BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

OB1

OB1

Active member
Please, which is the best anamorphic lens for the DVX100A?

Is the "new" Century version out that supposedly allows for reduced "issues" in using this lens - i.e.; focus probelms, etc. ?

disjectas uprezz work is not going to work for me as he explained it best suited for 10 min. work or shorter.

Ultimately I want increased resolution, true 16:9 for DVD format as well as wider viewing angle. Which product will deliver these requirements with the least demand on me in the field (focus adjustment/re-setting,etc.)?

thank you all ! ::) ::) ::) ::)
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

The Century version is still in developement. No projected availability yet. At the present time the Panasonic unit is the only one I am aware of that is compatible with the DVX100/100A.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

That is too small for the Panasonic DVX, it was designed for Camera's like the Canon GL1/2 and Sony VX2000/2100 PD150/170 that have a 58mm filter/accessory size. It would vignette severly at all but the longer focal lengths.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Bill, is Century Optics still committed in producing an anamorphic lens for the DVX or are we wishing on a star? I know its been awhile and there have been some issues in producing a working model. But with more companies leaning towards producing true 16:9 cameras, do you think the window of opportunity is gone for a DVX Century Optics anamorphic lens?
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Ernest:

The long and so far incomplete project to produce a quality 1.33X anamorphic for the Panasonic DVX100/100A (as well as the Canon XL1/1S/2) has been very frustrating. Optical manufacturing problems with these very sensitive cylindrical elements have been the root cause.

We have known for sometime that sooner or later true 16:9 versions of these cameras would lessen the need for this product. We felt that the large installed base of the older 4:3 cameras plus the possible interest in using an anamorphic on a 16:9 to achieve 2.35 scope (with the same benefits and using an anamorphic to achieve 16:9 on a 4:3 camera) would justify bringing the product to market.

Truthfully, the on going manufacturing problems at the prototype stage, unless solved in the not too distant future could jepordize the project.

Thankyou for you interest and your patience.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

I own the pana ana. And I think for what it does and the steps you have to go through to use it, the benefits don't warrant the cost.

Add the Anamorphic and you now have to spend a lot more time with focus and IRIS. Forget about trying to run and gun with the ana adapter added. You have to plan your shots with it. Which you should do anyway, but I notice using it really adds to the time I spend on a shot. In some cases doubles my setup time. Checking and rechecking vertical and horizontal focus.

Because of this I tend to not pay as close attention to other elements of the shot because I am worried about focus being off.

I just don't use it that often either, because of this. :-/

Just my Opinion.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

So how can you get the increased resolution without having to go through disjectas frame transfer/uprez/render process which even he admits will not be practical for long length production work?

All of my material right now is to be formatted for DVD. I really want the best resolution (+/-540 lines). Are there other programs/hardware devices to deliver this in post?
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Disjecta's method is the best one so far, in my experience. You can stretch the footage in most NLEs, to less than stellar results. Effects programs can do it as well, such as After Effects - but still, Photozoom has given me the best results.

The anamorphic really is the highest resolution way to go about it, and Disjecta's Photozoom trick seems to be the highest quality way to go about it while shooting spherically.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

You cannot get the increased resolution unless you use the anamorphic adapter.

Or, if you shoot on an XL2 or SDX900.

If you're shooting on the DVX, your choices are squeeze (about 350 lines, which is about as much as a TV can handle without flicker anyway, and is as much as a "native 16:9" Sony FX1 or PDX10 can deliver); or use the anamorphic adapter and get close to 540 lines.  Those are the choices.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Would you run and gun shooting widescreen film?  Even spherical shows shooting academy don't shoot from the hip.  To nail shots like you see in a feature or in a disjecta reel, you'll need time, patience and a certain technical discipline!

When we run and gun, we either shoot 4:3 or Squeeze with 16:9 project capture.  You could also just shoot 16:9 cropped.  If you really want an anamorphic show, you need to get into that David Lean mindset: properly set the camera (only one! - even for huge explosion sequences!) and then wait days for the clouds to look right.

;)
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

The more I see Disjecta's work the more I begin to focus on the need for increased resolution - (with wider field of view a very close second) for my own work. But my documentaries (for DVD) are slated to be lengthy and there's no way for that kind of rendering time on a 60+ min. running interactive DVD.

Having said that, however, it is worth noting that I am probably the most patient person on the planet. I really will fiddle with things to the point it drives people crazy just to get perfection. My hope is that I can handle the "work" that has to go into using the anamorphic adapter with my DVX100A. With the direction this thread has taken, this is what I want to confirm before I make the purchase on the "Pana ana".

Can someone please let me know HOW BAD IS IT to have to set up this device. Please don't sensationalize but don't "sugar coat" either. If it's really bad I want to know - but if it's like a lot of other things, you eventually get the feel for it and with the right experience in using it you'll "know" what to do then let me know that to.

Again - HOW BAD REALLY IS IT - this should be the revised subject now ;)

thanks so much.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Using the guides in the DVX book, proper focus can be had by adding maybe 10 seconds to each shot. But that depends on what your shooting conditions are... if you're in dim light, with full telephoto, it will be impossible to get proper focus under those conditions, so it really all depends on what situation you're in.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Barry, et. al.

Does the "focus by the numbers" chart for the DVX which I've seen floating around (I have a copy of it somewhere) still work with the Anamorphic lens, or does it by its nature change the focal characteristics?

Said another way, would a solution to the focus problems of the Anamorphic lens be to always focus by the numbers?
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

It needs to be modified for use with the anamorphic. I include an anamorphic version of the chart in the DVX Book.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

Oop! I should have looked at the book first before asking. My bad. :(

Thanks for answering anyway!!
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

I just got done reading the DVX Book and they say once you get the hang of it, it really can go quick. The only plus I can see is that you will learn a lot about cinematography and that can never hurt. But I myself am lamenting wether or not buying a DVX100A and now needing an anamophic adapter was better well spent on an XL2. Sure, I don't have the big view-finder but maybe that would have been ok to not have the hassles of the ana adapter.
 
Re: BEST ANAMORPHIC - WHICH ONE ?

I have taught myself not to get hung up on the reslolution problem. If you're running ang gunning on a doc, or doing interviews etc., the last thing your audience is going to notice is the rez. Get the content right, get the story right, get all your other techy parameters right - no-one's going to complain. My logic as a perfectionist is that fiidling with the ana in the above situations is possibly going to compromise the really important elements I've just mentioned.

On the other hand, whatever we're shooting, we all have our little 'set peices' - you know - the landscape cutaway, the 'eye candy' that punctuates any good story. Save the ana for that - take your time and set it up right - then at least YOU know (even if nobody else notices) that some shots are doing the DVX justice.

Anyway that's what I tell myself every time i look at the thing. In truth I wish I'd saved the money and bought the Century .6 wideangle ... :'(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top