'red-eye' wide angle adapters

[Richard J Morris]

Thats odd. All the shots I did before were with ND filter off. I wasn't sure so just checked some of the set up photos I did - and the ND was definitely OFF - so at F4.0 or F5.2 surely the whole image should be in focus?

I suspect that focus across the image also depends on subject distance.

Perhaps there is more to this focus business than meets the eye....so to speak!

[Jon Turner]

yeah, i don't want to make too many statements before i've had some all-round experience. these are just preliminary observations.

what cam are you using? i have an xl2 and i was wondering if there was something about the 20x lens that might be making the difference.

[Richard J Morris]

XL1-S.

From my previous shots, it looks like the focus problem is more pronounced on the 3x than the 16x.

I think that you are right - more experience and trials needed by me too.

[Tom Hardwick]

Doesn't matter what focal length you're dealing with, remember that diffraction will rob you of visible sharpness at apertures smaller than f/8 if you're capturing onto tiny 1/3" chips. Remember too that the shorter the focal length the more diffraction destroys sharpness, so if you're using the Red Eye and max wide-angle, don't stop down below f/4 if you can help it - bring those NDs into play.

My VX2000 will film at f/11, f/16 and f/22 and it's absurdly easy to demonstrate the resolution loss at these tiny apertures. Many people (usually fresh from 35 mm photography) are confused and suspicious, yet they're convinced after seeing the results. Stay at f/5.6 and above, good people.

tom.

[Kevin Janisch]

Chris,

I just emailed you some frame grabs for posting. Thanks.

Kevin

[Rene J. Collins]

Hello all,

I greatly appreciate the input I’ve received from members of this forum.

Based on the feedback I've received and some issues brought to my attention, I've placed a temporary hold specifically on the production of the .5x 72 mm Red Eye until I can resolve some issues.

I have new lens material on order and I hope to be doing testing by the weekend. Once I’m satisfied with the results, I will be sending samples to forum members for evaluation.

If any one has specific questions, kindly contact me directly rene@collinscraft.com

Again, thanks to all for your assistance.

Very best regards,

Rene J. Collins
President
Collinscraft Canada

[Arlie Nava]

I guess I have to wait a little longer then. There is a possibility that I might go to Singapore to buy an XL2 PAL, I am planning to drop by SLV to try the Red eye. What issues are you planning to resolve with regards to the .5x 72mm? When will the new version be available?

I really think that your kind of responsiveness to your clients' and future-clients' concerns is impressive.

[Richard J Morris]

On the subject of distortion, I have started another thread (link below) which may be of interest to readers of this thread - but it is not RedEye related - more CCD related.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...366#post308366

[Declan Smith]

I have the red-eye wide angle adapter, which seems to produce acceptable results when viewed on a TV screen (although a little soft on the edges).

However, when viewed on a PC (which shows the overscan area), there is clear barrel distortion at the edges and chromatic aberation (i.e. you see four curves at each corner).

For displaying on a TV this doesn't seem to be much of a problem, however creating files for web display / PC viewing, it is unacceptable. My question therefore, does the Canon 3x lens also produce this distortion at the edges when viewed on a PC ? I can get around the problem by zooming the footage slightly in post until the edges disappear or applying a crop, but I would prefer not to have to do this.

[Chris Hurd]

The 3x lens does not produce distortion. The Redeye is considered acceptable since its distortion is outside the TV-safe area of the image. As you've noted, the solutions are to either crop the image or zoom in slightly.

[Declan Smith]

Thanks Chris. Debating whether to get the 3x lens or not, seems alot of money, but if the quality is much better then I may go for it at some point.

[Matthew Nayman]

I boght the 3x despite some strong negative comments made by people on this board. I have never been anything but pleased with it (despite the fact I blew the fuse in it by taking it off with the cam on! and needed a replacment).. It is a good lens and worth the money.

[Peter Wittinghoff]

Dear fellow criminals in the film- and XL2makers community.
I did not buy Century Optics or buy via BHPhotoVideo, both who I strongly recommend from my own, personal, experience.
I did buy the Canadien add-on lens Red Eye to fit on my 20x standard XL2 (72mm #5) and it works very well thank you.
Now I have wide angle with no hassle, great quality (really, really great), and not adding anything beyond 2mm to my lens.

Dear Admin, lock this thread for not promoting any of our sponsors. Unfortunately Red Eye could not be acquired through BHPhotoVideo, although I tried. But the lens is a w s o m e .

[Ian Stark]

As someone that lives in the UK, and therefore does not have easy access to the DVi sponsors, I'm sure DVi won't object to me adding a comment here!

I also bought the Red Eye and despite the fact that it is obviously not zoom through (which isn't a major issue for me), I think it is a lovely piece of glass.

In certain conditions I have noticed some minor colour fringing and distortion but generally I'm very happy.

The only real disappointment was not being able to use it in conjunction with my Formatte matte box because the adaptor for that is also a screw in. No wide horizons with the grad ND for me!

[Prashanna Jayaseelan]

Hey Peter,
I own an XL2 also and was looking into getting a Wide Angle Lens - would you ming posting up frame grabs of your default lens and the red wide angle in action.

Thanks