Wide angle adapter HV20

Tom Hardwick · August 21st, 2008, 12:24 AM

Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters.
Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · August 21st, 2008, 01:55 AM

The barrel distortion you notice is very common indeed with spherically ground supplementary lenses. You can (as you've found out) zoom in and you'll lessen the effect, and when you've zoomed in to such a position that you're back to your camcorder's normal wide-angle view the distortion will be at its minimum.

But this isn't why you bought such a lens - you wanted to see wider. The barrel distortion will always be there, barreling your windows, doors and brides. I keep well away from such lenses unless I'm filming under water, where the effect is all but invisible.

And Jeff - they're hood threads, not filter threads on the front of wide-angles.

tom.

Christo Aaron · August 21st, 2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters.
Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality.

tom.

Thanks Tom,
I appreciate your perspective. If I had a crew..., could slow down time..., and multiple pre fitted cams to choose from..., it would be a more "perfect" shooters world. On my recent test shoot in the RMNP, Colorado, all I could hope for was best light available, some nice shadows, no flairs, and low winds to keep the shots steady on pans. Switching or removing extra lenses in the field seemed like too much practical effort to keep the lenses clean and tight. This was also in consideration that I had two duel cams side by side in Stereo, that needed identical filters/lenses and constant checks for alianment.
So, I wonder if what you say also holds true for high end HD pro cams as well as their pro filters/lenses ( WD Angle etc.)?
Cheers,
Christo

Ryan Avery · August 21st, 2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christo Aaron

Hello Jeff,
I purchased Century .5X WD Angle HD 43 MM lenses for a new Canon HV-30 Cam. Also a 67E Clear UV Haze (010) filter lens screwed on the front of each Century WD. From the Cam out I have a Neutral Density filter first, then a Polarizer filter before the Century. I have not captured from tape yet, but I noticed that Wide Out give a barreling around the corners. That is just looking at the flip monitor. Is that normal for that lens configuration? If I touch the Tele just a tad, the corner distortion is eliminated. Has anyone else field test these (Century) lenses yet?
Cheers,
Christo

The barreling at the edges is normal for a lens this wide. We have tried to minimize this effect as much as possible but you have to go down to about .65x to really minimize the effect.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan Avery · August 21st, 2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Anselmo

Anyone tried out Schneider's 43mm wide angle lens yet?

It's listed as a .5x, so it's not as wide as the Canon's WD-H43.

Best,

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Christo Aaron · August 30th, 2008, 10:30 PM

Hello Ryan, and Forum Members.
Because you are most familiar with this Century .5x WD Angle lens, I will address you first. I have captured footage from my HV-30. All filming was provided while this cam was attached to my helmet. The shots were fantastic, color was bright and we were completely soaked but loved it! We navigated seven miles of class 3 & 4 rapids on the Cache La Poudre river in Northern Colorado, and stayed in the raft. Here is my problem. I had no way to adjust a back off touch of WD Angle, from a full WD Angle adjustment. I couldn't see the flip LCD, to correct for the barreling. So, all footage was captured with barrel distortion. Now with the HD footage captured using FCP, I'm looking to somehow crop out the barreled corners. A specific degree of zoom perhaps? Have you, or anyone else successfully made similar editing to reduce these barreled effects?
Cheers,
Christo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Avery

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Peter Moretti · September 1st, 2008, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Avery

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan,

Can you explain "partial zoom through" a little bit? I believe it means I can zoom (w/ autofocus enabled) from wide to about 1/3rd zoomed in w/o any problems. Is that correct?

What happens if I try to zoom past 1/3rd of the zoom range?

I believe Canon's adapter has full zoom through but it's not as wide.

Can you comment further on differences among your adapter and the Canon and Raynox HD-6600?

Thanks much!

Tom Hardwick · September 1st, 2008, 04:23 AM

All the partial zoom-throughs I've used in the last 18 years or so have allowed quite a lot of zoom. My Z1 with its 0.52x converter allows me to go from 0 to 65 on a 0 to 99 zoom scale, so it's still a very useful range.

If I film at the 65 setting and zoom into tele just a tiny bit the whole frame blurs instantly and very prettily - something I cannot replicate in post. I use this a lot for focus blur dissolves (from church flowers to bride's face, say). If you do this with the sun in frame the specular highlights are wonderful.

So single element non zoom-throughs are much to my liking. If they're aspherics they can give zero barrel distortion and they inherently give less flare simply because they use less elements. They're also lighter, smaller and generally cheaper than the full zoom-throughs, but the latter are useful for cameras that have poor wide-angle in the first place (PD170, V1 etc).

tom.

Terry Lee · February 8th, 2009, 08:28 PM

So after reading this entire thread front to finish I've decided on going with the Raynox 6600 Pro. I also read the entire thread, which is 3x as long, over at the HV20 forum about this same subject. However after reading all the questions and desiphering the answers, I wasn't able to conclude on the best choice for a lens hood.

I am also researching for a cheap matte box. My purpose mainly is to make my HV30 look less "amaturish" if you can understand..

Thanks,
Terry.

Tom Hardwick · February 9th, 2009, 04:39 AM

Know just what you mean Terry. Pop over to have a look at the Cavision hoods
Cavision Lens Hoods
remembering that you want a 16:9 one.

Also remember that the 6600PRO (I had one) isn't completely zoom-through (as Raynox are quick to admit). It softens noticably beyond the 60% zoom point, but that's probably a side-effect of it's barrel distortion control.

tom.

Terry Lee · February 10th, 2009, 02:23 PM

Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply.

What is the diameter of the Raynox of which I will have to find a hood to fit? All I am finding in search is the mm of the area where it attaches to the camera. I would like to have something that makes the camera look less like a handycam. I actually have a script for this one and numbered scenes so I thought it best to clapboard the scenes but will it ever look goofy clapboarding a handycam...Plus of course I am trying to lower the event of sun flairs from a practical stand point. A matte box would be awesome! However any matte box I see is as much as the budget for the film itself..

Well I chose the 6600pro simply because it has the least barrel distortion. As I am trying to obtain the "film" look with the HV30, barrel distortion would make it look like video. So this one seems to fit the bill. However, I have seen ALOT of people who like the WD-H43 still after many tests. Are there attributes I should be looking for in a wide angle adapter that I am unaware of?

Thanks for your help.
Terry.

Tom Hardwick · February 10th, 2009, 02:53 PM

The front hood attachment thread on the 6600 PRO is 72 mm Terry

DCR-6600PRO High Definition Wideangle conversion lens 0.66X for Digital & High Definition camera
I had a very nice hood for mine taken from a Super-8 camera. Not only does it make your diddy-cam look better, it makes your films look better too. Flare can be a problem with this particular Raynox lens as it appears to have single - not multi coating. I bet the Canon lens H43 is multi-coated.

tom.

Terry Lee · February 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM

Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply.

I think I found a little matte from CineCity that would fit the Raynox 6600pro

The CineCity*::*Cine Matte box*::*Matte box*::*Wide angle Matte box mattebox + french flag for all DV HDV camera from 37mm to 82mm lens thread dia

Seams to be a pretty steady little unit for $155

Tom Hardwick · February 13th, 2009, 01:19 AM

Interesting site, thanks Terry.

Randy Panado · March 24th, 2009, 06:05 AM

I have the Raynox 6600 pro HD and at full zoom it has insane amounts of CA. Comes with the territory I suppose but I do wish it was as good as a piece of glass as my WD-H72 for my XH-A1.

February 8th, 2009, 08:28 PM	#99
Terry Lee Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 691	So after reading this entire thread front to finish I've decided on going with the Raynox 6600 Pro. I also read the entire thread, which is 3x as long, over at the HV20 forum about this same subject. However after reading all the questions and desiphering the answers, I wasn't able to conclude on the best choice for a lens hood. I am also researching for a cheap matte box. My purpose mainly is to make my HV30 look less "amaturish" if you can understand.. Thanks, Terry. __________________ https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=38313004

February 10th, 2009, 02:23 PM	#101
Terry Lee Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 691	Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply. What is the diameter of the Raynox of which I will have to find a hood to fit? All I am finding in search is the mm of the area where it attaches to the camera. I would like to have something that makes the camera look less like a handycam. I actually have a script for this one and numbered scenes so I thought it best to clapboard the scenes but will it ever look goofy clapboarding a handycam...Plus of course I am trying to lower the event of sun flairs from a practical stand point. A matte box would be awesome! However any matte box I see is as much as the budget for the film itself.. Well I chose the 6600pro simply because it has the least barrel distortion. As I am trying to obtain the "film" look with the HV30, barrel distortion would make it look like video. So this one seems to fit the bill. However, I have seen ALOT of people who like the WD-H43 still after many tests. Are there attributes I should be looking for in a wide angle adapter that I am unaware of? Thanks for your help. Terry. __________________ https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=38313004

February 10th, 2009, 02:53 PM	#102
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The front hood attachment thread on the 6600 PRO is 72 mm Terry DCR-6600PRO High Definition Wideangle conversion lens 0.66X for Digital & High Definition camera I had a very nice hood for mine taken from a Super-8 camera. Not only does it make your diddy-cam look better, it makes your films look better too. Flare can be a problem with this particular Raynox lens as it appears to have single - not multi coating. I bet the Canon lens H43 is multi-coated. tom. Attached Thumbnails

February 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM	#103
Terry Lee Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 691	Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply. I think I found a little matte from CineCity that would fit the Raynox 6600pro The CineCity::Cine Matte box::Matte box::Wide angle Matte box mattebox + french flag for all DV HDV camera from 37mm to 82mm lens thread dia Seams to be a pretty steady little unit for $155 __________________ https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=38313004

August 21st, 2008, 12:24 AM	#91
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image. You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters. Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces. Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders. Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one. So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality. tom.

August 21st, 2008, 01:55 AM	#92
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The barrel distortion you notice is very common indeed with spherically ground supplementary lenses. You can (as you've found out) zoom in and you'll lessen the effect, and when you've zoomed in to such a position that you're back to your camcorder's normal wide-angle view the distortion will be at its minimum. But this isn't why you bought such a lens - you wanted to see wider. The barrel distortion will always be there, barreling your windows, doors and brides. I keep well away from such lenses unless I'm filming under water, where the effect is all but invisible. And Jeff - they're hood threads, not filter threads on the front of wide-angles. tom.

September 1st, 2008, 04:23 AM	#98
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	All the partial zoom-throughs I've used in the last 18 years or so have allowed quite a lot of zoom. My Z1 with its 0.52x converter allows me to go from 0 to 65 on a 0 to 99 zoom scale, so it's still a very useful range. If I film at the 65 setting and zoom into tele just a tiny bit the whole frame blurs instantly and very prettily - something I cannot replicate in post. I use this a lot for focus blur dissolves (from church flowers to bride's face, say). If you do this with the sun in frame the specular highlights are wonderful. So single element non zoom-throughs are much to my liking. If they're aspherics they can give zero barrel distortion and they inherently give less flare simply because they use less elements. They're also lighter, smaller and generally cheaper than the full zoom-throughs, but the latter are useful for cameras that have poor wide-angle in the first place (PD170, V1 etc). tom.

February 9th, 2009, 04:39 AM	#100
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Know just what you mean Terry. Pop over to have a look at the Cavision hoods Cavision Lens Hoods remembering that you want a 16:9 one. Also remember that the 6600PRO (I had one) isn't completely zoom-through (as Raynox are quick to admit). It softens noticably beyond the 60% zoom point, but that's probably a side-effect of it's barrel distortion control. tom.

February 13th, 2009, 01:19 AM	#104
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Interesting site, thanks Terry.

March 24th, 2009, 06:05 AM	#105
Randy Panado Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 643	I have the Raynox 6600 pro HD and at full zoom it has insane amounts of CA. Comes with the territory I suppose but I do wish it was as good as a piece of glass as my WD-H72 for my XH-A1.