I just got this yesterday. It's kinda neat. I use it with my GL-2.
Basically, it optically squeezes a 16:9 image onto the 4:3 CCD chips. That gives you full widescreen image without comprimising resolution. Then I can output it as a 16:9 image without black bars at the top and bottom.
Like I said, neat, but JEEZ it cost me $712!
I can only zoom half way (about 10X, I think) before it starts screwing up the picture. There is also a slight "fish-eye" effect... which is actually kinda neat. The image quality is great; it's the next best thing to having 16:9 CCD chips (which costs too damn much money).
I just thought I'd post that little bit for anyone who might be interested in that lens. I still gotta test it out some more, but overall I am pleased (except for the zoom thing, but that's not too big of a deal, I guess).
I think most cheap Sonys do that.
They do, but it's an electronic squeeze that results in loss of image resolution and color saturation. Using a lens to do it cancels that problem...but that's a hefty price tag! I'll just stick to letterboxing in post for the time being.
There's a big difference between cropping to 16:9 (what consumer cams do), electronically stretching to 16:9 (a feature on the GL-2), and optically squeezing to 16:9 (what this lens and what all anamorphic lenses do, with varying aspect ratios).
The first two ways use only 75% of the alotted resolution. Only with the lens do you get a full resolution widescreen image.
The only other way is to buy a camera with built in 16:9 chips, but the cheapest these go for is, I think, over $10,000.
Quote from: GhostboyThey do, but it's an electronic squeeze that results in loss of image resolution and color saturation. Using a lens to do it cancels that problem...but that's a hefty price tag! I'll just stick to letterboxing in post for the time being.
I've never tried bringing squeezed 16:9 footage into post... by resolution loss do you mean actual pixelization?
Effectively, yes. Because the camera captures the image, and then that image is digitally stretched to cover the 4:3 chips. This allows you to output without letterboxing, but the resolution is the same. Basically the areas that you would be masking by letterboxing go to waste, and this lens allows you to use them, so you get those extra top and bottom pixels for you image.
The digital stretching is like a digital zoom. After you optically zoom in, the digital zoom takes over and zooms in on the actual pixels. In the same way, the camera would digitally stretch the pixels vertically. That = bad.
It doesn't get pixelated, but it is noticeably softer. Like Matt said above, it cuts down on about 25% of the picture's standard resolution.
But isnt the main advantage a wider field of view? I mean however you stretch the footage, even on a 16:9 CCD, your still using a standard lens.
Quote from: ®edlumBut isnt the main advantage a wider field of view? I mean however you stretch the footage, even on a 16:9 CCD, your still using a standard lens.
You are confusing a wide angled lens and an anamorphic lens, which can also be wide angle.
Hard matting, Soft Matting, Open, Matting, Anamorphic.
Maybe look those up..
Basically on film if you soft matte, you are filming on the entire 35mm film cell, and then in post adding the black bars.. This allows you some flexability when adding those bars, because it still gives you the opportunity to vertically adjust the picture.
If you are hard matting, you are putting the "black bars" on the film when you shoot, by placing a filter between the camera lens and the film.
You loose some precious film space when you do that... Soo...
When you use an anamorphic lens, it is actually taking the image and squeezing it onto the film(optically) thus using the entire frame. Later the "black bars" are present because of the unsquezing.. No matting would be nescesary. This is a great method because you get to use the entire frame, and have a higher quality image. The only "downside" to this method is that images that are distant from the lens appear to be taller than they are. (Watch some magnolia night shots... all of the out of focus street lights and such wont be circles, they will be tall ovals.)
All they are saying that when you use a sony cam to do this 16:9 shooting.. the camera is just digitally stretching the image, and is allowing for a lossy image.
Thanks for clarifing...although Im a little confused now. I thought all wide angle lenses were anamorphic. I guessed that on professional set ups the lens combination would be more complicated but on consumer cameras I cant understand this.
Is this the item in question?
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/main_item.asp?id=964587561#fs
Because this taks about "a full 33% wider angle of view". This is classified as a 'wide-angle anamorphic' lens, right?
Yeah, that's the one I got.
When the ad says "Wider field of view," what it really means is wider image, as in widescreen.
This lens squishes everything to make it tall and skinny. That's how it looks when I record it. When I put it onto my computer, I stretch it back out to the correct shape. So now, it's the same height (and since video goes by horizontal resolution, it's the same resolution), but wider. So you get a bigger image with the same resolution (or if you squish the image down like a DVD player automatically does, it's the same size but higher resolution). If you have 500 lines of horizontal resolution, and you make the picture wider (for widescreen), you still have 500 lines of resolution, but a bigger picture. So it's kinda like more bang for your digital video buck.
(sigh)... I get the feeling that I'm not making things clearer, sorry.
Wide-angle lenses are for purposely distorting the image. Anamorphic isn't. Although anamorphic lenses do distort the final image, but that's more of a side-effect.
Explain this to me...I have a digi 8 Sony handicam that has a widescreen feature. When I look thru the view finder, it has black bars...but when I output (to imovie or tv) the black bars are gone and the objects on screen are tall and skinny. So, it's like the opposite of what you are explaining..I think. I'm guessing that if I viewed on a widescreen monitor, it would be wide screen? How do you get Imovie to recognize it has widescreen...or does imovie just not have that feature?
It would appear to be the same as other 16:9 features, except it kindly displays the image in its correct proportions to help with framing.
Im still a little unclear on the lens side of this though. Is the £120, official canon, wide angle lens for the GL2 not anamorphic?
u r LOADED.
Quote from: ®edlumIs the £120, official canon, wide angle lens for the GL2 not anamorphic?
No. Canon does not make an official anamorphic lens. This is an adapter lens from Century Optics.
Quoteu r LOADED.
No, I'm not. I'm an 18 year-old boy with a part time, minimum wage job, who just happens to have an enormous dedication to making his movie. I've been saving up for over a year and now I'm busting out the cash.
$700 is a lot for just an anamorphic picture. However, I can't afford 35mm, and don't know how to operate a 35mm movie camera... but I still give a shit about quality. So buying this was just my way of compensating the difference between DV and 35mm. It gives me a better picture. If I can't get 35mm, then I'm sure as hell gonna try to get a better DV image than most!
So this gives you a wider field of view on a 4:3 frame?
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/main_item.asp?id=964586221
In which case you'd need to use this in addition to the century optics convertor (or the century optics equivalent)?
Okay okay okay. A Wide-Angle Lens effectively is like pulling back from the picture. A reverse zoom-in. If you had a shot of just a house filling the frame, you could switch to a wide-angle lens without moving the camera, and get the house and the front lawn in the frame, too. But it doesn't change the shape of the frame. If you're shooting at 4:3, you're still gonna get 4:3 with a wide-angle lens.
You do not have to use the anamorphic with the wide-screen. I dunno if you even can.
The anamorphic is similar to a wide angle lens, except that it only pulls back from the left and right sides, thus changing the shape of the frame to widescreen.
So, anamorphic is widescreen. Wide angle is not. Wide angle does not make everything tall and skinny.
An anamorphic lens simply distorts the image to make everything tall and skinny, so that later, when you stretch it out horizontally, you get a correct-looking widescreen image.
The END.
Well this is the perfect time for me to throw in my ad
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806642083
that is a wide angle .3x barrel distorted extra wide lens, that is on sale heh. Alright so matt has been doing a great job explaining the difference but since i am taking the time let me give you my understanding of both.
Wide angle lens in this case ^ exaggerates by pulling out of the standard 40 degree fov. It makes the subjects far away appear further and makes the subjects close appear closer. As a "fisheye" it captures all 180 degrees of view. This can be compared to our side vision the objects to our left and right that we see. The wide angle lens does not change the overall ratio of the frame rather the objects that are in the frame. I have no knowledge in optics so i can not describe in what way the lense performs to achieve this effect, maybe later.
Anamorphic wide screen lens on other side of the river introduces a wider perspective by capturing a wider horizontal image keeping the vertical resolution stable. Well doing so it needs to compress the 1.78:1 ratio on a 4:3 ccd (1.33:1). If you ever built a web page with yahoo page builder you know to keep the same aspect ratio in a picture you need to adjust height and width. So in order to make a wider image fit into a smaller table and keep its aspect ratio you would need to compress the horizontal and vertical but if we do that we are not using all of our vertical resolution! Can not be so! So in order for us to fit that 16:9 image onto a 4:3 ccd we squize the horizontal only which makes the vertical stretch out. Now we end up with one awfully out of proportion 4:3 image but wait if we pump it up to its fullest after the capture it actually turns out to be a 16:9 wide screen image. So after all the beast turned out to be the prince.
My understanding of anamorphic compression.
this thread reminds me of.........
Hibbert: Homer, I'm afraid you'll have to undergo a coronary bypass
operation.
Homer: Say it in English, Doc.
Hibbert: You're going to need open heart surgery.
Homer: Spare me your medical mumbo-jumbo.
Hibbert: We're going to cut you open and tinker with your ticker.
Homer: Could you dumb it down a shade?
D'oh!
HIBBERT: Good Lord! You're wasting thousands of dollars of interferon!
HOMER: And YOU'RE "interferon" with our good time!
Okay, okay. Good.
So at top end, 35mm productions, the lens will be an anamorphic wide-angle. But as far as the commercial market goes for 'prosumers' in order to achieve an anamorphic wide angle image, you would need to combine (just for example, ignoring adapters needed or incompatabilities) the Canon Wide Angle lens, and the Anamorphic lens that Matt has bought?
No. It's just one anamorphic lens. You don't have to combine anything.
Okay, but as I said earlier the Century Optics adaptor does actually see a wider field of view (the 33%), as demonstrated by the nifty little image on the right of this page. Awesome.
Quote from: metroshaneExplain this to me...I have a digi 8 Sony handicam that has a widescreen feature. When I look thru the view finder, it has black bars...but when I output (to imovie or tv) the black bars are gone and the objects on screen are tall and skinny. So, it's like the opposite of what you are explaining..I think. I'm guessing that if I viewed on a widescreen monitor, it would be wide screen? How do you get Imovie to recognize it has widescreen...or does imovie just not have that feature?
Sony cameras (i have the vx2000) do shoot a 16:9 (ish) image for all intents and purposes, it is not letterboxed - it is formatted for a 16x9 screen, so when watching on 4:3 (normal tv) everyone looks tall and skinny. If you output to a 16x9 source you see the actual image (I use a portable dvd player - stick my dv500 outputs to the dvd player inputs and have a mini 16x9 viewer that sits next to my computer monitor.)
I don't use imovie but if it shares the similiar feature with premiere when you are loggin in it asks to choose your settings and one is dv widescreen, that allows you to edit in native 16x9 (camera aspect).
Another way to shoot 16x9 (sony camera) and format it for 4:3 pictures is to use a filter in your editing software and essentially crop your 4:3 picture to about 76% height that gives you letterboxed effect in post and keeps your 16x9 shooting image from your camera.
But the sony 16x9 is not the same as shooting with a 16x9 lense. As everyone has correctly stated the camera compresses the image, but unless your projecting to a 30 foot screen (in which case the dv quality will show through anyway) you won't really notice.
What do you think of the following? Is the quality good or would getting an actual XL-1 16:9 lens be best?
http://dirckhalstead.org/issue9712/canonxl1review.htm
Canon saw this coming, so they have included an option within the menu that says "16:9." When selected, it actually squeezes the image vertically. When viewed on a conventional TV screen, the people all look as though they had been stretched on a medieval torture rack. However, when viewed on a true wide-screen monitor the picture unfolds to a wide format. Some low-end handycams, currently on the market, include a "wide-screen" feature that is simply a mask on the top and bottom, using only part of the frame. The Xl-1, on the other end, uses an anamporphic digital process that makes use of the entire frame.
It's still a digital squeeze, and you lose resolution. Definitely better to use the lens.
Or wait until the end of the year, when Canon may be releasing an XL-3, which, to keep up with the market, will probably have native widescreen chips.
it never occurred to me to just make part of the image expendable and put the bars in in post. i've just been dealing with low picture quality when i want something in 16:9