or Titanic films you actually see more than was shown at the cinema and at the same time fill your 4:3 TV screen. There's slight snipping of the outer left and right borders, but overall (off VHS) I've preferred the full screen version simply because the 2.35:1 looks so soft on a domestic TV.

tom.

Tom, you are absolutely correct. Abyss was shot in Super 35. That is basically a variation over standard "soft matte" shooting, where the space for optical sound tracks have been used for picture instead.

This gives an aspect ratio on film of about 1.6:1 but the point is that the film is still shot with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 in mind.

So whenever a movie is shot "soft matte" (or super 35) there will be extra information on film in the top and bottom of the image. This is information that the cinematographer does not see or care about when shotting the film, and often includes boom mikes etc.

Subsequently most soft matted movies when shown in full screen will be "pan and scanned" meaning that a zoomed in box will pan around the image so that you see a 4:3 window into the widescreen version. Some movies are better at this than others. James Cameron as a notable exception personally oversees the pan and scan process of his movies.

Usually the P&S process results in peoples faces cut off, people talking from off screen etc. In a standard 2,35:1 movie what you see in fullscreen might have lost 40% of the material shown in the theater.

In case you haven't guessed it by now, I usually run away screaming when I see a "fool screen" version of a movie :-)

For additional information I stumbled upon a couple of good links:

http://www.digieffects.com/frames/transferfilmtovideo/filmtovideo.html

Or for some examples of widescreen vs. fullscreen:

http://www.widescreen.org

Hans Henrik

I like your terminology Hans: "Fool screen"! I'm like you, I detest pan and scan, but take a famous line from Cameron's Terminator 2. Schwarzenegger reaches down to Hamilton and says, "Come with me if you want to live".

In the 2.35: 1 version his hand is cut off at the wrist by the mask when he reaches down to her, yet in the 4:3 version you see right to the tip of his fingers. Everything else in the frame is as the widescreen version, yet picture edits such as this cut out more than would appear. Is his hand clenched in a fist? Are his fingers outstretched in a welcome? Has he even got hold of her?

Sometimes less is less and more is indeed more.

tom.

Interesting example Tom. I am almost tempted to go rent T2 now and see for myself.

I also like those DVDs that have full screen on one side and widescreen on the other for examples. You can watch a scene, flip it over and then rewatch it right away. One of my favorite examples of this is "A few good men". It has a beautifully shot widescreen version on one side, and an atrocious P&S version on the other :-)

Hans Henrik

Hi,

I am a newbie so I have some beginner questions :). I have read a number of very informative discussions in this forum about GL-2 cases.

I have the wide lens WD-58H which I use most of the time. Ideally, I would like to just leave the lens on GL-2 when I put it in the bag. Is it unwise to leave it on during travel (say going for a couple of hour drive in a car in or around the town). How about while flying? I could detach it for flights etc. but most day to day use I would prefer to leave it on the camcorder. The three choices that I think should be able to handle this are:

1. PortaBrace CS-DV3/CR3 - Street price $180 (http://www.portabrace.com/Details/CS/CS-DVdetail/cs-dvdetail.htm)

2. LowePro Vidcam 6 - Street price $50 (http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/vidcam/vidcam6.html)

3. Kata CCC-102 - Street price $100 (http://www.tiffen.com/kata_ccc102.htm)

Questions:

1. Can PortaBrace CS-DV3, that has a little cradle to hold GL-2, can hold GL-2 with wide lens and it's hood on?
2. Is PortaBrace's water resistance and padding quality that better than Kata/LowePro to justify it's much higher price?
3. Is Kata's CCC-102 siginificantly better than Vidcam 6?
4. Suggestions for any other cases that you think may be more appropriate?

Please share your experience. Thanks,
Raj

The Lowepro Nova 6 is nice.

Welcome Raj,
I own a GL2 and both the PortaBrace DV3 and the Kata 102, so I'll take a swing at your questions.
1. Can PortaBrace CS-DV3, that has a little cradle to hold GL-2, can hold GL-2 with wide lens and it's hood on?
2. Is PortaBrace's water resistance and padding quality that better than Kata/LowePro to justify it's much higher price?
3. Is Kata's CCC-102 siginificantly better than Vidcam 6?
4. Suggestions for any other cases that you think may be more appropriate?
1. Yes, with no problem, and with a bit of room at the end to spare.

2. Yes, all-around the PortaBrace is superior craftsmanship, construction and detailing to the Kata. Honestly, I was a bit dissapointed with the Kata; it's just an empty bag with virtually no thoughtful details. The PB features a myriad of excellent features, such as the removable inner case, the pocket for a white-balance card (supplied with the case), etc. The PB shoulder straps alone have become legendary for their comfort and durability. By comparison the Kata pales badly. (I use mine mainly to carry audio gear.)

The top zippers of all of these cases might leak in a hard downpour, but in general rainy conditions the PB will do the job. (Aways a good idea to pack a plastic trash bag or two when on outdoor excursions.)

3. I do not own the Vidcam 6 but I do have a Vidcam 4. I would say that it's very comparable in construction to the Kata, although it's a different box-top (-vs- flap-top) design. Selection between these two would be purely a matter of design preference rather than quality difference.

4. No, I think that PortaBrace's cases are the best soft cases made and I own several.

If there's anything else I can tell you about these cases, just ask. Happy to help!

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the informative reply. I am about to set my heart to PortaBrace and get one :).

Do you think it would be a problem to leave the wide lense on GL-2 while it's in the PortaBrace bag during say a day-long light hike trip or a social gathering shooting? Also, any suggestions as to where can one be bought? I see that bhphoto.com has two but tthey have CR2 and CR4 (not CR3, which is the model for GL2).

thanks much,
Raj

Just to clarify: By possible problem from the wide lense on all the time, I meant would that cause unnecessary strain on the camera body or run the risk of causing some damage due to it's weight?

thanks,
Raj

It's no problem at all leaving the WD58H on the lens all day. Some people leave it on all the time.

I bought all of my PB cases from B&H. I really do not know of other dealers. I know B&H carries the case so it's probably just temporarily out of stock. Just use their site to have them email you when it's in (a handy feature). They're probably a bit backed up right now, since they've been closed for a week (Jewish holidays).

Now the choice is clear for the soft case, but how about those of us who like a harder shell?

Any ideas for makes / models and sizes? Pros / Cons?

- Thank You.

Aaron,
I have a Cases Plus (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article74.php) hard case for my XL1s. This relatively pricey case that is built to take a head-on from a Hummer. Multiple density internal foam is really designed to handle physics. It also incorporates a handle and wheels. The main disappointment I've had with the case is that the internal foam took more carving than a Thanksgiving turkey to accommodate the XL1s with an MA-100 (forget the MA-200) as well as to provide space for even a moderate amount of gotta-have's, and even after all of that work, I could still use just a bit more space in the case.Take a look a the Kinetics on the main DVInfo pages, also.

You may also be interested in looking at the Pelican 1610 case with the XL1 foam insert. You can find it at the Cases4Less site (http://www.all-pelican-cases-4-less.com/detail_pelican_1610_xl1.html).

Whatever you do, don't get the shiny Canon case.

Have fun!

I'm using a Pelican 1550 for my personal GL2 and I'm pleased with that. We use Pelican a lot to handle our robotics and they get shipped all over the country without a problem so I have a lot of trust in Pelican and would recommend them to anyone looking for a sturdy, long lasting case.

The custom case that Ken suggested sure looks great. I've never used one but it seems to well worth the money.

A good hard case should last for years to come and in my opinion it's the best insurance you can buy for a camera.

I'll repeat Ken's advice and say don't go with the Canon case. I've had my hands on one before and it doesn't come close to the lasting protection that you can get with other hard case companies.


Ben Lynn

Great! Thanks for the info. I esp. appreciate a case that can take a beating from a Hummer. Due to the line of work I'm in the case will get a beating like it's going out of style.

The foam will be an issue but nothing an ink pen and a table saw or elec. turkey carver can not fix. I was hoping for some of that "camera foam" mentioned on another thread... ; )

As for the XL1 insert, do you know if there is a GL2 insert? If not, their precut stuff should work.

I will be adding the GL2 with the WD-58h (attached) plus an MA-300, some sort of mic, the bats. and film, charger and ear plugs.

Just curios, why a negitive review of the Canon cases?