. . another 2 things Alan, I think we've been here before, is that the filter actually "pushes" the WD58 further away from the "focal" plane, not good AND you would be putting in another sheet of glass, this in turn will cut done some of the lumins. This is just a simple explanation - I don't have any expertise in putting numbers on it, just plain ol' common sense really on my part.

. . .also, as Ken says, you gotta a limp of glass in front with the WD58, if anything physical gets through that . . well . .. . ;-)

Grazie

Thanks Grazie,

ps Good luck with your street party, can't imagine me getting through that.

Perhaps you can give us some feedback once you finish

"Perhaps you can give us some feedback once you finish"
 

Alan, I can give that to you now . . .. I shall be lying down in a darkened room . . . with no sound of drumming!

Grazie

In my case that would be the best option but with padded walls ;)

I take it you do video work professionally in London?

"I take it you do video work professionally in London?" - Just started. Been learning heaps and heaps from here other sites. I belong to the Institute of Videography where over the last year have been under the wing of one of their Master Members.

I've completed half a dozen wedding vids as camera 2/3. Filmed and edited a film ABOUT videographers filming a wedding. Completed an impressions of "Respect Festival" for a client. Made countless "oooh wouldn't that be nice as a 5 - 10 - 20 video" type of work. So I'm just taking off. Been involved with the arts all my life and have some corporate Arts stuff in the pipeline - lots of fun. Maybe one day it'll make enough dough to get bigger and better equip. But presently my Xm2 is holding out and I'm doing a mass of stuff to get the experience . . hey ho . . wadyyah know?

Pro? Well getting there. Do I get paid? Yes. Can you do it? Yer betcha yah sweet bippy yer can!

Grazie

I am covering a wedding on Saturday, 1st with the XM2 and hey it is a fantastic bit of kit. I am looking towards the forums like this to pick up some tips and have picked up oodles already from here hence the reason why I went for this Cam.

Maybe one day I can turn it into money too, with this cam, Liquid Edition and lots of practice who knows.

Had a look at the Institute site but ended up in a vicious circle a few time so laid off, perhaps you can email me some stuff at alan_mccormick_2@hotmail.com so I can look into it further (if you don't mind)

Thanks

I'm afraid IoV email bulletins are in house. There is some "Public" stuff. But the real juicy bits are for the mebership. Why don't yer become a Member. It's no big deal. if you want to get qualified - I'm not yet - you can go on thier Master Member route. But, if you just want to take it easy and get to know more and spend time with others in the field . . go for it! - And no I don't get a discount on lassooing new members - ha ha ha . . . I didn't see where you hail from - UK? Well, it's a no brainer - JOIN UP!! - The annual bash will be in SPring next year. Went to this years and it was great! Swopping ideas and having your videos "crawled" by the pros. Seriously good people in the membeship. I've gained tons - forget about the oodles. . . anyways . . I've gotta bang on with a MusicVideo effect I'm working on for a wedding. My Tutor is the 1st cameraman and editor, but he's wanting me to do the upbeat stuff for the wedding disco.

I hear Vegas calling me . . yes yes yes I'm coming !! Really pushy these NLE s/w s. . . . yeah?

Grazie

Thanks Grazie,

I had noticed the in-house comments but as I said just seemed to go round in circles on their web site, may try again sometime.

I will be doing a Promo video for an act over the next few months too so shooting and editing that will be fun too.

I hail from Chatham, Kent yes UK not USA

I'm sure there is a Kent CHapter of the IoV you could go to monthly?

D'yer need any help filming or editing the shoot?

Grazie

No, thanks but this is a freebie for some friends, it will allow me to get more use of the Cam and I love editing with Edition (no timelimits either) when its for nowt :-)

I will look out for any links in Kent for IoV later, cheers

WA and OIS
 

Doesn't a wide angle lens/adapter negate or lessen the effect of camera shake simply by virtue of the wider field of view? I had the 3x lens for my XL1 and it did NOT have OIS built in. I'm guessing because this is not really needed with a wide angle.

rg

Most zoom through converters are three elements and some are four, so there is a slight light loss involved. It's not much, but if you're really struggling in the low light, then remove all filters and converter lenses.

The more wide-angle you go the less the apparent camera shake, but if you zoom to wide angle and switch Steady Shot on and off, you'll soon see that it's working hard for you if you track/walk as you film. The omission on the Canon 3x zoom was only to keep the price doiwn I reckon.

tom.

yes rollerblading is good and it aint all about busting out the switchups. Switchups are a nice little neccessity in your rollerblading skill but the factors also include improv, cess slides and other take a spot with nothing and turn it into something kinda of deal

and btw im purchasing a nice gl 2 in the next few weeks :)

When using frame mode and a wide angle lense together, do I turn on "wide screen"?
 

Do I turn on the camera's wide screen setting, or do I just let the lense do all the work?

And, shall I crop the frame in post if I want a wide screen look?

Widescreen and wideangle are not the same thing. If you want anamorphic 16x9, you should use the widescreen function. If you want 4x3, use Normal. Either way, using the wide angle lens will give you a wider angle all around, independent of the aspect ratio.

If you use an anamoprhic adapter, however, then you stay in normal mode.

If you want widescreen created in post, then use normal mode.

If I'm using the wide angle lense and cropping the image (with black bars) in post, then is this my closest approximation of widescreen?

Also, do I go with a standard

Why ?
 

Why would you use a wide angle lens and then crop the ALREADY wide image ?!

Wide angle lens which you paid so much for gives you widescreen image - just use the correct setting in NLE - that`s 16:9 mode - otherwise image will look elongated.

Ok, so I choose to go with a 16:9 project using the wide angle lense. Now, when I export to DVD, will it be in true wide screen?

Yes, but it'll be widescreen whether you use the wide-angle lens. The two have nothing to do with each other anymore.

Anamorphic.
 

Adam, yes, it will be a widescreen DVD if you encode it as "Anamorphic DVD" it`s the best kind of widescreen - where you don`t lose any resolution. Enjoy.

So, next question, HOW DO I ENCODE A DVD AS ANAMORPHIC?


Thanks for putting up with my ignorance, this is the last question, I promise.

Well...
 

I forgot, most (if not all) encoders don`t have "anamorphic" setting so you just encode it with whatever setting you want and that`s it. Then it depends on DVD player to interpret it as anamorphic.

Just ask if you don`t know something, I doubt anyone finds this bothering !

The encoding software must support anamoprhic widescreen for the DVD to display properly. If the software does not support the anamorphic flag (that's all it is, a simple flag in the VTS), then you can only use 4x3 letterboxed, which you specify in your video editing software. Encoders that do support 16x9 are Adobe Encore, Maestro, Sonic DVDIt Pro, etc.

wide angle choices
 

I'm looking into buying a wide angle adaptor for my GL2 and plan to go with a bayonet mount Century Optics lens. I just have a few questions to ask before I decide which lens to go with (.55x or .65x)

Is the zoom through ability of the .65x really necessary? It seems as though I'll keep the camera zoomed all the way out in order to take advantage of the wide angle most of the time anyway.

How do the two lenses compare with regards to barrel distortion?

Does the stock GL2 lens hood work with the .55x? If so, that would be substantially less than the .65x with wide angle hood.

Right now, I'm leaning toward the .55x due to its cost and size, but still think the .65x sounds good too. Any advice will be appreciated.

Nicholi,
We have many existing posts and opinions on wide-angle adapters for the GL1/GL2. Here's one good thread as an example.

Run a Search on "wide AND angle" in this forum to see many others.

Yeah, I searched quite a bit before posting and found a lot on wide angle lenses. Most compare Canon's WD-58 to Century's .65x zoom through, but very very few even mention Century's .55x, and only one post actually comments on its quality/characteristics. I was just hoping someone had a direct comparison between the .65x and the .55x adaptors.

I have the century .55x wide angle and love it. It has a bit more barrel distortion than the canon one but is also wider. The image quality is awesome. I've used both lenses and would take the century over the canon anyday. You can't zoom through it, but that would be pointless since a wide angle is meant for wide shots. And for the price you can't go wrong. You can also fit 72mm slim filters on it as well. You can't fit the canon lense hood on it either but i haven't really had any problems with lense flares anyway.

corey

Thanks Corey, very helpful.
I've kept up with the videos you've posted on your website. Are there any that used the .55x?

Well...
 

I don`t know how Canon`s WD58H compares to others, but I have it for quite some time now and I`m extremely satisfied with it. Barrel distorsion is (at least to my eye) hardly noticable, you would see it only if you`re looking for it :)

century
 

ive got a century optics wide angle/ reversible to fisheye.]
pretty cool. as i recall it was only $200-250 or so from b+h.
its been awhile, though. i think the model was WA-58 maybe /GL?

Hey Patrick,

Are you referring to the DS-55WA-GL from century optics? BH has it listed at $250. I didn't know you could reverse it to fisheye. How does it look as a fisheye?

wide/ fish
 

thats the one. I just got my gl2 yesterday!I bought the lens when i thought i was getting the camera awhile ago, but all i did get was a lesson about trusting low prices over the internet!

It says its reversible, but i cant get it apart. The mounting ring is suppose to come off and flip around... any one have this lens? just holding it up to the front LOOKS cool but not very practical for shooting.

wrong lens
 

i just went and looked at b+hs web site. i think they sent me the wrong lens with the insructions for the reversable one!

There is a difference between the .55x for the GL2 and the reversible .55x. The one made specifically for GL2 bayonet mount is only the .55x wide angle lens (DS-55WA-GL). The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) is made specifically for Sony cameras - VX1000, DSR-200. If you bought the bayonet mount that fits the GL2, then it isn't reversible, as far as I understand.
However, there is both regular and reversible 58mm thread mount. Technically, according to www.centuryoptics.com, the reversible is made for Sony and JVC cameras, but it will probably work on a GL2. 58mm works with 58mm right?
Personally, I would much rather have the reversible (kill two birds with one stone) but at the same time really like the security of the bayonet mount. The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) wouldn't randomly happen to work on the GL2 would it?

Actually, after looking at the stats on Century's site, the reversible's "fisheye" configuration is no where near that of the .3x fisheye. Honestly, it doesn't seem to be much wider than the regular .55x (20 degrees horizontally), but just has more barrel distortion. I wasn't expecting the same .3x effect, but hoped for something.
I'm sticking with the GL2 bayonet mount .55x.

the world is against me but thats not news
 

its probably to late to return the lens... over a year. like i said it gives a good fisheye effect by just holding it on backwards... if i ever find it absolutly required, ill duct-tape it on.

I'm considering buying the reversible .55x for the sony cameras, but I own a GL2. What's the advantage to the bayonet mount? More stable?

I realize the fish eye on the reversed lens isn't as good as a real fish eye, but I'd like to have the ability to give it a try, especially if the 58mm sony version of this lens will work with a GL2.

I sent an e-mail off to century optics about the difference between their reversible -58 lens and their non-reversible -GL wide angle lens. Hopefully, they'll get back to me soon. My principal concern is that the -GL glass may be specifically designed to work with the GL2 and the 58mm WA may not work as well for whatever reason.

Also, rather than post *another* one of these WA topics in the forum, I was wondering if anyone could help me choose which WA to get.

I'm looking at either the .55 Century optics or the Canon WD58h. I need the lens for shooting in tight spaces, like apartments and bedrooms. I wouldn't mind there being a little barrel distortion, but not too much. I've read that the .75 WD-58 really doesn't offer a whole lot of enlargement and that .65 or .55 lenses are better.

Personally, John, I really like Canon's WD58H wide angle adapter for the GL2. It's not too heavy, is very good in tight spaces, imposes very little barrel distortion, has no apparent chromatic aberration around the edges, and had a very good price. I actually leave it on my GL2 nearly all of the time.

I've not used any of the Century lenses but I do know they have an excellent rep, as well.

Thanks for the info Ken. I'm really torn between these two lenses. I wish I could buy them both!

I received a very quick response from Century Optics that read:

"Hello John,

The only difference between the two is the bayonet verses the 58mm thread mount and the design that the optic in the 58mm threaded version will reverse for a simi fisheye look. The optical element is the same in both units, you will not have a drop off in performance. Either version will work just fine on the Canon GL2."

So apparantly both lenses are exactly the same piece of glass, and the only difference is the mount.