All About 16:9 Anamorphic Lens Adapter

Tom Hardwick · April 8th, 2006, 01:36 PM

And the easy decision is to sell the 4:3 PD 170s while they still have solid market value and buy into the FX1 + beachtek DXA-4 and have 16:9 right out of the box. You get the Zeiss T* coating which really shames the Sony coatings as used on the PD/VX, though you lose the wonderful long telephoto of the PD, its fast f/2.4 max aperture and the quite amazing low light capability.

But the price of the FX1 must/should make you dither over the stop-gap anamorphic. These lenses are taking their last gasp of air of course, as more and more cameras shoot 16:9 onto native widescreen chips.

C'mon, you know it's the way to go. All your Li-ions will carry over and you'll feel right at home with the FX1 within the hour. Better yet, bite the bullet and go for the Z1, that way you'll be set up for the next 5 years, not just the next two.

tom.

Lamar Lamb · April 8th, 2006, 01:44 PM

Yes, I know. Thats been tormenting me now for some time. I like the pro features the Z1 offers. Does it use the same type of automatic audio gain limiter as the PD170 or is it the pumping style Auto Gain?

Tom Hardwick · April 8th, 2006, 01:48 PM

It just has to be the same or better Lamar. Why would Sony degrade the excellent limiter as used in the VX/PD when the next generation of cameras were announced?

Bob Harotunian · April 8th, 2006, 03:22 PM

Bob & Tom - Thanks for the in-depth information. I think it will help with a big decision some of us will have to make.

Boyd Ostroff · April 9th, 2006, 09:38 AM

I'd have to cast my vote with Tom - give the FX1 and Z1 some serious consideration. They are the logical next step from the VX and PD with lots of nice upgrades. An with the Z1 you can shoot both PAL and NTSC.

Bob Harotunian · April 9th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

I'd have to cast my vote with Tom - give the FX1 and Z1 some serious consideration. They are the logical next step from the VX and PD with lots of nice upgrades. An with the Z1 you can shoot both PAL and NTSC.

I agree with you both and the Z1 is tempting because it's the 16:9 viewing format that has real value right now. But we are talking about a $9K camera upgrade since I would need 2 Z1s. And that's if I shoot 16:9 for SD only. From what I gather, the price goes much higher for a full HD conversion.
Bob

Boyd Ostroff · April 9th, 2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Harotunian

From what I gather, the price goes much higher for a full HD conversion.

Why is that? Can't your computer and software handle HDV? You might also consider using FX1's for one or both cameras. But regardless, buying anamorphic lenses wouldn't interest me. I made that choice 3 years ago when I needed to work in widescreen. I bought a PDX-10 instead of an anamorphic lens for the VX-2000. That's another low cost option for SD work. The PDX-10 was just discontinued, but you can probably still find them. Last I checked, B&H had them for $1,700.

Tom Hardwick · April 10th, 2006, 12:49 AM

Or how about an FX1+Beachtek and an HC3 as backup? The HC3 is top loading and is Sony rated at 5 lux as against the HC1/A1 at 7 lux. It looks a tempting little cam.

tom.

Bob Harotunian · April 10th, 2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Why is that? Can't your computer and software handle HDV? You might also consider using FX1's for one or both cameras. But regardless, buying anamorphic lenses wouldn't interest me. I made that choice 3 years ago when I needed to work in widescreen. I bought a PDX-10 instead of an anamorphic lens for the VX-2000. That's another low cost option for SD work. The PDX-10 was just discontinued, but you can probably still find them. Last I checked, B&H had them for $1,700.

Boyd,
I have a realtively new Dell 8400 P4 w/2GB RAM and 250GB of internal storage. I have Matrox RTx.100/PP1.5.1 and I think Matrox has an HD upgrade available. If I go HD, I'm assuming I'll need an HD VTR(will not use camera), HD recorder(when DVDs are available), player and widescreen monitor. From what I gather, I'll need more computer storage also. I'm sure I'm missing other needs. Heck, I just spent $200 on an ArtBeats SD 4:3 clip for future projects. Looks like any 4:3 video libraries would have to be updated also.

I agree that there are negative aspects of an anamorphic lens that I don't like but whatever direction one chooses, the upgrade will be costly. I'm a fan of HD having bought an HDTV over 3 years ago. But, we have not had one client ask for HD. Recently, 2 have asked about widescreen.

FX1 and ZU1 are options but both of these cams including the PDX-10 have been reported to be poor in low light.

My original post was about the CO 1.33 anamorphic lens and for $1,200+, I'm now thinking it might not be the answer for wedding work based on what people have posted. Hopefully, time will show the way.
Bob

Tom Hardwick · April 10th, 2006, 07:46 AM

I think your last paragraph summarises it nicely. As to the Z1's low light ability, it's but one stop off the PD170 - the known king-of-the-hill. That puts it ahead of nearly every other cam on the market - especially at this price point.

Boyd Ostroff · April 10th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Harotunian

FX1 and ZU1 are options but both of these cams including the PDX-10 have been reported to be poor in low light.

Have you seen our low light "sticky"?...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

Personally I would guess that the FX1 was more like 1.5 stops slower than the PD-150/VX-2000 - but Tom may very well be right. And anyway, the clean gain boost helps to level the playing field a lot. Also, if working in SD you can gain another stop by using 1/30 (or 1/25 PAL) shutter speed without losing any resolution on the Z1, unlike the 50% hit you take on the SD Sony cameras.

John C. Chu · April 10th, 2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Harotunian

My original post was about the CO 1.33 anamorphic lens and for $1,200+, I'm now thinking it might not be the answer for wedding work based on what people have posted. Hopefully, time will show the way.
Bob

Isn't only the new full zoom thru Century Anamorphic that costs that much?

The partial zoom thru is considerably less[I think around $700?]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=0&image.y=0

I also see a used onE on B&H for $549.

Lou Bruno · May 19th, 2006, 06:12 AM

My friend has just loaned me a 16:9 Century Optic Anamorphic lens. The lens came with a bayonet mount for the PD150/VX2000. I am unable to SECURE the bayonet without it turning.....can't get it to lock in.

Maybe, some Century Optics owners can help?

BTW: I went to the CO site and read the instructions to no avail.

Thanks,
LOU

Boyd Ostroff · May 19th, 2006, 07:21 AM

I haven't used their PD-150 lenses, but I have a couple for my Z1 and am *guessing* they might be the same. There's an outer ring that has a little white dot on it. Turn this ring until it aligns with another white dot on the lens itself. The dots need to be together in the 12 o'clock position when you put the lens on, and it should the bayonet. Now, hold the outer ring and rotate the lens body clockwise (facing the front of the camera) while keeping the ring stationary. This should engage the lock tightly as you turn.

Like I said, that's the way the Z1 lenses work but it could be different on your camera...

Bob Hart · May 19th, 2006, 09:22 AM

The bayonet fittings look similar on the mounting ring to the lens hood but the method of securing is different.

The two dots are aligned as described above, the device is slipped on over the bayonet lugs, rotated clockwise with both dots kept close together until the rotation stops, then the device (one dot) itself is furthur turned clockwise inside the outer ring until it binds onto the front face of the camcorder lugs.

The two dots end up about an inch apart by the time this position is reached.

This has the effect of clamping the device firmly to the camcorder around the entire circumference of the mount, rather than a small thumbscrew lock which would permit the heavy lens to rock.

The Sony lens hood is plastic.The lens is metal and to have metal as a tight fit with a permanent clamping spring would wear the plastic camera body fairly quickly. The method adopted by Century Optics is obviously intended to avoid that.

Once the lens has been firmly secured, you then need to go to the the thumbscrew on the lens, back this off so that you can then rotate the optics inside the lens body to align the stretch, then lock the lens with the thumbscrew again.

It is only the front 7mm or so which sticks out in front that you can rotate. This turns the whole optical assembly inside the outer body.

It may be that the camera mount is already worn or the 16:9 lens has been tampered with. It is an easy fix.

Your will see on a raised section towards the mountface, a small flatheaded screw sheltered in a recess. This is a screw which is a simple limit stop.

It allows the clamping collar only a certain amount of movement otherwise it would be to hard to find the right clearance for mounting the lens and then tightening up without a lot of botheration.

If the inner body of the lens is striking the limit stop and not screwing in to clamping pressure on the camcorder lugs before the limit stop is reached, you could try backing this screw off until the inner body moves freely again furthur clockwise to screw in furthur to clamping pressure.

Depending on any wear to the camcorder body, retightening the limit stop screw may put it in the wrong position for dismounting the lens or it may even bind the lens and ring tight.

If there has been no wear, then it might simply be a case of the limit screw having been loosened by casual experimentation, the mount having been disturbed whilst off the camera, then the screw tightened in again with the ring one full thread out of position.

In a circumstance of face wear on the camcorder, to restore the position of the inner body you might need to compensate for wear by making a very thin washer of shim foil and placing this inside the mount where the face bears against the camcorder.

Wear of this magnitude is a very unlikely circumstance and if the mount is hitting a stop before the inner body tightens up against the face, then the most likely fault will be the limit stop screw having been loosened and the stop inadventently altered.

The mounting method is not easily learned even with the written instructions provided. The most common cause of mounting problems is not knowing or being able to work out the method. Once learned it is easy and convenient.

Re-alignment of the centre section after each dismount is recommended as despite popular belief, this lens does not go back on again in the exact postion every time. If left mounted to the camera in transport, the position can also become altered.

April 8th, 2006, 01:44 PM	#107
Lamar Lamb Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Baxley, Georgia Posts: 103	Yes, I know. Thats been tormenting me now for some time. I like the pro features the Z1 offers. Does it use the same type of automatic audio gain limiter as the PD170 or is it the pumping style Auto Gain? __________________ Lamar

May 19th, 2006, 06:12 AM	#118
Lou Bruno Go Cycle Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Huntington, NY Posts: 815	16:9 Century Optic Anamorphic lens question My friend has just loaned me a 16:9 Century Optic Anamorphic lens. The lens came with a bayonet mount for the PD150/VX2000. I am unable to SECURE the bayonet without it turning.....can't get it to lock in. Maybe, some Century Optics owners can help? BTW: I went to the CO site and read the instructions to no avail. Thanks, LOU __________________ Lou Bruno

April 8th, 2006, 01:36 PM	#106
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	And the easy decision is to sell the 4:3 PD 170s while they still have solid market value and buy into the FX1 + beachtek DXA-4 and have 16:9 right out of the box. You get the Zeiss T* coating which really shames the Sony coatings as used on the PD/VX, though you lose the wonderful long telephoto of the PD, its fast f/2.4 max aperture and the quite amazing low light capability. But the price of the FX1 must/should make you dither over the stop-gap anamorphic. These lenses are taking their last gasp of air of course, as more and more cameras shoot 16:9 onto native widescreen chips. C'mon, you know it's the way to go. All your Li-ions will carry over and you'll feel right at home with the FX1 within the hour. Better yet, bite the bullet and go for the Z1, that way you'll be set up for the next 5 years, not just the next two. tom.

April 8th, 2006, 01:48 PM	#108
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	It just has to be the same or better Lamar. Why would Sony degrade the excellent limiter as used in the VX/PD when the next generation of cameras were announced?

April 8th, 2006, 03:22 PM	#109
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	Bob & Tom - Thanks for the in-depth information. I think it will help with a big decision some of us will have to make.

April 9th, 2006, 09:38 AM	#110
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I'd have to cast my vote with Tom - give the FX1 and Z1 some serious consideration. They are the logical next step from the VX and PD with lots of nice upgrades. An with the Z1 you can shoot both PAL and NTSC.

April 10th, 2006, 12:49 AM	#113
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Or how about an FX1+Beachtek and an HC3 as backup? The HC3 is top loading and is Sony rated at 5 lux as against the HC1/A1 at 7 lux. It looks a tempting little cam. tom.

April 10th, 2006, 07:46 AM	#115
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I think your last paragraph summarises it nicely. As to the Z1's low light ability, it's but one stop off the PD170 - the known king-of-the-hill. That puts it ahead of nearly every other cam on the market - especially at this price point.

May 19th, 2006, 07:21 AM	#119
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I haven't used their PD-150 lenses, but I have a couple for my Z1 and am guessing they might be the same. There's an outer ring that has a little white dot on it. Turn this ring until it aligns with another white dot on the lens itself. The dots need to be together in the 12 o'clock position when you put the lens on, and it should the bayonet. Now, hold the outer ring and rotate the lens body clockwise (facing the front of the camera) while keeping the ring stationary. This should engage the lock tightly as you turn. Like I said, that's the way the Z1 lenses work but it could be different on your camera...

May 19th, 2006, 09:22 AM	#120
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	The bayonet fittings look similar on the mounting ring to the lens hood but the method of securing is different. The two dots are aligned as described above, the device is slipped on over the bayonet lugs, rotated clockwise with both dots kept close together until the rotation stops, then the device (one dot) itself is furthur turned clockwise inside the outer ring until it binds onto the front face of the camcorder lugs. The two dots end up about an inch apart by the time this position is reached. This has the effect of clamping the device firmly to the camcorder around the entire circumference of the mount, rather than a small thumbscrew lock which would permit the heavy lens to rock. The Sony lens hood is plastic.The lens is metal and to have metal as a tight fit with a permanent clamping spring would wear the plastic camera body fairly quickly. The method adopted by Century Optics is obviously intended to avoid that. Once the lens has been firmly secured, you then need to go to the the thumbscrew on the lens, back this off so that you can then rotate the optics inside the lens body to align the stretch, then lock the lens with the thumbscrew again. It is only the front 7mm or so which sticks out in front that you can rotate. This turns the whole optical assembly inside the outer body. It may be that the camera mount is already worn or the 16:9 lens has been tampered with. It is an easy fix. Your will see on a raised section towards the mountface, a small flatheaded screw sheltered in a recess. This is a screw which is a simple limit stop. It allows the clamping collar only a certain amount of movement otherwise it would be to hard to find the right clearance for mounting the lens and then tightening up without a lot of botheration. If the inner body of the lens is striking the limit stop and not screwing in to clamping pressure on the camcorder lugs before the limit stop is reached, you could try backing this screw off until the inner body moves freely again furthur clockwise to screw in furthur to clamping pressure. Depending on any wear to the camcorder body, retightening the limit stop screw may put it in the wrong position for dismounting the lens or it may even bind the lens and ring tight. If there has been no wear, then it might simply be a case of the limit screw having been loosened by casual experimentation, the mount having been disturbed whilst off the camera, then the screw tightened in again with the ring one full thread out of position. In a circumstance of face wear on the camcorder, to restore the position of the inner body you might need to compensate for wear by making a very thin washer of shim foil and placing this inside the mount where the face bears against the camcorder. Wear of this magnitude is a very unlikely circumstance and if the mount is hitting a stop before the inner body tightens up against the face, then the most likely fault will be the limit stop screw having been loosened and the stop inadventently altered. The mounting method is not easily learned even with the written instructions provided. The most common cause of mounting problems is not knowing or being able to work out the method. Once learned it is easy and convenient. Re-alignment of the centre section after each dismount is recommended as despite popular belief, this lens does not go back on again in the exact postion every time. If left mounted to the camera in transport, the position can also become altered.