PDX10 with Matteblox and Century .65WA at DVinfo.net

Neftali Cano · January 24th, 2004, 09:37 PM

http://www.ncano.com/_wsn/page2.html

I just posted some quick pics of my new PDX10 outfitted with a Century Optics .65 WA convertor and a Matteblox hood from cinetactics.com. I have only had this package for a few days and only today shot some footage with the WA convertor on in 4x3 as well as in 16x9.

Even at this writing I have yet to review the footage on my monitor but I'm sure I will be happy with it. I was planning on posting some pics with quicktime movies on a temporary home page on a .mac site, but i just spent a few hours playing with the very limited homepage builder and since my mastery of HTML "sucks!" I was unable to do so at this time.

Please excuse the poor quality of the pics...they were taken with my ole sony 1.3 megapixel camera which has seen better days. On that note does anyone have any recommendation/s for affordable webhosting where I can get quicktime streaming services? The site I'm currently using is a basic cookie cutter from register.com and obviously I have had to accept the very basic layout of my website.

My prior experience with web-building stemmed from using FrontPage, however since I have migrated over to Macs in the last 2 years I have yet to find another WYSIWYG web editor for use on the Mac. I know Dreamweaver seems to be the default web builder on the Mac platform.

Anyway, when I can I will upload some pics from my PDX10 with adapter on in 4x3 and 16x9 for those who are interested. I will also include my 2 cents worth review of both the WA convertor from Century Optics and the Matteblox from cinetactics...

Boyd Ostroff · January 24th, 2004, 10:08 PM

Very cool Neftali! I have a couple websites hosted at olm.net and have been very happy with their service and cost, but I don't really do any streaming as such. Do a search here because there has been a lot of discussion of web hosting in the other forums.

Now I'm a diehard old unix hacker, so I do all my web design by hand coding html in the vi text editor using a command line unix shell! Not for everybody, but you can write very compact code that loads quickly and is easy to maintain. Now that Macs run under unix it fits into this approach very nicely.

Steve Tapping · January 25th, 2004, 03:21 AM

Nice. I am interested in the Century wide angle how is it?
Can you post some frames with and without it?
0.65 may not be wide enough for me, but is the lens worth the money.
It is full zoom through isnt it.
That lens hood looks nice.

Anyone know of any really good lens hoods for the PDX10 or Windbreakers for the mic?

Neftali Cano · January 25th, 2004, 10:19 PM

The last 2 days here in El Paso have been very windy and cloudy. I probably won't get a chance to post some shots up until this weekend.

On some quick shots I did not notice any viginetting (hate to spell that word...) on any part of my zoom from full wide to full zoom (optical only, never use the digital feature). I of course viewed this on my monitor (normal NTSC TV...I do have a small Panasonic monitor with undrescan and will setup that as well later).

I used both the Mattteblox hood and the oversize lens hood included with the PDX10. The Century WA fits nicely with the included hood and sits back about 1 inch from the edge of the hood.

I also did not decern any real distoration with vertical lines when opened full wide, common with other WA lenes I have used before.

With regard to the Matteblox, It looks great once it's attached, but due to the small outer diameter of the Century lens (65mm) it's barely staying attached with the Matteblox's small rubber fingers placed on the inside of the hood. I may buy a step up ring for the Century's 62mm inner thread to bump it up to another available size. Cinetactics sells a custom built 72mm ring which I believe has some mounting points for these rubber fingers. this adapter was developed for DVX users so that they could attach filters/cover even with the Matteblox attached. only problem is that this adapter runs about $38 plus $7.50 for shipping, yuk!

Anyway, I'll be posting some pic's this weekend.

Steve Tapping · January 31st, 2004, 03:30 AM

Hey Nef did you get around to doing those frames from the .65x?
I'm very interested in finding out how wide .65 actually is and how it performs in 16:9, full zoom and how it deals with sunlight eg Flares & smears.

Neftali Cano · January 31st, 2004, 07:56 AM

It's 6am here in El Paso as I write this, so by this afternoon I will grab some frames of the adapter on/off and post them on a temp disk I have with .mac

But, my initial impressions are it's a winner. I have full zoom thru according to my lcd display, but I will test with my Panasonic monitor w/underscan to be sure. To check for flares/glare I will try these shots without the lenns hood (large one of course) , with the lens hood on and even with my new matteblox (cinetactics.com).

With regard to 16x9 (of which I'm new to) I will shoot in this mode rarely and as I suspected I'm having a hard time outputting this format on any of my normal monitors (their all 4x3). I know one gets the squeezed look so I guess one needs a true widescreen tv for this? I thought (mistakenly) that the image would be converted to an image with black bars on my normal 4x3 monitors, but I was wrong.

I use FCP 3.0 and express and both of these can handle the 16x9 image and it does preview nicely on the screen,but Iguess I need to research how to out put my 16x9 footage and have it output to a 4x3 format correctly (does that make sense?).

Anyway, I will post some pics by days end...

Boyd Ostroff · January 31st, 2004, 10:01 AM

If you want to letterbox your 16:9 footage in FCP it's very simple. Just create a standard 4:3 sequence and drop your 16:9 clips into it. They will be automatically letterboxed to fit. Of course you will need to render the results.

Now if you want to "future proof" your work you could always shoot and edit in 16:9 which would preserve the full quality of the PDX-10's 16:9. Then as a final step, drop the finished edited sequence into a 4:3 sequence and you'll create a letterboxed version.

Another approach would be to simply burn the finished 16:9 sequence onto a DVD. If you make it properly (see various other threads around here on this topic) then any standard DVD player will automatically letterbox to fit a 4:3 TV. This is probably the best of all possible worlds since you can work completely in 16:9 with no need to make two different versions of your project. If you need a 4:3 VHS copy you can make this with a letterbox by hooking your recorder up to a DVD player.

Neftali Cano · February 1st, 2004, 07:22 PM

Just posted some quick pics of my pdx10 with the century optics wa convertor. I have pretty much full zoom thru and no viginetting at full wide when i use the included lens hood, but slight viginetting when used at full wide with a Matteblox hood. I did notice some slight distorations of vertical lines at full wide...but much less than other wa lens I have used before. Heres a link to the page. I tried to getter better pics on a .mac server, but that did not fly so heres a few pics on my site for what it's worth.

http://www.ncano.com/_wsn/page5.html

Steve Tapping · February 1st, 2004, 10:37 PM

very nice, I think I will buy it.
Does it have any focus issues all the way through the zoom?
I prefer the photos with the Century lens and Hoya filter on.
The sky seems to be washed out without it in the top right photo.
Looks as though it is JUST

Steve Tapping · February 1st, 2004, 10:38 PM

Sorry
Looks as though it is JUST wide enough for what I want.
You have a great set-up

Neftali Cano · February 2nd, 2004, 06:06 PM

Steve

I did not notice any problems focusing with the adapter on. That is I usually focus manually and not in auto mode. I find that the Sony's auto focus is very slow and quick to change.

I am too happy with the lens for it's intended purpose in my work...that is interior shots of properties such as homes and apt.s. I took advantage of the PDX's small form to be used in concert with my glidecam and cobra crane. My setups with my PD100a previously were more difficult (which is approx 2lbs more in weight similarly outfitted). Using the PDX10 with it's 2 lb reduction has made a big difference for me.

Tom Hardwick · February 7th, 2004, 11:56 AM

The PDX10 cries out for a wide-angle converter - any wide-angle converter. Please.

The PDX10’s 12x zoom goes from 3.6 to 43.2mm, which in 35mm terms is 49mm to 588mm. Calling the lens a wide-angle to telephoto zoom is abusing the term ‘wide-angle’ rather, and the camera cries out for a 0.7x wide-angle converter to be used at all times. When the camera’s switched to the 16:9 mode the view widens appreciably as the full width of the three 1152 x 864 chips is being used. This is the same as fitting a 0.8x wide-angle converter and filming in the 4:3 mode. It’s still far from wide, but is much more useful. Generally wide-angle shooting avoids hose piping, it allows the microphones to get in close and it smoothes out camera shake – splendid attributes for run and gun shooting.

tom.

January 24th, 2004, 09:37 PM	#1
Neftali Cano New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 23	PDX10 with Matteblox and Century .65WA http://www.ncano.com/_wsn/page2.html I just posted some quick pics of my new PDX10 outfitted with a Century Optics .65 WA convertor and a Matteblox hood from cinetactics.com. I have only had this package for a few days and only today shot some footage with the WA convertor on in 4x3 as well as in 16x9. Even at this writing I have yet to review the footage on my monitor but I'm sure I will be happy with it. I was planning on posting some pics with quicktime movies on a temporary home page on a .mac site, but i just spent a few hours playing with the very limited homepage builder and since my mastery of HTML "sucks!" I was unable to do so at this time. Please excuse the poor quality of the pics...they were taken with my ole sony 1.3 megapixel camera which has seen better days. On that note does anyone have any recommendation/s for affordable webhosting where I can get quicktime streaming services? The site I'm currently using is a basic cookie cutter from register.com and obviously I have had to accept the very basic layout of my website. My prior experience with web-building stemmed from using FrontPage, however since I have migrated over to Macs in the last 2 years I have yet to find another WYSIWYG web editor for use on the Mac. I know Dreamweaver seems to be the default web builder on the Mac platform. Anyway, when I can I will upload some pics from my PDX10 with adapter on in 4x3 and 16x9 for those who are interested. I will also include my 2 cents worth review of both the WA convertor from Century Optics and the Matteblox from cinetactics... __________________ NEF

January 25th, 2004, 10:19 PM	#4
Neftali Cano New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 23	First impressions... The last 2 days here in El Paso have been very windy and cloudy. I probably won't get a chance to post some shots up until this weekend. On some quick shots I did not notice any viginetting (hate to spell that word...) on any part of my zoom from full wide to full zoom (optical only, never use the digital feature). I of course viewed this on my monitor (normal NTSC TV...I do have a small Panasonic monitor with undrescan and will setup that as well later). I used both the Mattteblox hood and the oversize lens hood included with the PDX10. The Century WA fits nicely with the included hood and sits back about 1 inch from the edge of the hood. I also did not decern any real distoration with vertical lines when opened full wide, common with other WA lenes I have used before. With regard to the Matteblox, It looks great once it's attached, but due to the small outer diameter of the Century lens (65mm) it's barely staying attached with the Matteblox's small rubber fingers placed on the inside of the hood. I may buy a step up ring for the Century's 62mm inner thread to bump it up to another available size. Cinetactics sells a custom built 72mm ring which I believe has some mounting points for these rubber fingers. this adapter was developed for DVX users so that they could attach filters/cover even with the Matteblox attached. only problem is that this adapter runs about $38 plus $7.50 for shipping, yuk! Anyway, I'll be posting some pic's this weekend. __________________ NEF

January 31st, 2004, 07:56 AM	#6
Neftali Cano New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 23	Results with CO WA .65 It's 6am here in El Paso as I write this, so by this afternoon I will grab some frames of the adapter on/off and post them on a temp disk I have with .mac But, my initial impressions are it's a winner. I have full zoom thru according to my lcd display, but I will test with my Panasonic monitor w/underscan to be sure. To check for flares/glare I will try these shots without the lenns hood (large one of course) , with the lens hood on and even with my new matteblox (cinetactics.com). With regard to 16x9 (of which I'm new to) I will shoot in this mode rarely and as I suspected I'm having a hard time outputting this format on any of my normal monitors (their all 4x3). I know one gets the squeezed look so I guess one needs a true widescreen tv for this? I thought (mistakenly) that the image would be converted to an image with black bars on my normal 4x3 monitors, but I was wrong. I use FCP 3.0 and express and both of these can handle the 16x9 image and it does preview nicely on the screen,but Iguess I need to research how to out put my 16x9 footage and have it output to a 4x3 format correctly (does that make sense?). Anyway, I will post some pics by days end... __________________ NEF

February 1st, 2004, 07:22 PM	#8
Neftali Cano New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 23	Wide shots with Century Optics .65 WA convertor Just posted some quick pics of my pdx10 with the century optics wa convertor. I have pretty much full zoom thru and no viginetting at full wide when i use the included lens hood, but slight viginetting when used at full wide with a Matteblox hood. I did notice some slight distorations of vertical lines at full wide...but much less than other wa lens I have used before. Heres a link to the page. I tried to getter better pics on a .mac server, but that did not fly so heres a few pics on my site for what it's worth. http://www.ncano.com/_wsn/page5.html __________________ NEF

February 2nd, 2004, 06:06 PM	#11
Neftali Cano New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 23	Focus... Steve I did not notice any problems focusing with the adapter on. That is I usually focus manually and not in auto mode. I find that the Sony's auto focus is very slow and quick to change. I am too happy with the lens for it's intended purpose in my work...that is interior shots of properties such as homes and apt.s. I took advantage of the PDX's small form to be used in concert with my glidecam and cobra crane. My setups with my PD100a previously were more difficult (which is approx 2lbs more in weight similarly outfitted). Using the PDX10 with it's 2 lb reduction has made a big difference for me. __________________ NEF

January 24th, 2004, 10:08 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Very cool Neftali! I have a couple websites hosted at olm.net and have been very happy with their service and cost, but I don't really do any streaming as such. Do a search here because there has been a lot of discussion of web hosting in the other forums. Now I'm a diehard old unix hacker, so I do all my web design by hand coding html in the vi text editor using a command line unix shell! Not for everybody, but you can write very compact code that loads quickly and is easy to maintain. Now that Macs run under unix it fits into this approach very nicely.

January 25th, 2004, 03:21 AM	#3
Steve Tapping Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Australia WA Posts: 41	Nice. I am interested in the Century wide angle how is it? Can you post some frames with and without it? 0.65 may not be wide enough for me, but is the lens worth the money. It is full zoom through isnt it. That lens hood looks nice. Anyone know of any really good lens hoods for the PDX10 or Windbreakers for the mic?

January 31st, 2004, 03:30 AM	#5
Steve Tapping Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Australia WA Posts: 41	Hey Nef did you get around to doing those frames from the .65x? I'm very interested in finding out how wide .65 actually is and how it performs in 16:9, full zoom and how it deals with sunlight eg Flares & smears.

January 31st, 2004, 10:01 AM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	If you want to letterbox your 16:9 footage in FCP it's very simple. Just create a standard 4:3 sequence and drop your 16:9 clips into it. They will be automatically letterboxed to fit. Of course you will need to render the results. Now if you want to "future proof" your work you could always shoot and edit in 16:9 which would preserve the full quality of the PDX-10's 16:9. Then as a final step, drop the finished edited sequence into a 4:3 sequence and you'll create a letterboxed version. Another approach would be to simply burn the finished 16:9 sequence onto a DVD. If you make it properly (see various other threads around here on this topic) then any standard DVD player will automatically letterbox to fit a 4:3 TV. This is probably the best of all possible worlds since you can work completely in 16:9 with no need to make two different versions of your project. If you need a 4:3 VHS copy you can make this with a letterbox by hooking your recorder up to a DVD player.

February 1st, 2004, 10:37 PM	#9
Steve Tapping Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Australia WA Posts: 41	very nice, I think I will buy it. Does it have any focus issues all the way through the zoom? I prefer the photos with the Century lens and Hoya filter on. The sky seems to be washed out without it in the top right photo. Looks as though it is JUST

February 1st, 2004, 10:38 PM	#10
Steve Tapping Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Australia WA Posts: 41	Sorry Looks as though it is JUST wide enough for what I want. You have a great set-up

February 7th, 2004, 11:56 AM	#12
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The PDX10 cries out for a wide-angle converter - any wide-angle converter. Please. The PDX10’s 12x zoom goes from 3.6 to 43.2mm, which in 35mm terms is 49mm to 588mm. Calling the lens a wide-angle to telephoto zoom is abusing the term ‘wide-angle’ rather, and the camera cries out for a 0.7x wide-angle converter to be used at all times. When the camera’s switched to the 16:9 mode the view widens appreciably as the full width of the three 1152 x 864 chips is being used. This is the same as fitting a 0.8x wide-angle converter and filming in the 4:3 mode. It’s still far from wide, but is much more useful. Generally wide-angle shooting avoids hose piping, it allows the microphones to get in close and it smoothes out camera shake – splendid attributes for run and gun shooting. tom.