Considering Buying Anamorphic Adapter, But Have Heard Horror Stoires...Help?

P

Paul Fontaine

New member
Users,

I have a 100A and would like to shoot a project with the anamorphic adapter, but was told by a salesman that they are essentially a pain in the butt, break easily, and are poorly made -- mostly from plastic.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Specifically, he said that the set screw gets stripped, and either the adapter spins freely around making it useless, or worse, it cannot be removed from the lens.

I have a faint recollection of someone installing a brass reinforcement socket into the adapter, but I'm uncomfortable modifying a brand new lens.

And are the depth of field issues a major problem or not?

PF
 
Human error and general stupidity could be the cause of those problems.

I wouldn't say its poorly made. It just requires a little too much effort to mount it. It would be great if it mounted like the lens protector.

Drawbacks:

1. Knocks down about one stop of light. Could be a good thing, I guess, depending on the situation. But usually not.

2. Kinda heavy - but this should be expected with a lens add-on.

3. Makes focusing a little harder.

4. Makes getting a shallow depth-of-field a lot harder.

5. Requires alignment when mounting...and re-alignment when it gets bumped during use.

Benefits:

1. It does what its designed to do - getting you a 16x9 image without wasting CCD area on black bars.

Sqeeze mode can do this too, but you are technically sacrificing a little bit of vertical resolution by using it...even if you can't see it.
 
I have that adptor. I must agree with the mounting, it's a bit--. Once you get used to it thogh, I don't think you will ever want to shoot without it. Yes the focus is harder and the dof is hard as well. Remebr one thing thogh, The dvx is not a out of the box camera; I must say so is this lense. If you take your time filming with it and exploring all possible aspects flaws and benifts and so on, you will see that this lense rocks. I had troubles focusing the dam thing at first. After a week or so of shooting b-roll, I got it just the way I want it. I can't imagin one day filming without it. There is a big difrence when i see it in my eyes shooting squeeze mode. Compare both and you will see squeeze doesint even come close. In barry green's book which i recomend to everybody(should have been the dam manual for the cam) you will see on the dvd that comes with it the diffrence. I shot it in both ways and believe me it's noticable. This lense rocks. If there is horror stories its probably because thje mounting. The lense is awesome. I shot a freinds wedding who is a DP. He told me he loved it even thogh my camera work could have used a bit more training in terms of movment, the picture came out great. If you have doubts about it I recomend u rent this bad boy. You will see the first thing you will do is search for deals on the dam thing.

You will not regret buying it.
 
I have to agree with vortex. I've worked with a DVX on a bunch of projects and finally bought my own with an anamorphic adapter a few weeks ago. At first, I had difficulty with it. But after working with a DOF chart and a little practice, I can't shoot my narrative projects without it. Especially if you might want to shoot in a 2.35:1 ratio.
 
I love mine, I plan on using it at least 90% of the time on future projects, I'm going to use it to try a 2.35:1 A/R on my next project.
 
Ok I have seen an anamorphic lens second hand for about US$400. I am wondering if the benifits outway the drawbacks. I am using my DVX to shoot short films with a feature in pre production for next year. For the feature obviously image quality is paramount however depth of field is also up there. Im thinking that its best to spend that money on a Rowe dollie and shoot full frame, cropping it to 16x9 in post production. The drawbacks seem to far out way the positives at the normal price point but as this is very cheap I am reconsidering. Another thing to consider is that alot of the feature will take place at night and in darkened spots I dont want to further cripple the camera by adding the requirement of more light.

What do you think?

Thanks

- Ryan
 
you have to remember that the dvx has pretty good low lite sensitivity, so I don't think it really hurts that much.

I do think 900 is a little steep for one, but I would get one at 400 or 500(i paid 500 for mine)

I have been shooting in low lite setups these past few weeks and the performance has been pretty acceptable.
 
What i think is if ur shooting in the night u need to pump alot of light anyways other wise it wont look good at all. Dv at least for me is a curse when shooting in the dark. You need alot of lights to get a good picture. This may sound corney but for my shorts i used a night after dark filter for doing night shots. I know what u mean its a pain draging a generator and lights but for night shooting u must have it. Is your shorts going to be transfered to film? If so i recomend u get the lense. 400 us. I say jump at that deal. Some on this site have spent 900 or so on this. This is a awesome investment that u will never regret.
 
Hi Vortex,

I sincerely doubt that I will get the movie printed on to film, its more of the idea that after shooting a film getting financing and what not will be made easier (assuming that its good).

The problem is that the budget is only around a couple of grand which will easily be eaten up by catering. The reason to keep the movie dark is that we dont have much of a lighting budget, we will only light what is required dramatically, the script itself takes into effect any sort of grainyness that the footage may contain. It should add to the over all atmosphere of the movie.

Im thinking though if I have to spend money somewhere it should be on getting good camera movement. We have used a wheelchair and magic arm for the last few years but misuse and abuse (usually by crew clowning around) have made the ride alot bumpier than it should be.

I know I should buy the DVXuser book which has better examples on the difference in resolution.

Another aspect that I am thinking is as the film will be destined to play at a few festivals but mainly be used as a DVD calling card for the cast and crew it might be best to shoot full frame but frame it for 16x9, then crop it for festivals/wide screen tv's and leave it full frame for possible TV broadcast and a general DVD release.

It just seems to me, from the stories, that the adapter is more trouble than its worth. I would have to part with that sort of money on something thats going to be impratical. The problem is that the guy who is selling the lens lives on another island from me and therefore its a pain in the ass to go and have a play with it.

As I have never used it im relying on you guys to tell me the pro's and cons of it. As you can probably tell im biassed towards getting the dolly, however its best to investigate these things.


- Ryan
 
Thanks for your remarks. I have a problem now. The seller of the lens had this to say when I asked about the stripped screw issue:

Yes, the set screw is slightly, and I mean, slightly, stripped. It locks down and stays put on the camera, no problem at all. The only thing different is how you remove the lens. Normally, the screw would hold the inner ring still inside the lens and detach from the camera. Now, you just rotate the lens off by hand. It turns a half circle and simply pops off. That's it. It's actually easier to get off, if you believe that. Putting it back on is still the same, just removing it is a bit different.

Is this a problem or not? I may not pay for the winning bid on eBay and take a hit on my feedback. What's your advice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top