DVX Semi-Fisheye Lens project, $100

Obin Olson · March 18th, 2004, 08:16 AM

amazing! got mine done it's awesome, a new creative shooting style! LOVE IT!!! Neil would you say that it is as good as a 800$ wideangle glass lens?

Jaser Stockert · March 18th, 2004, 09:10 AM

neil, is there anyway you can compare it to century's .3x fisheye(at it's widest setting before it vignettes)? also, any way you can post another picture w/ a foreground object or persons face close to the lens to truly see its distorted capabilities? thanks!

Neil Slade · March 20th, 2004, 01:16 AM

A few new frame grabs posted on the page to show the extreme distorted effects-
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html

***Note- there is NO VIGNETTING with my lens seen on a TV or monitor or on the camera's LCD screenEVER. EVEN AT THE WIDEST SETTING. Thank you thank you, Frontal Lobes Lens Design at work here. You'll only see out outside the "safe" area when editing on your software ONLY in 4:3 at the very widest setting. You won't see vignetting it AT ALL in widescreen letterbox on either a TV oreven when editing. Good news if you're making a movie or working widescreen.

Again, my guess is that the $800 probably looks better under a microscope, but I don't think most of us who are even considering building our own stuff would even care if the difference is minimal for 1/8th the cost. I am sure it's not a GREAT difference if there are differences- just an educated guess since I don't have my hands on the Century Optics .3X.

Again, its almost certainly not like the difference between a $100 CAMERA and an $800 camera. I'm happy with it, and it sounds like the first guy here to build his is pretty damn happy with his too. The Century Optics is 2 element, and quite a bit bigger at 112mm outside front diameter. Mine is just 1 element and conveniently compact, 75mm outside front diameter- simple as it gets.

**************
By the way, I think it is SO COOL when somebody else makes something you invent yourself... and it works just like you said it will. Congratulations to Obin!
Anything you would like to add concerning the construction, Obin?

**************

Tom, thanks for the info on Aspherical lenses, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew of such lenses, but had filed this under irrelevant since I can't afford such a seemingly wonderful product. Maybe they're available used?
Anyway, you must have adapted it to your DVX with a step-up ring? step down ring?

Neil Slade · March 20th, 2004, 01:41 AM

How DO you attach your Asperon to work with the DVX?

The DVX is 72mm, and it looks like the back side (towards the camera) is a much smaller diameter-- yes? no?

Thanks

Barry Schmetter · March 22nd, 2004, 03:05 PM

Raynox sells the same .3x lens in a 58mm thread mount. I wonder if using a 72mm-58mm step-down ring would be suitable? The rear surface of the 3x lens would be a little further from the front surface of the DVX lens, but it might be fine. Possibly a litttle bit of vignetting. Anyone try this?

Obin Olson · March 22nd, 2004, 04:04 PM

Neil your instructions are AWESOME! one thing I did was cut the corners off the lens shade to kill any plastic showing up in the wideangle viewframe ;) also if anyone has a table sander like I do just take your lens shade that Neil says to CUT and sand the hell outa the back till it's flat and it looks sooo much nicer then cutting it ;))

Neil you should see the focus puller that I and my brother are making it is SICK@@@@!!! we are going to sell it when it's ready!

Tom Hardwick · March 23rd, 2004, 02:41 AM

Best to remember Neil that a lot of video projectors project the FULL frame onto the screen, so what I do in such circumstances is have a black rectangular frame applied along the length of my timeline. This is never visible on a conventional TV because of the screen masking (ug!) but when the film's projected it's just that little more 'letterbox' up there.

Well spotted. The Aspheron actually has an 85mm attachment thread halfway up the back of the lens. You can get an adapter to go from this to 72mm, 62mm, 58mm - whatever you want.

Barry - I think you're asking for blacked out corners with your Raynox .3x converter. The 72mm filter thread of the Leica lens sure looks cool but it limits the lenses that can be sucessfully used without vignetting.

Obin - remember that the most efficient hood is a petal hood, not a circular or even an aspect ratio hood.

tom.

Barry Schmetter · March 23rd, 2004, 01:17 PM

Tom-- I think you might have things a bit mixed up. The large 72mm filter diameter on the DVX makes it LESS likely that filters or add-on lenses will vignette. This is why you can use an add-on lens like the Raynox that is designed for lenses with filter threads up to 67mm.

Neil's mod still plugs into the 72mm filter threads--it just uses the Cokin 72mm filter adapter. The question is what are the distances between the rear surface of the Raynox lens and the front surface of the DVX lens with each configuration. And just as important, how critical is that distance?

The 58mm screw-in version (MX-3000PRO) is the same lens with a threaded mount instead of a clip on mount (XL-3000PRO), but it also lacks the "hood" of the clip on version--it has a small lip around the lens (for protection). So on that account, it may be less prone to vignetting.

Bottom line is, someone needs to try it out and see if it works. If so, there's no reason for the glueing and grinding. Just order the MX-3000PRO and a 72mm-58mm step-down ring and you're set.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/semi-fisheye/egmx3000pro.htm

Jaser Stockert · March 23rd, 2004, 02:06 PM

i was checking the raynox site and found the DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye which will produce slightly more distortion. from reading its specs, i believe it has a 62mm thread so one will need a 72mm-62mm step down ring. do you guys think it will vignette? i need a fisheye for an upcoming music video shoot so i'm willing to be the guinea pig on this one if nobody has tried it out yet. check out the video clip of the car driving by!

Obin Olson · March 23rd, 2004, 02:24 PM

Jaser, you don't need anything more then this lens for music vid...this thing is WIDE and WEIRD if you put it in someones face ;)

Tom Hardwick · March 24th, 2004, 01:07 AM

OK, tom's thoughts.

Jaser - a true fisheye lens intentionally vignettes any rectangular frame by putting a circular image within the frame's perimeter. The true fisheye sees 180 degrees in all directions. Semi-fish eyes vignette less, and FFFE (full frame fisheyes) don't black the corners at all. Yes, the Raynox 0.24 will vignette but then it's designed to, it's part of its appeal.

Barry, I obviously confused you with my wording, and I assure you I'm not mixed up. I have a Panasonic MX300 (43mm filter thread) and a VX2k (58mm filter thread) I have 3 wide-angle converters that don't vignette the Panasonic's image yet they all vignette when used on the Sony. They vignette even more on the DVX100, partly due to that Leica lens seeing wider in the first place, and partly because the entry pupils on the converters are so small.

One good thing about the DVX is the OIS, and being internal means that the front element really is a front element. On Sony's VX/PD range the front element of the zoom has this whacking great flapping vari-angle prism attached to it - meaning that wide-angle converters are pushed further away and will tend to vignette even more.

tom.

Jaser Stockert · March 24th, 2004, 08:12 AM

tom, what do you think about barry's thoughts on the mx-3000pro 58mm screw in vs. neil's mod xl-3000pro? if i can avoid the glueing and grinding, the all the better...thanks...

Barry Schmetter · March 24th, 2004, 01:02 PM

Jaser,

The DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye and the MX-3000PRO are both good candidates to try on the DVX.

The DCR-FE180 would be the superior choice--it's a newer 5 element/4 group design as opposed to the single element MX/XL-3000PRO. If you look at the comparison photos, you can see the DCR-FE-180 is sharper and has better contrast. Which it should for $350.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcrfe180pro/dcrfe180proindexeg.htm

Just to (hopefully) clear up some haze here-- the difference between a fisheye and semi-fisheye lens is the degree of f-theta distortion of the lens. f-theta distortion is the amount that objects are distorted as they move away from the center of the frame.

A semi-fisheye lens will distort objects to a lesser degree as they move away from frame center. How much less? Not much, by looking at Raynox's comparison images. In fact, it looks like they have roughly similar degrees of hemispheric distortion, but slightly different angles of view.

The distinction Tom is making above actually refers to the difference between full frame fisheye lenses and circular image fisheye lenses, however both are still considered true fisheyes (because the f-theta distortion mapping is similar).

Both Raynox lenses are full frame fisheyes.

Neil Slade · March 30th, 2004, 06:10 PM

per the above-- my lens sits up RIGHT against the rectangular inner lens shade-- and I barely escape vignetting.

Using the raynox with 58mm threads you are going to experience significant vignetting unless the less projects backwards from the stepup ring, unlikely scenario. I don't think this will work nearly as well as the DIY set up.

Barry Schmetter · March 30th, 2004, 11:13 PM

Neil--I still think it's worth trying. Do you notice a marked increase in vignetting as you unscrew the cokin ring? If not, the step-down ring config may be fine. Also, what do you mean by significant vignetting? I consider vignetting significant if it intrudes into the safe area of the image--otherwise it's a minor annoyance.

Barry

March 20th, 2004, 01:16 AM	#18
Neil Slade Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Denver Posts: 131	By special Request A few new frame grabs posted on the page to show the extreme distorted effects- http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html *Note- there is NO VIGNETTING with my lens seen on a TV or monitor or on the camera's LCD screenEVER. EVEN AT THE WIDEST SETTING. Thank you thank you, Frontal Lobes Lens Design at work here. You'll only see out outside the "safe" area when editing on your software ONLY in 4:3 at the very widest setting. You won't see vignetting it AT ALL in widescreen letterbox on either a TV oreven when editing. Good news if you're making a movie or working widescreen. Again, my guess is that the $800 probably looks better under a microscope, but I don't think most of us who are even considering building our own stuff would even care if the difference is minimal for 1/8th the cost. I am sure it's not a GREAT difference if there are differences- just an educated guess since I don't have my hands on the Century Optics .3X. Again, its almost certainly not like the difference between a $100 CAMERA and an $800 camera. I'm happy with it, and it sounds like the first guy here to build his is pretty damn happy with his too. The Century Optics is 2 element, and quite a bit bigger at 112mm outside front diameter. Mine is just 1 element and conveniently compact, 75mm outside front diameter- simple as it gets. ********** By the way, I think it is SO COOL when somebody else makes something you invent yourself... and it works just like you said it will. Congratulations to Obin! Anything you would like to add concerning the construction, Obin? ************ Tom, thanks for the info on Aspherical lenses, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew of such lenses, but had filed this under irrelevant since I can't afford such a seemingly wonderful product. Maybe they're available used? Anyway, you must have adapted it to your DVX with a step-up ring? step down ring?

March 20th, 2004, 01:41 AM	#19
Neil Slade Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Denver Posts: 131	TOM How DO you attach your Asperon to work with the DVX? The DVX is 72mm, and it looks like the back side (towards the camera) is a much smaller diameter-- yes? no? Thanks

March 30th, 2004, 06:10 PM	#29
Neil Slade Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Denver Posts: 131	58mm with stepup ring per the above-- my lens sits up RIGHT against the rectangular inner lens shade-- and I barely escape vignetting. Using the raynox with 58mm threads you are going to experience significant vignetting unless the less projects backwards from the stepup ring, unlikely scenario. I don't think this will work nearly as well as the DIY set up.

March 18th, 2004, 08:16 AM	#16
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	amazing! got mine done it's awesome, a new creative shooting style! LOVE IT!!! Neil would you say that it is as good as a 800$ wideangle glass lens?

March 18th, 2004, 09:10 AM	#17
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	neil, is there anyway you can compare it to century's .3x fisheye(at it's widest setting before it vignettes)? also, any way you can post another picture w/ a foreground object or persons face close to the lens to truly see its distorted capabilities? thanks!

March 22nd, 2004, 03:05 PM	#20
Barry Schmetter Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Washington DC Posts: 38	Raynox sells the same .3x lens in a 58mm thread mount. I wonder if using a 72mm-58mm step-down ring would be suitable? The rear surface of the 3x lens would be a little further from the front surface of the DVX lens, but it might be fine. Possibly a litttle bit of vignetting. Anyone try this?

March 22nd, 2004, 04:04 PM	#21
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	Neil your instructions are AWESOME! one thing I did was cut the corners off the lens shade to kill any plastic showing up in the wideangle viewframe ;) also if anyone has a table sander like I do just take your lens shade that Neil says to CUT and sand the hell outa the back till it's flat and it looks sooo much nicer then cutting it ;)) Neil you should see the focus puller that I and my brother are making it is SICK@@@@!!! we are going to sell it when it's ready!

March 23rd, 2004, 02:41 AM	#22
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Best to remember Neil that a lot of video projectors project the FULL frame onto the screen, so what I do in such circumstances is have a black rectangular frame applied along the length of my timeline. This is never visible on a conventional TV because of the screen masking (ug!) but when the film's projected it's just that little more 'letterbox' up there. Well spotted. The Aspheron actually has an 85mm attachment thread halfway up the back of the lens. You can get an adapter to go from this to 72mm, 62mm, 58mm - whatever you want. Barry - I think you're asking for blacked out corners with your Raynox .3x converter. The 72mm filter thread of the Leica lens sure looks cool but it limits the lenses that can be sucessfully used without vignetting. Obin - remember that the most efficient hood is a petal hood, not a circular or even an aspect ratio hood. tom.

March 23rd, 2004, 01:17 PM	#23
Barry Schmetter Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Washington DC Posts: 38	Tom-- I think you might have things a bit mixed up. The large 72mm filter diameter on the DVX makes it LESS likely that filters or add-on lenses will vignette. This is why you can use an add-on lens like the Raynox that is designed for lenses with filter threads up to 67mm. Neil's mod still plugs into the 72mm filter threads--it just uses the Cokin 72mm filter adapter. The question is what are the distances between the rear surface of the Raynox lens and the front surface of the DVX lens with each configuration. And just as important, how critical is that distance? The 58mm screw-in version (MX-3000PRO) is the same lens with a threaded mount instead of a clip on mount (XL-3000PRO), but it also lacks the "hood" of the clip on version--it has a small lip around the lens (for protection). So on that account, it may be less prone to vignetting. Bottom line is, someone needs to try it out and see if it works. If so, there's no reason for the glueing and grinding. Just order the MX-3000PRO and a 72mm-58mm step-down ring and you're set. http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/semi-fisheye/egmx3000pro.htm

March 23rd, 2004, 02:06 PM	#24
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	i was checking the raynox site and found the DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye which will produce slightly more distortion. from reading its specs, i believe it has a 62mm thread so one will need a 72mm-62mm step down ring. do you guys think it will vignette? i need a fisheye for an upcoming music video shoot so i'm willing to be the guinea pig on this one if nobody has tried it out yet. check out the video clip of the car driving by!

March 23rd, 2004, 02:24 PM	#25
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	Jaser, you don't need anything more then this lens for music vid...this thing is WIDE and WEIRD if you put it in someones face ;)

March 24th, 2004, 01:07 AM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	OK, tom's thoughts. Jaser - a true fisheye lens intentionally vignettes any rectangular frame by putting a circular image within the frame's perimeter. The true fisheye sees 180 degrees in all directions. Semi-fish eyes vignette less, and FFFE (full frame fisheyes) don't black the corners at all. Yes, the Raynox 0.24 will vignette but then it's designed to, it's part of its appeal. Barry, I obviously confused you with my wording, and I assure you I'm not mixed up. I have a Panasonic MX300 (43mm filter thread) and a VX2k (58mm filter thread) I have 3 wide-angle converters that don't vignette the Panasonic's image yet they all vignette when used on the Sony. They vignette even more on the DVX100, partly due to that Leica lens seeing wider in the first place, and partly because the entry pupils on the converters are so small. One good thing about the DVX is the OIS, and being internal means that the front element really is a front element. On Sony's VX/PD range the front element of the zoom has this whacking great flapping vari-angle prism attached to it - meaning that wide-angle converters are pushed further away and will tend to vignette even more. tom.

March 24th, 2004, 08:12 AM	#27
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	tom, what do you think about barry's thoughts on the mx-3000pro 58mm screw in vs. neil's mod xl-3000pro? if i can avoid the glueing and grinding, the all the better...thanks...

March 24th, 2004, 01:02 PM	#28
Barry Schmetter Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Washington DC Posts: 38	Jaser, The DCR-FE180PRO .24x fisheye and the MX-3000PRO are both good candidates to try on the DVX. The DCR-FE180 would be the superior choice--it's a newer 5 element/4 group design as opposed to the single element MX/XL-3000PRO. If you look at the comparison photos, you can see the DCR-FE-180 is sharper and has better contrast. Which it should for $350. http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcrfe180pro/dcrfe180proindexeg.htm Just to (hopefully) clear up some haze here-- the difference between a fisheye and semi-fisheye lens is the degree of f-theta distortion of the lens. f-theta distortion is the amount that objects are distorted as they move away from the center of the frame. A semi-fisheye lens will distort objects to a lesser degree as they move away from frame center. How much less? Not much, by looking at Raynox's comparison images. In fact, it looks like they have roughly similar degrees of hemispheric distortion, but slightly different angles of view. The distinction Tom is making above actually refers to the difference between full frame fisheye lenses and circular image fisheye lenses, however both are still considered true fisheyes (because the f-theta distortion mapping is similar). Both Raynox lenses are full frame fisheyes.

March 30th, 2004, 11:13 PM	#30
Barry Schmetter Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Washington DC Posts: 38	Neil--I still think it's worth trying. Do you notice a marked increase in vignetting as you unscrew the cokin ring? If not, the step-down ring config may be fine. Also, what do you mean by significant vignetting? I consider vignetting significant if it intrudes into the safe area of the image--otherwise it's a minor annoyance. Barry