HVX + Anamorphic Adapter = 2.35:1

Hi everyone. Very cool thread!

I am buying a HVX200 this weekend and intend to shoot using a 16:9 anamorphic with it. I wanted first of all to make sure the attachment we are talking about here and that Andy is using is the Panasonic's AG-LA7200G, right?

Also, I believe other than a 82mm to 72mm step-down ring, this thing fits the HVX200 lens natively, or if not, what else will it need to securely stay in place ? I will be doing a wild jungle expedition in the Amazon for 2 months for a show to be presented on a large venue video projector system in native 2.35:1 format.

What type of optical distortions should I realistically expect using the anamorphic adapter with the HVX200's lens at its maximum zoom tele and wide settings as far as color aberrations, soft focus, etc. go?

Also, Andy do you have any small sample footage you can post for download shot in 2.35:1?

Thanks! :)

Michael
 
Just shoot 16:9 in cam and crop in post. Much less of a headache. This is how starwars was done and it looked fine in theaters. (yeas different cam but same rez)
 
Wow! My best advice: test everything before you go to the Amazon for 2 months.

There are several things you need to know about the Anamorphic Adapter before using it in this application. Focusing the Anamorphic lens is not really easy. Its not something that lends itself to documentary or run-and-gun shooting.

I'll try to describe these considerations in more detail below.

I don't have any test footage to show you. I basically shot the 2.35:1 as an experiment to see if it would work.

Output: My understanding is that without a special projector and special lens, you either get 4:3 or 16:9. And if you play 16:9 on a 4:3 display, well, it's got to be letterboxed. So I assume that if you play 2.35:1 on a 16:9 display, its also letterboxed. You should test your workflow all the way through to the projector before you start shooting.

My reasoning about the Anamorphic Lens (yes, the one you mention is the one I used) is that an optical squeeze is better than cropping or letterboxing. Sure, you end up with the same resolution on the output side, but it could be sharper on the input side because you will start with more vertical resolution in the image before you shrink it down to letterbox in 16:9. Same reasoning goes for using the Anamorphic on the DVX rather than squeeze mode. You get a sharper image to start with that tends to hold up better when its blown up.

Right? With the DVX, you have 480x720 resolution. Letterbox crops that to 360x720. Squeeze mode crops it to 360x720 and digitally stretches it up to 480x720. So you have 480 pixels, but only 360 pixels worth of real detail stored in the 480 pixels. The anamorphic adapter on the DVX gives you 480x720 pixels of "real" detail, because the image is optically squeezed rather than digitally stretched. So the resulting image has 25% more information in the 480x720 pixels.

I imagine the same reasoning is valid with 720x1280 working in 2.35:1 instead of 16:9. Optical squeeze gives more detail.

One caveat before you run to use the Anamorphic adapter. It's not that easy to focus. The Anamorphic basically focuses in two locations -- one across the horizontal axis of the lens and one across the vertical axis of the lens -- because its not symmetrical.

To focus the anamorphic, you use autofocus to find the first focus distance. Then spin the adapter 90 degrees and use autofocus to find the second focus distance. Average between them and set the focus manually. Then everything will be equally blurry. Then stop down the iris to improve the depth of field until it covers both focal points and gives you an acceptable plane of focus between the two points. If you can't get an exposure with the iris closed down a couple of stops, then you have to either apply GAIN (which amplifies noise), or slow down the shutter (which exaggerates motion blur).

That might not be the process you were hoping for when shooting in the jungle.

A second caveat is that you won't have full use of your zoom. Any adapter lens on the front of the HVX is going to create some barrel distortion at one zoom extreme, and some vignetting at the other zoom extreme. You should borrow or rent an Anamorphic Adapter and test the usable zoom range first to see if the limitations are acceptable to you.

So I would strongly consider the previous advice to shoot 16:9 native on the HVX200 and crop in post if you need 2.35:1. Besides, that gives you 16:9 HD footage to work with later. AND you have more flexibility in post when cropping the image to get a better framing.

Also, if you need the extra resolution, another approach might be to shoot in 1080. Of course that just totally eats up memory.

If you decide to use or perhaps try out the adapter, then all you need is the Anamorphic Adapter and the 82mm-72mm step-down ring.

At your service.
 
Last edited:
Andy, thanks a million for the input. Everything you say makes ultimately total sense to me. My reasoning for wanting to use the anamorphic adapter in the first place was specifically not to sacrifice the already limited resolution the camera is capable of internally by later having to do doing frame cropping on post, as, I keep reading about the low resolution specs of the camera's CCDs (despite the pixel-shi* technology to help the resolution limitations). But then again, I rented both a Canon XL H1 and a HVX200 for a couple days and did extensive testing only to come to the conclusion that 1) the Canon is gigantic for my shooting scenario and 2) that though maybe a little sharper specially in 1080i mode, it does not deliver the same film-quality imagery that I think the Panasonic is capable of.

I do have to admit, that I fond the lens on the Canon better than the Panasonic specially showing less tendency for chromatic aberrations and purple fringing when shooting subjects in extreme contrast levels.

Now, I am about 2 & 1/2 months away from my trip and just today, as I am sure you know, Canon announced two new cameras, mainly the XH A1 that shows promise in features, is a bit lighter and will have a much lower street price. Coming from having used a Canon GL-2 for while and grading it as a fantastic design, I am assuming that the XH A1 might be a very good product. Whether or not it represent any improvement over the Panasonic as far as image quality, of course we don't know. It will probably have better lens with very good glass... a longer zoom but not as wide... a 3CCD system with slightly more resolution... ultimately a narrow choice between it and the HVX200...

I wish, as CCDs are getting so cheap to manufacture, that HD video cameras used a quality 4 Megapixel or higher sensor and did in-camera down sampling directly to 1080 lines and to tape or media... You can buy sub $200 digital cameras now with 5 and 6 Megapixel imaging chips... that's what we need in video cameras.

I have for Photography (which I am taking on my trip) a Canon EOS-1Ds mk-II and the camera can capture the full 16 megapixels and then write files downsampled to 8 megapixels, the file size I usually use. That's how I get the best quality out of the camera for the file output size. And I say this because when I compare the image from other cheaper cameras that have a native 8 megapixel CCD, the 16 Megapixels of my camera downcoverted to 8 present a final picture of infinite better quality.

That has been my reasoning for wanting to use an Anamorphic lens with the HVX200, so that no more is sacrificed in post if I have to do cropping. Panasonic's reasoning for having chosen such low resolution CCDs on the HVX200 makes no sense to me.

:furious3: They claim better color saturation and higher sensitivity... heck... they just needed to have put larger imaging devices that in quantities of thousands would cost them pennies more per camera and not sacrifice in this day in age the resolution of a camera that is, aside from there, so fantastic.

But everything you say makes sense. I realize that the use of the Anamorphic adapter is a much more complicated process than the spontaneous shooting situations I'll most usually be in the forest. I guess that has to be my compromise here. Knowing that i have to crop the image at then for the sake of easy of shooting and, ending up with a finished product in HD "format" but not quite in true "HD" resolution.

We're almost there but not quite... I guess. When there is a camera with a imaging device with 2x or 4 x the capturing resolutions of the recording format, and electronics that allow all shooting modes that the HVX200 has currently available in 720p mode, but also in 1080p recording, then, that will be "the" camera.

Of course, that's the RED... whenever it comes out... though, fully configured, body, lenses, battery packs, etc., in the $40K price range and... big when compared to the HVX200.

Andy I really appreciate the time you've taken in posting your thoughts on the use of the 16:9 adapter. You are absolutely right in your recommendations, specially in my specifically shooting situation.

Thanks again :)
 
Reactor88 said:
All i can say is this will be the end of Hollywood....and I like it ;)
Click to expand...
Hollywood is all about distribution not image acquisition, and we cannot forget that digital film specs for theatrical release will settle soon in the 4K resolution format... also later on in Home Theaters and TV... long... long down the road. But still, when we have 35m/m quality comparable video cameras, affordable enough for mainstream ownership, indeed, things will never be the same and that, will be a great thing indeed :)
 
Pardon me and please don't take this the wrong way,

but as you stated earlier you shot with the Cannon H1 and the HVX200 and prefered the look of the 200, so what is the big problem with having "not quite HD resolution"? I just feel that sometimes people get too caught up on the magic, or buzz numbers like CCD chip size and other factors. This isnt a knock on you, just stating that wanting to get squeeze those few extra pixels into the screen. 98% of your audience (unless it consists entirely of cinematographers) will not be able to tell the difference, and while this is not a real valid reason to not squeeze the most out of your equipment, sometimes practicality comes first.

About the making larger CCDs into the cameras being pennies, why do you think the camera is already $6k? the CCD wafers are the most technologically complex, hard to manufacture, and expensive parts of any camera. the real difference between a 20-50k camera and a 3k camera is one third of an inch. (and a lens but most of those cameras in that range come without a lens included)

But back to your problem, may I ask if you have shot in the Amazon before? I lived in Puerto Ayacucho for 1 year (in the venezuelan part of the amazon) and you have some major issues to get over. First of all reliable power, good generators that wont break down and reliabilty of services and equipment.

There is a saying once you enter the Amazon down is up and up is down, and let me tell you its true. Do not take anything for granted, do not think you can rely on locals for critical equipment, not because they're bad people, but because priorities work differently there. The time is money saying that is so popular in the states isnt held in as high regard, you can sometimes wait days or weeks for scheduled basic services to get to you (we're talking spare parts ect).

I would bring 2 if not 3 of EVERYTHING and triple check supply routes, because chances are something WILL break down and you wont be able to get a part for weeks :/ heh thats just the nature of the Amazon (its very hard on electronics)

For these reasons I would highly reccomend against the anamorphic adaptor.

That being said the Amazon leaves no one untouched, 2 months out there will change your outlook in life and give you a sense of awe for this world. I think you'll really enjoy your experiences and wish you the best of luck, just be ready to deal with the roadblocks that will surely appear your way.

Good luck! and most of all, keep yourself open to the experiences of a culture that is very different than the west.
 
VenezuelanD said:
Pardon me and please don't take this the wrong way,

but as you stated earlier you shot with the Cannon H1 and the HVX200 and prefered the look of the 200, so what is the big problem with having "not quite HD resolution"? I just feel that sometimes people get too caught up on the magic, or buzz numbers like CCD chip size and other factors. This isnt a knock on you, just stating that wanting to get squeeze those few extra pixels into the screen. 98% of your audience (unless it consists entirely of cinematographers) will not be able to tell the difference, and while this is not a real valid reason to not squeeze the most out of your equipment, sometimes practicality comes first.

About the making larger CCDs into the cameras being pennies, why do you think the camera is already $6k? the CCD wafers are the most technologically complex, hard to manufacture, and expensive parts of any camera. the real difference between a 20-50k camera and a 3k camera is one third of an inch. (and a lens but most of those cameras in that range come without a lens included)

But back to your problem, may I ask if you have shot in the Amazon before? I lived in Puerto Ayacucho for 1 year (in the venezuelan part of the amazon) and you have some major issues to get over. First of all reliable power, good generators that wont break down and reliabilty of services and equipment.

There is a saying once you enter the Amazon down is up and up is down, and let me tell you its true. Do not take anything for granted, do not think you can rely on locals for critical equipment, not because they're bad people, but because priorities work differently there. The time is money saying that is so popular in the states isnt held in as high regard, you can sometimes wait days or weeks for scheduled basic services to get to you (we're talking spare parts ect).

I would bring 2 if not 3 of EVERYTHING and triple check supply routes, because chances are something WILL break down and you wont be able to get a part for weeks :/ heh thats just the nature of the Amazon (its very hard on electronics)

For these reasons I would highly reccomend against the anamorphic adaptor.

That being said the Amazon leaves no one untouched, 2 months out there will change your outlook in life and give you a sense of awe for this world. I think you'll really enjoy your experiences and wish you the best of luck, just be ready to deal with the roadblocks that will surely appear your way.

Good luck! and most of all, keep yourself open to the experiences of a culture that is very different than the west.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input and, I agree with most of your observations. My concern over the CCD resolution issue is not so much the actual # of pixels and sharpness on screen as it is, moiré and other artifacts that comes with lower res pick-up devices.

And thanks on your tips regarding shooting in the forest. I have been in Brazil many times and come from their ancestry speaking fluent Portuguese which is a plus for me of course. I know the culture very well and what to expect (or not) from it. I have never shot film/ video in the Amazon but have been there twice before for about 3 weeks straight with my canon EOS-1DS mk-II and am fairly aware of the brutal difficulties involved in capturing imaging in the long run. And of course you are 110% right on the Anamorphic Adapter... it would be a huge mistake and make my life much more difficult without plausible added results.

By the way, there is an excellent European Website worth taking a look at dedicated to the HVX200 that contains very good info on the ins & outs of the camera and a good ilustrated technical overview of its complete design:

http://www.hvx200.eu

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Now what would be SUPER cool is to put the anamorphic infront of a 35mm lens, and make 35 adapter Anamorphic....... it probably wont work, but MAN would that be sweet!!!!!!!!
 
TimurCivan said:
Now what would be SUPER cool is to put the anamorphic infront of a 35mm lens, and make 35 adapter Anamorphic....... it probably wont work, but MAN would that be sweet!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

It will, depending on the lens and focal length, I would not use the 16:9 x75 from panasonic though I would use a 2x squeze via the adapters like M2.

Google for Cinescope and others, you may find projector lenses that can fit onto your 35mm lenses, there are a few russian made optical prizims available as well. They can go either in the front or the back of the lens. Those mirror Panavision Cinescope. Panavision lenses are near impossible to "BUY" but you can rent one , though I don't know if a mount for them exists in the 35mm adapter communities.
 
I think they are PL mounts, so it is compatible. But the problem is the 16:9 Chips of the HVX wont match the 4 perf frame that anamorphic lenses squeze the image to.
 
TimurCivan said:
I think they are PL mounts, so it is compatible. But the problem is the 16:9 Chips of the HVX wont match the 4 perf frame that anamorphic lenses squeze the image to.
Click to expand...
Odd, I though HVX200 was 4x3 or 16x19 interchangable. 4 perf should be about 4x3, is the 4:3 shot at a resolution loss?

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong (I can be 100% wrong on this) but
PL and Panavision are different lens mounts, No?
 
I wish the guy posted actual footage. Is a 35mm adapter plus anamorphic adapter impossible? Wouldn't the anamorphic lens simply just have to focus on the ground glass?
 
It is possible but then you would have to deal with getting proper exposure with that setup.

I believe the thread starter already did mentioned this but it is worth repeating. 35mm adapter users usually use their lenses wide open or close to wide open for the desired shallow DOF and/or due to budget lighting constraints.

With an anamorphic adapter, given that it has 2 focal planes, it requires the lens to be stopped down for a usable DOF range. That would mean 2 things: your desired shallow DOF effect is gone and to be able to maintain proper exposure, you'll need alot of light!

Shooting with an anamorphic lens is an art onto itself I guess. It has its own flaws which some uses it for aesthetic reasons (horizontal lens flares, oval-shaped out of focus highlights, etc).

Definitely a hassle to use with 35mm adapters, but if you know what you're doing then by all means why not?! lol
 
Nasser said:
If the HVX is true HD, why anamorphic is required ?
Click to expand...

Because anamorphic does not mean 16x9... 16x9 = 1.85 while anamorphic is 2.35.



Ok, so I'm sorry to bring this thread back from the dead a second time (the first of which I commented with a :zombie_smiley: zombie).

I was curious if anyone has recently had tested an anamorphic adapter with the HVX or even better a 35mm lens adapter (I doubt this would work without major sacrifices in picture).

I am gearing up for a film I'm shooting in 2.35:1 and I would like to not have to simply crop my 720p image.
 
I hate to be the guy to give this thread some life support, but I'm still really curious if this is even worth the struggle over just cropping the image. I should also caveat this with the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about... but if the anamorphic lens is used to retain resolution/information, would there not be benefit to shooting 1080 on the HVX if you have plans to crop in post? And is the end picture worth all the fuss?

I've been on a Woody Allen era Gordon Willis kick, and would love for my upcoming project to be 2.35.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top