All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter

Mike Rehmus · March 13th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Justin, yes.

Don, Thanks

Justin Strock · March 14th, 2003, 11:45 AM

mike,

so you do know a place round here that rents such a beast, eh?

i floated you an email about this.

-justin

Mike Rehmus · March 14th, 2003, 01:10 PM

I haven't seen the email yet.

I'd give Adoph Gasser's a try. Or call Century and ask them who has it for rent.

Justin Strock · March 14th, 2003, 02:55 PM

Gasser's ain't got it. but i will try calling Century, that's a good idea.

almost considered the PDX10 for this reason, but we have the 950s at school and i don't like them. plus i wanted the low light capability and i like the built-in handle when you have a big honking mic off the front.

wish i could have waited to see if an update was in store at NAB, but my project is now.

Mike Carroll · May 8th, 2003, 04:51 PM

I am prepping to shoot a feature-length film on DV. I was planning to do this anyway, but after just seeing PERSONAL VELOCITY, I am even more encouraged.

I like the 1.85 shooting ration. Actually, I'd love to shoot wider in something like Cinemascope if it were available.

The camera will be a SONY PD-150.

This camera has 16:9 capability, but I've been hearing about ANAMORPHIC adapters and that shooting in 16:9 reduces the number of picture lines and resolution. I thought that 16:9 squeezed the 4:3 lines down - or widened them out.

Could anyone explain the technical difference?

Thanks.

Matt Stahley · May 8th, 2003, 06:07 PM

Mike there have been tons of threads concerning this here on DVinfo. I tried to post a link to the search but it only linked the search page not the results. Do a search here and you will find all kinds of input. Here is another link that may help.

http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm

Boyd Ostroff · May 8th, 2003, 07:49 PM

Yes, there really has been extensive discussion of this recently. I suggest you browse through the PDX-10, XL-1 and PD-150 forums going back a week or two. Some of the discussions are ongoing still.

But in a nutshell, the PD-150 creates the 16:9 effect by just cropping off the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. Then it stretches it anamorphically so it will be recocognized on a widescreen TV. But basically you've reduced the horizontal resolution of your image to 360 lines. See some examples I posted at http://greenmist.com/pdx10

Also, not to nitpick, but the correct aspect ratio for 16:9 is 1.78. However if you'd like to play with the cinema effect I suggest you visit this site http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm. Here you can download some chroma key mattes and put them on a memory stick, then use the memory mix function to letterbox at 1.85 or 2.35. Of course in doing this you are even further reducing your vertical resolution, but it might be fun to experiment with...

There are a couple inexpensive cameras now that can shoot in "real" 16:9, notably the PDX-10 and DV-953 from Panasonic.

Mike Rehmus · May 9th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Boyd,

You meant to say that it reduces the vertical resolution to 360 lines, didn't you?

Boyd Ostroff · May 9th, 2003, 11:34 AM

Oops, yep you're right Mike, mea culpa!

Dave Lammey · May 13th, 2004, 08:03 PM

Is anyone using a widescreen adaptor (such as the ones sold by century optics or optex) with their vx2000/2100 or PD-150/170?

How do you like it? Are you getting distortion or vignetting?

The reason I'm asking is because it looks like for the next several years, the best sub-$5000 widescreen camera setup for wedding videographers (i.e., those who need good lowlight performance) is going to be a VX2000/PD-150 with an anamorphic adaptor. But I've heard mixed reviews on them. Would love to hear more from those who have actually used them.

Tom Hardwick · May 14th, 2004, 01:36 PM

There are mixed feelings about using anamorphics. First off you won't be able to focus so close and you'll lose a lot of wide-angle (though you'll gain a bit from the amamorphic itself - which is a wide-angle converter in the horizontal plane only). Your side-screen and viewfinder will both be distorted (horizontally compressed images) and this will take some getting used to if you're not using a 16:9 monitor while shooting. You'll get more flare and you'll need a good 16:9 hood.

On the plus side you'll beat the 16:9 of the PDX10 hands down. You'll be confident that the next camera up that's just noticeably better costs 3x as much. But remember this - 16:9 footage is less backwards compatible than 4:3. Older TVs will show it distorted and I find (doing lots of weddings a year) that if I shoot 4:3 then they can show it on whatever TV they like - the TV remote control can squeeze it, push it, bend it, shape it anyway they want it. Hey - this sounds like a song from the Small Faces in the 1960s.

tom.

Tommy Haupfear · May 14th, 2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

On the plus side you'll beat the 16:9 of the PDX10 hands down.

How so?

Tom Hardwick · May 15th, 2004, 04:33 AM

Gosh, where do I start? Low light sensitivity (3.5 stops better) more wide-angle, better DOF control, know what aperture and ND you're shooting with. much less CCD smear, longer battery life, 6 bladed diaphragm and reliable 'display' info. But then it's a lot more money, weight and bulk...

tom.

Tommy Haupfear · May 15th, 2004, 05:55 PM

I see how those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality but just comparing widescreen to widescreen the PDX10 is of higher resolution than a VX2000/VX2100 with an anamorphic adapter.

Stephen Rota · May 15th, 2004, 06:02 PM

Hi there I am practically new here, I would like to purchase a camcorder mainly for short films, and am considering mainly the pd170.
how does the 170's 16:9 hold, would anyone who shoots in this mode with the 170 for a competition be crazy do you feel that an anamorphic adapter is the way to go?
I have been reading reviews all over the place. some say that the panasonic dvx100 is the way to go if you want to do films. but the 100 and 170 are very close to colour reproductions and so on.
could anyone suggest me the way to go? sort of I feel that although the pana is a later technology the sony is still very good.

March 13th, 2003, 09:18 PM	#31
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Justin, yes. Don, Thanks __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

March 14th, 2003, 01:10 PM	#33
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I haven't seen the email yet. I'd give Adoph Gasser's a try. Or call Century and ask them who has it for rent. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

May 8th, 2003, 04:51 PM	#35
Mike Carroll New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 16	16:9 Versus Anamorphic Adapter? I am prepping to shoot a feature-length film on DV. I was planning to do this anyway, but after just seeing PERSONAL VELOCITY, I am even more encouraged. I like the 1.85 shooting ration. Actually, I'd love to shoot wider in something like Cinemascope if it were available. The camera will be a SONY PD-150. This camera has 16:9 capability, but I've been hearing about ANAMORPHIC adapters and that shooting in 16:9 reduces the number of picture lines and resolution. I thought that 16:9 squeezed the 4:3 lines down - or widened them out. Could anyone explain the technical difference? Thanks. __________________ Mike Carroll Sacramento, CA

May 9th, 2003, 10:34 AM	#38
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Boyd, You meant to say that it reduces the vertical resolution to 360 lines, didn't you? __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

May 13th, 2004, 08:03 PM	#40
Dave Lammey Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Simsbury, CT Posts: 247	Widescreen adaptors Is anyone using a widescreen adaptor (such as the ones sold by century optics or optex) with their vx2000/2100 or PD-150/170? How do you like it? Are you getting distortion or vignetting? The reason I'm asking is because it looks like for the next several years, the best sub-$5000 widescreen camera setup for wedding videographers (i.e., those who need good lowlight performance) is going to be a VX2000/PD-150 with an anamorphic adaptor. But I've heard mixed reviews on them. Would love to hear more from those who have actually used them.

March 14th, 2003, 11:45 AM	#32
Justin Strock New Boot Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oakland, CA Posts: 16	mike, so you do know a place round here that rents such a beast, eh? i floated you an email about this. -justin

March 14th, 2003, 02:55 PM	#34
Justin Strock New Boot Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Oakland, CA Posts: 16	Gasser's ain't got it. but i will try calling Century, that's a good idea. almost considered the PDX10 for this reason, but we have the 950s at school and i don't like them. plus i wanted the low light capability and i like the built-in handle when you have a big honking mic off the front. wish i could have waited to see if an update was in store at NAB, but my project is now.

May 8th, 2003, 06:07 PM	#36
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	Mike there have been tons of threads concerning this here on DVinfo. I tried to post a link to the search but it only linked the search page not the results. Do a search here and you will find all kinds of input. Here is another link that may help. http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm

May 8th, 2003, 07:49 PM	#37
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Yes, there really has been extensive discussion of this recently. I suggest you browse through the PDX-10, XL-1 and PD-150 forums going back a week or two. Some of the discussions are ongoing still. But in a nutshell, the PD-150 creates the 16:9 effect by just cropping off the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. Then it stretches it anamorphically so it will be recocognized on a widescreen TV. But basically you've reduced the horizontal resolution of your image to 360 lines. See some examples I posted at http://greenmist.com/pdx10 Also, not to nitpick, but the correct aspect ratio for 16:9 is 1.78. However if you'd like to play with the cinema effect I suggest you visit this site http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm. Here you can download some chroma key mattes and put them on a memory stick, then use the memory mix function to letterbox at 1.85 or 2.35. Of course in doing this you are even further reducing your vertical resolution, but it might be fun to experiment with... There are a couple inexpensive cameras now that can shoot in "real" 16:9, notably the PDX-10 and DV-953 from Panasonic.

May 9th, 2003, 11:34 AM	#39
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Oops, yep you're right Mike, mea culpa!

May 14th, 2004, 01:36 PM	#41
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	There are mixed feelings about using anamorphics. First off you won't be able to focus so close and you'll lose a lot of wide-angle (though you'll gain a bit from the amamorphic itself - which is a wide-angle converter in the horizontal plane only). Your side-screen and viewfinder will both be distorted (horizontally compressed images) and this will take some getting used to if you're not using a 16:9 monitor while shooting. You'll get more flare and you'll need a good 16:9 hood. On the plus side you'll beat the 16:9 of the PDX10 hands down. You'll be confident that the next camera up that's just noticeably better costs 3x as much. But remember this - 16:9 footage is less backwards compatible than 4:3. Older TVs will show it distorted and I find (doing lots of weddings a year) that if I shoot 4:3 then they can show it on whatever TV they like - the TV remote control can squeeze it, push it, bend it, shape it anyway they want it. Hey - this sounds like a song from the Small Faces in the 1960s. tom.

May 15th, 2004, 04:33 AM	#43
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Gosh, where do I start? Low light sensitivity (3.5 stops better) more wide-angle, better DOF control, know what aperture and ND you're shooting with. much less CCD smear, longer battery life, 6 bladed diaphragm and reliable 'display' info. But then it's a lot more money, weight and bulk... tom.

May 15th, 2004, 05:55 PM	#44
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I see how those factors could add up to give better overall picture quality but just comparing widescreen to widescreen the PDX10 is of higher resolution than a VX2000/VX2100 with an anamorphic adapter.

May 15th, 2004, 06:02 PM	#45
Stephen Rota Tourist Join Date: May 2004 Location: malta Posts: 3	Hi there I am practically new here, I would like to purchase a camcorder mainly for short films, and am considering mainly the pd170. how does the 170's 16:9 hold, would anyone who shoots in this mode with the 170 for a competition be crazy do you feel that an anamorphic adapter is the way to go? I have been reading reviews all over the place. some say that the panasonic dvx100 is the way to go if you want to do films. but the 100 and 170 are very close to colour reproductions and so on. could anyone suggest me the way to go? sort of I feel that although the pana is a later technology the sony is still very good.