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/tr...lmtovideo.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

case for GL-2 with wide angle lense attached
 

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. 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).

Hard Case
 

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 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.

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?

Aaron,
I don't know of a case with foam designed specifically for the GL2, but I suspect that you'll be able to craft your own pretty easily with a Pelican or Sorm case and pick-and-pluck foam.

The issues with the Canon hard case are, in my opinion, three-fold. First, it carries a premium price tag with little or no discounting. Second, its true sturdiness and design quality is really not commensurate with its premium price. Third, its shiny gaudiness and "Canon" label plate scream "Steal me! I'm bound to contain something of value!", like a 3-piece set of Louis Vuitton luggage.

Thank you again.

I agree with your observation re: the "steal me" factor.

The Pick-n-pluck foam comes from Pelican. Anyone else?

What's a good manufacterer of a GL2 wide angle lens?
 

Which companies make the best bang for buck wide angles lenses???

Also, how important are additional filters???

Canon and Century are the two leaders in wide angle adapters for the GL1/GL2.

Re: filters, it depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

I use a BW Neutral Filter 102 (2 stops) in highlight. Small apertures above f5.6 tends to unsharp the image.

At about $240, the Century Optics .55x Reversible is a no brainer for any shooter using a camera with a 58mm screw-on thread mount.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...versible_waa/#

Bear in mind that this is not a full zoom through wide-angle adaptor, meaning it will go out of focus once you zoom in past a certain point. This is no biggie though, as you would not want to always keep such a wide angle adaptor attached 24/7.

If you need a full zoom through, you will not get as pronounced of a wide angle effect. That's just the way it is in lens design. The Canon Wd-58 with the Tulip-shaped Sunshade (no vignetting at full wide) is a very good quality piece of glass and more than adequate for most handycam shooters. If you want ultimate quality and performance you will have to pay about double the cost. Century Optics offers some superb glass for the money.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/1.htm

- don

I STRONGLY recommend the Century 0.65x bayonet mount zoom through lens, along with the associated FA-100 (I think that is the number) lens hood/shade.

Very good optical quality (important for anything put in front of a Canon L-series lens), and the zoom-though ability is very convenient.

Both the lens and lens hood are expensive, but well worth it! I bought mine from B&H.

Adam Wilt did a review of this lens (with a bayonet mount for a Sony PD-150) for DV Magazine. I think it is available at the DV magazine website.

Richard George
Lakewood / Denver
Beautiful Colorado

Filters with wide angle?
 

If using a wide angle lens, is it okay to use a soft effects filter under it? I know your supposed to remove the UV filter if using wide angle.
TIA,
Bob

Try it, and then be sure to view on a monitor that shows the entire frame. I've found that putting a filter between my lens and wide adaptor will cause vignetting in the corners since it increases the space between them. You mileage may vary ;-)

I have had my B+W F-Pro Haze Filter on with my WD58 and had no vignetting. It is usually different with different lenses.

You might also want to consider whether you trust a heavy wide angle lens screwed into a relatively flimsy filter....

Creating Depth of Field and the WD-58H Wide Angle Adapter
 

Without having any plans to transfer footage to film, I am still very interested in producing footage with the “film” look. I have purchased a Canon wide angle adaptor, and I would like to know what effect it will have on creating depth of field (DOF). The follow-up question that I have is what effect placing a filter (Tiffen Soft/FX 3) in between my camera and adapter will have on the depth of field?

I have read every thread I could find on both subjects (DOF and filter use with wide angle adapter), and I would like to know more. Please feel free to comment on this filter if you have an opinion, as I have not purchased it yet.

Brad

Please note that not only have I read every thread I could find on DOF, but I have been thoroughly confused by many. If you are kind enough to respond to this thread, would you please clarify if using terms like "increased" or "greater" depth of field. I'm pretty comfortable with terms like "shallow", but many of the existing threads contained terms that added to my confusion (like the concept of turning up the air conditioner – what does that mean?).

The depth of field with a wide angle adapter gets really really deep. If you want a soft focus in the background do not install the WA adapter. The Tiffen filter won't make it better.

In general with 1/4" ccds it is really hard to get anything but very deep DOFs. A WA adapter will only make it worse.

Brad,
Since you have read so many of our lengthy, deep and (as you noted) often bewildering DOF threads and debates, I hereby confer you with the honorary degree of "Bachelor of DOF". You are now granted all rights and priveleges commensurate with this title. Congratulations.<g>

Hokay, increased depth of field refers to a deepening of the focus range, like a thickening of an imaginary ring around the camera. Conversely, a decreased depth of field thins that metaphorical ring and reduces the range of crisp focus around the camera.

Well, the only way to achieve DOF on a camera like that, is to shoot with an open iris, like f2.8 or lower. You have to have use quite a lot of lights indoors, more than suggested for video, and you probably even have to use an ND filter to prevent the highlights from blowing out, it's really all about lighting. No lights, no DOF, unless you are outdoors and the sun is blazing.

My new "Bachelor of DOF" feels good, but I still am left somewhat needy. I guess what I wanted to know is the most basic and fundamental tricks in creating a shallow DOF without having to go to NY for a digital video 3-day conference. The threads, while more informative than all 37 of my remaining brain cells had ever hoped, didn't clearly lay out the path the average GL2 owner might follow to remarkable shallow DOF footage.

While I am an engineer, I am an environmental engineer. Filling holes with trash is a far cry from understanding prismatic glass aberrations and the like. My people just need it straight and simple.

Thanks for the encouragement, the opportunity to vent, and your continued help.

Brad,
When the dust settled from all of the DOF threads of yore one fact remained: you can't get truly shallow, film-camera-like DOF from such small CCD (i.e. aperture) cameras by simple standard lens measures. It's even hard to accomplish on a 2/3" CCD camera. As Rick pointed out earlier, wide-angle lenses and adapters actually make the problem worse by deepening the apparent DOF. A 3-day conference won't help. You can prove this very quickly for yourself by setting your speed to, say, 1/60 opening your iris all the way (use the ND if needed) and judging for yourself. Try different zoom settings/distances to subject. That's as good as it gets.

You can try a practical effect such as "silking" the background to fake a shallow DOF. (If you had an XL1s with a manual lens you could try the macro setting trick, depending on the primary subject's size and location.)

Post Prod?
 

Hiyah Brad! - Or should I say Prof. B. Higerd B.DoF. !

Maybe get the best you can and do your Film look in Post Prod? - After all if it aint in the can you aint gonna get to do anything. Yes?

Grazie - Sorry Chris, just can't kick my nickname habit - call it even more individuality.

Brad,

Keep in mind that depth of field has a lot to do with taste and fashion. Shallow DOF is popular today and is often overdone. Too often, at least to my taste, the camera wanders around a room with one narrow spot in focus and everything else a blur. Nothing approaching reality (unless you need to visit the optometrist.)

Orson Wells worked really hard to achieve deep depths of field in Citizen Caine. It was a break through. It has fallen out of fashion these days but that is the nature of taste and fashion.

A GL2 will not ever get really shallow depths of field because of its chip size. The one really fun, if overdone, DOF trick, rack focus is close to impossible to achieve because of the servo focus ring.

Personally, I think the best bet is to forget the "film" look and concentrate on shooting really good, compelling footage that effectively tells the story you want told. That is what people remember, not DOF or whether it looked like film.

Rick, stepping down off my soapbox now