Just got the Century .6x and 1.6x lenses

William Gardner · February 1st, 2006, 09:00 AM

I also noticed that radial CA correction seemed to work very well on this image.

Does anybody know if there is software that performs CA correction on video? I've seen some packages that do this on still images. It wouldn't be hard to do the same for video, but I haven't found anything that does it...

Bill

Joe Lumbroso · February 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM

Forgive me for digressing from the topic at hand. Also forgive me for being a dyslexic, unlearned, dumb ass. I have a couple questions.

1. What does the 'x' in 0.6x, 1.6x, etc.. on telephoto lenses represent?

2. Am I correct in my understanding that the longer the focal length of my lens, the narrower my depth of field becomes?

Boyd Ostroff · February 1st, 2006, 06:59 PM

Joe: the x represents the multiplication symbol. So, the Z1's published lens spec (in 35mm still camera equivalence) is 390mm at full zoom. Adding the 1.6x teleconvertor gives us a 35mm equivalent of 390 x 1.6 = 624mm. In other words, the teleconvertor multiplies the camera's built-in lens 1.6 times. Yes, your understanding of narrow depth of field is correct.

William: interesting point. I'm not aware of any software but maybe someone else is.

Joe Lumbroso · February 2nd, 2006, 02:47 PM

Boyd, thanks for breaking that down for me. All this is starting to make sense now.

Is there a 1.6x teleconverter you'd recommend that is between the $300-$500 range for the Z1 or should I just cut down on my drinking for a week and get the Century?

Boyd Ostroff · February 2nd, 2006, 04:59 PM

The century is the only one I've used, but the following thread might be of interest: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686

Mick Jenner · February 7th, 2006, 11:35 AM

Boyd,

Thankyou for the info re the lens hood. I did a quick check round over this side of the pond about the offer you got. Nobody had heard of it. A quick e-mail to century in the States put me in touch with the Uk imports, who match the deal. I am now the the owner of the said hood having collected from them at the Video Forum show being held here in London at the moment.

regards

Mick.

Boyd Ostroff · February 7th, 2006, 12:45 PM

Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.

Mick Jenner · February 7th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.

I'm useing it with with the 1.6. Could have done with it a couple of weeks ago when filming cheetahs in the Masai Mara when it suddenly rained, it would have helped to keep the rain off as it was falling almost straight down. Still we located them the following day and got some good footage.

Joel Corral · February 7th, 2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Corfield

Your abandoned factory is an interesting place. But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter! Seen on the LHS of your picture. I've been using an old Canon C-8 1.4 teleconverter ($50 on ebay) and the aberration I get is no worse. I can even see similar problems using the Sony wide angle converter, except that the aberation now appears on the RHS of the picture. Look carefully in shots with high contrast on the RHS. I blame the standard lens, you can see aberration when it's fully zoomed in (LHS), but you really have to look for it. Shows up with high contrast subjects.

i also use the canon c-8 1.4x and i use the 1.6x as well... very nice... for 1/10th of the price... thats the way to go...!!!

joel

oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!! times 12x (STOCK ZOOM) = 36x!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think i am crazy? i post some pics so you can compare the century...

joel

Jack D. Hubbard · February 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM

Hi Boyd

An addendum to my earlier e-mail to you (feel free to post it): A polarizing 4 x 4 filter only sort of works in the lens shade for the Century W/A lens. You really need a fully rotating holder that you get on a matte box to get the full force and effect of the polarizer. But, the filters and the holders are beautiful, but expensive, about $150 a pop for the holder and or the filters.

Jack Hubbard

Joe Lumbroso · February 8th, 2006, 06:04 PM

Hi Joel,

Are you using the Canon C-8s with Z1/FX1 with John Jay's recipe? I've been considering this but want to hear some positive feedback as well as stills before making my final decision. If you would email me (joe [-at-] lumbroso.com) some stills, I could host them for this forum. Thanks.

William Gardner · February 8th, 2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel Corral

oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!!
joel

Minor correction, 1.4x "+" 1.6x = 2.24x (you multiply them, not add them).

Otherwise, B&H could sell you 5 nice 1.0x "teleconverters" to get
1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x = 5x.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

:)

Cheers,
Bill

Carroll Lam · February 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Corfield

But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter!

I would not condemn the Century 1.6X. Here's a couple of frame grabs that I did at maximum zoom without and with the 1.6X installed.

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

My close examination of the images says there's just about as much chromatic aberration with out the telephoto converter installed as there is with it. It's magnified by the teleconverter but I don't believe the converter adds much.

My observation is that the Century converter is not the CA culprit with the Z1U.

Carroll Lam

Boyd Ostroff · February 12th, 2006, 07:56 PM

Carroll, I have to agree with you. If you look at my frame grab taken with the builtin lens at full zoom you'll also see CA. I think the Century 1.6x has simply magnified it, like you say.

Carroll Lam · February 12th, 2006, 08:25 PM

You'd think Carl Zeiss could do better. 8-)

Carroll Lam

February 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM	#17
Joe Lumbroso Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 110	Huzzah for internet film school! Forgive me for digressing from the topic at hand. Also forgive me for being a dyslexic, unlearned, dumb ass. I have a couple questions. 1. What does the 'x' in 0.6x, 1.6x, etc.. on telephoto lenses represent? 2. Am I correct in my understanding that the longer the focal length of my lens, the narrower my depth of field becomes? __________________ Brilliant Champions \| Gallery Hijinks

February 2nd, 2006, 02:47 PM	#19
Joe Lumbroso Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 110	Boyd, thanks for breaking that down for me. All this is starting to make sense now. Is there a 1.6x teleconverter you'd recommend that is between the $300-$500 range for the Z1 or should I just cut down on my drinking for a week and get the Century? __________________ Brilliant Champions \| Gallery Hijinks

February 8th, 2006, 10:53 AM	#25
Jack D. Hubbard Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Menlo Park, CA Posts: 342	Lens Shade Hi Boyd An addendum to my earlier e-mail to you (feel free to post it): A polarizing 4 x 4 filter only sort of works in the lens shade for the Century W/A lens. You really need a fully rotating holder that you get on a matte box to get the full force and effect of the polarizer. But, the filters and the holders are beautiful, but expensive, about $150 a pop for the holder and or the filters. Jack Hubbard

February 8th, 2006, 06:04 PM	#26
Joe Lumbroso Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 110	Hi Joel, Are you using the Canon C-8s with Z1/FX1 with John Jay's recipe? I've been considering this but want to hear some positive feedback as well as stills before making my final decision. If you would email me (joe [-at-] lumbroso.com) some stills, I could host them for this forum. Thanks. __________________ Brilliant Champions \| Gallery Hijinks

February 1st, 2006, 09:00 AM	#16
William Gardner Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 216	I also noticed that radial CA correction seemed to work very well on this image. Does anybody know if there is software that performs CA correction on video? I've seen some packages that do this on still images. It wouldn't be hard to do the same for video, but I haven't found anything that does it... Bill

February 1st, 2006, 06:59 PM	#18
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Joe: the x represents the multiplication symbol. So, the Z1's published lens spec (in 35mm still camera equivalence) is 390mm at full zoom. Adding the 1.6x teleconvertor gives us a 35mm equivalent of 390 x 1.6 = 624mm. In other words, the teleconvertor multiplies the camera's built-in lens 1.6 times. Yes, your understanding of narrow depth of field is correct. William: interesting point. I'm not aware of any software but maybe someone else is.

February 2nd, 2006, 04:59 PM	#20
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The century is the only one I've used, but the following thread might be of interest: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686

February 7th, 2006, 11:35 AM	#21
Mick Jenner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: West Sussex England Posts: 843	Boyd, Thankyou for the info re the lens hood. I did a quick check round over this side of the pond about the offer you got. Nobody had heard of it. A quick e-mail to century in the States put me in touch with the Uk imports, who match the deal. I am now the the owner of the said hood having collected from them at the Video Forum show being held here in London at the moment. regards Mick.

February 7th, 2006, 12:45 PM	#22
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-) Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.

February 12th, 2006, 07:56 PM	#29
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Carroll, I have to agree with you. If you look at my frame grab taken with the builtin lens at full zoom you'll also see CA. I think the Century 1.6x has simply magnified it, like you say.

February 12th, 2006, 08:25 PM	#30
Carroll Lam Contributor Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 128	You'd think Carl Zeiss could do better. 8-) Carroll Lam