Wide angle effect (broadcast vs consumer adapters)

M

mitteg

Active member
Hello,

I have the Wide Angle Cavision:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486262-REG/Cavision_LWA06X72_HVX_HD10...

It is fairly wide (0.6) and works pretty well but it does not have the "wide effect" of a true broadcast wide angle lense. In other words, it does not distort or deform the borders of the frame in the same way that a broadcast lense does. I don't know if it has something to do with asferical lenses but what I'm looking for is that wide effect where the entire frame seems to be expanding and contracting itself when there is a pan or a tilt. It's difficult to descrive with words.

Look second 00:14

http://vimeo.com/1376508

Is there a way to achive that effect with a consumer wide angle ?

Thanks for your help.
 
Yes, that effect was done with an extremely wide lens. I believe the Still Motion people used a 35mm adapter that allowed them to use superwide angle lenses (20mm and below) which would result in that distortion. A .6 adapter is just not wide enough.
 
If the .55X is truly a "fisheye" adapter, then the effect would be different. In that wedding video that was rectlinear wide angle distortion, which is what you get with normal wide lenses (eg 17, 20, 24mm in the 35mm still camera world.) A fisheye lens or adapter would give you barrel distortion, which is where straight lines get curvy towards the edge (like a door peephole viewer, and just about every skating/snowboarding video ever made...)

Duncan
 
I'm not sure what the market for wide adapters has taken on as standard nomenclature, but fisheye-ness (barrel distortion) is more a function of the lens design than the actual view angle. Yes, to get a true 180 degree view angle (the original definition of fisheye) you have to resort to barrel distortion, but lenses can get pretty darn wide rectlinearly, or they can be barrel distorting monsters without getting anywhere near 180 degree view angle.

Most of the (low-budget) wide adapters I've seen in the still camera world are massive barrel-distorters, even if they don't get very wide. And I've got a Canon 14mm lens that has 114 degree view angle without barrel distortion. (Just all kinds of the distortion the OP was looking for!)

Clearly before buying an adapter, one should test it and see if it gives the desired result.

Duncan
 
The Century .55X Fisheye adaptor for the Sony EX1 isn't a "true" fisheye with full distortion. They have one called the super fisheye (or something like that) that is a true fisheye, but this one will distort the edges a little, sort of like what I saw in that vimeo video referenced above, perhaps a little more distorted than that video, but definitely a similar effect. The effect obviously depends a lot on the angle you choose to shoot.
 
Thanks for your responses. To sum up, there are wide angles that produce rectlinear wide angle distortion and others that produce barrel distorsion like a door peephole viewer. Therefore, if I want to get the effect shown in the vimeo video I need to buy a wide angle with no barrel distortion and there is no need to be an extreme fisheye because I will get the desired effect too, am I right ?

Do you recommend me a WA like this in the 300-600$ price range for my HVX200 ? Thank you very much for your help!
 
Someone told me that I can achive what I want with a redrockmicro M2 35mm lens adapter and a 17mm rectilinear wide lens. That makes sense to me, but I cannot really understand why ALL the broadcast wide-angle lens produce that effect as is. What is the difference between a consumer and a professional lens apart from the quality of their glasses?

Thanks again!
 
Out of curiosity, who's telling you "all" broadcast wide angle lenses have that kind of distortion? Usually with glass, the more expensive and better quality the wide angle, the less distortion you have on the edges. I would think 'broadcast' quality wide angle glass would minimize edge distortion... the distortion is usually manifested more so in cheap glass. It's typically not a "desired" effect unless one is going for a special effect. It's desired to go as wide as possible and keep the image distortion free. But most ultra-wide angle lenses will have this effect. I'm coming from a still photography perspective more so than video, but I'm sure the principles are similar.
 
no matter how much you spend on a .3x fish eye its going to have barel distortion. If you spend allot it wont have vigneting through.
 
lairhair said:
no matter how much you spend on a .3x fish eye its going to have barel distortion. If you spend allot it wont have vigneting through.
Click to expand...

Veddy true... but a fisheye is supposed to have mass barrel distortion. A high quality wide angle will usually try and minimize distortion.
 
Hello,

I tried applying the "optics compensation" effect from After Effects to my footage and to my surprise I get the desired wide effect! This effect corrects the barrel distortion so that lines appear to be linear at the edges of the frame.
 
just curious...I shoot wedding videos and I always have to make sure the clergy is ok with what I do and the couples always say they want me as discrete as possible...so how does the company of the vimeo link you put up not piss people off with every wedding? It looks awesome but it seems more like an on set production than a wedding.
 
As far as I know, they shot high end weddings with budgets starting at $3000 to $8000. They use 2-5 cameras, wireless mics, professional steadicams and what's more important, they know how to do things well and have good taste. Sure they are intrusing while shotting, but man, cameras are not invisible jeje.

Regards,

Robert.
 
jrmiller_entertainment said:
just curious...I shoot wedding videos and I always have to make sure the clergy is ok with what I do and the couples always say they want me as discrete as possible...so how does the company of the vimeo link you put up not piss people off with every wedding? It looks awesome but it seems more like an on set production than a wedding.
Click to expand...

That was my exact thought when I was watching the video. Especially when they're laying down under parking divider fences or whatever they are. I thought it was supposed to be more of a documentary than a production, but I guess some people want the production. And you can charge $3000 for a substantially less intrusive video. It looks pretty cool, though.
 
If it's a public event in the US, you would only need a release for broadcast or other public distribution, or advertising/endorsements, at least if it stays within the US. I think the law is more favorable if you're not recording audio of the guests as well.
Arguably, putting it on Vimeo could be that. You could blur faces, if you had to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top