DVX100 Anamorphic Lens Adapter

R Walker · February 25, 2005

Hi,

I saw both these topics briefly touched on in the forum seperately but I want to see what the consensus is on this particular situation. I am shooting a low budget feature on the DVX100A and apparently (I know how unrealistic this seems, but I still have to prepare for it) it will be probably be bought and then blown up to film at some point when its finished. Regardless of whether or not this happens I have to shoot this film with the potential to be blown up to film later, with the most possible resolution I can get. I was sent this link in regards to the adapter:

http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthreads/s...o=&fpart=1#4819

Anyhow, I had asked the advice of another DP I know and he told me that putting the adapter in front of the lens would only cause more interefence with the image and I was better off just using the camera's internal squeeze mode.

Basically, I just need to know the pros and cons of using the adapter and which is better and safer for the look of the film- using it or using the camera's internal squeeze mode. Also, if I use the adapter or squeeze mode, what will it look like and how will it have to be viewed before it is blown up to film?

Thanks ahead of time for any and all relevant info you can give me!!

-reed

Preston Herrick · February 25, 2005

There are a number of pros and cons. For me it boils down to this:

The adaptor provides 33% more resolution over squeeze mode because it utilizes the entire CCD. Squeeze mode extracts an area of the CCD equivalent to a letterbox image (ie: less of the CCD). IMO, the difference when viewed on an NTSC monitor isn't night and day.

If you plan to do a film-out, the adaptor will yield the best results.

The adaptor requires more care (more time) when shooting. You have to watch the combination of f-stop and focal length more closely to ensure sharp, clear results. Under some shooting conditions this may not be practical.

I'm sure you'll hear other pros and cons. I'm not dissing the adaptor. I own one. That's just my take in a nutshell. You can also find a lot of information and opinions at www.dvxuser.com

February 26, 2005

As Preston mentioned, you'll get considerably higher resolution with the Anamorphic adaptor and if it's done right it looks good.

However, from my experience shooting with the anamorphic adaptor, I personally feel (imho) that the sacrifices you have to make for it are not worth the extra resolution. You're basically limited to shooting in between an f4 and an f11 and you are limited on your zoom. I don't remember the exact hard numbers for the focal lengths we were limited to, but wide open and fully zoomed in are completely out of the question.

Another consideration is the method of focusing. You'll have to seperately measure the horizontal focal distance and the vertical focal distance with a focus chart and then split the difference. This aspect is helped somewhat by the natural deep depth of field of the small chips, but it can be a real headache if you're working on a shallow DOF shot.

Again, the extra resolution is quite nice if you can do it right, but I'm just not particularly a fan of the anamorphic adaptor.

R Walker · February 26, 2005

Thanks guys,

I would say I'm definitely leaning towards not using the adaptor because I don't have the crew and the time to light for it and the time to deal with the focusing constraints, also I'm wary of using it on an entire feature not knowing exactly what results it's going to yield.

My options then seem to be to shoot in the 4x3 mode and just frame accordingly for a possible blow-up or use the camera's squeeze mode. Could I ask what your opinion is on that? I would think it would be better to shoot in 4x3 mode and crop it later if there's a blow-up.

Thanks so much for all your input!

Greg Gross · February 27, 2005

I'll start shooting a feature dv on March 14th,using two DVX-100A's at

the Delaware seashore. Has anyone seen the film "In The Cut"? My dir-

ector wants the dv(for transfer to film) to have appearance similar to

the int. scenes of "In The Cut". I was on the telephone with her last

week and she asked me- "Are you going to use anamorphic adaptor or

squeeze mode"? I was honest with her and told her I had to think about

the possible resolution to be gained. I will be renting DVX-100A on March

1st to do some testing with and without anamorphic adaptor,of course pro-

duction company will be paying for tests. Feature is about a retired Phila-

delphia police detective who accidentally stumbles on to a serial killer and

hunts him down. Some Kino-Flos will be used and they are providing me

with numerous lights, gaffer. This will be my first time out with a real true

experienced gaffer. I worked with a film student/gaffer before. I belive

from just reading the script that the anamorphic adaptor can be used with

out too much difficulty. However this still remains undecided at this time.

Lots more to think about before making decision. I really appreciate your

posts as they have stimulated my visualization and creative processes.

First time that I have seen the 33% figure.

Greg Gross

Preston Herrick · February 28, 2005

FWIW, the independent feature, "November", shot by Nancy Schreiber, ASC (with the DVX) was shot (I believe) full-screen with the WS image extracted later in post for the film-out. It won the Best Cinematography award at Sundance a couple of years ago.

So yes, you could do this as others have done and do with other cameras as well. In that case the only real advantage to shooting in squeeze mode would be if you were going direct to DVD or something and were going to display on a true 16:9 display. Squeeze offers no advantage for film-out by nature of the way it works. In fact, shooting 4:3 could actually give you more options in post for letterboxing and re-composing vertically.

Greg Gross · February 28, 2005

I was actually thinking about 4:3 and then I thought I was crazy,can't

bring it up as everybody will think I'm a dumb ass! I don't mind being

called a dumb ass as long as I learn something in the process. I knew

I was right about 4:3, should have had more confidence in myself. I

still have plenty of time to make decision. I am going to research how

"November" was shot.

Greg Gross

Ed Nyankori · February 28, 2005

Sorry to post more of the same but Ive been waiting to blast away at the anamorpic adapter. I came in late on a feature and shot the last 4 days of it. The anamorphic had been the productions choice from the start and I hadn't used it before so I was excited, for a brief moment, then came the horror of trying to focus, compose and light for this lens. I didnt know I was supposed to stay between f4-f/11 and Ive got soft focus shots to prove it. Forget dollying and the jib was definitely hit or miss...

It reminded me of shooting 16mm for the first time. I wasnt sure what I was getting...In the end the producer and director were thrilled with our results and had few complaints about focus, etc. Great, but I know it would have been better without the adapter.

Got some extra cash to blow buy a MatteBox and nd,blue,sunset grad set.

Preston Herrick · February 28, 2005

Barry Green's book on the DVX covers the use of the adaptor quite well - and how to get good results. There's some specific information on Adam Wilt's site as well. The book (and DVD) is worth getting anyway as it contains a lot of cool and useful info. You can get it through the DVXuser.com site. Panasonic is including it with new cameras now.

Edited February 28, 2005 by PrestonHerrick

nchopp · March 1, 2005

In my experience the most annoying part for me has been having to use the adapters for the viewfinder, etc.

Riku Naskali · March 1, 2005

It's pain in the ass. There is no way you are going to shoot closeups if you don't have enough light. I shot a short with it and I don't think I'll shoot anything with it anytime soon.

Greg Gross · March 4, 2005

4:3 is starting to seem more attractive with good possibilities in post. Anybody

have any feedback. I would like to hear David Mullen's take on this. I'm sure

he would have some good feedback on this.

Greg Gross

Marcel Zyskind · March 5, 2005

Hi

I must say, I've only had possitive results with the anamorphic adaptor, both on the pd150 and the dvx100.

Wide open, closed down. It was all good.

It's true, it might not work technically perfect at the very end of the zoom, but who is to say that is a limit?

Anamorphic soft focus, blue horizontal flares on DV.

I see that as a bonus.

All the best and good luck

Marcel

Rik Andino · March 5, 2005

Anamorphic soft focus, blue horizontal flares on DV.
I see that as a bonus.

Marcel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait soft focus is good for DV? If you're going for a film out? :blink:

If you're going to film out you need the sharpest image possible

Because it'll look soft (even with a sharp image) once it's transferred to film.

Marcel Zyskind · March 5, 2005

DV for filmout is just plain soft no matter what. When you compare to 35mm.

I am not saying you should delibrately make the whole film soft focus on camera.

But if you have a few shots which are in the "danger" area of the zoom with the anamorphic attachment, i.e the end of the zoom or at wide open, and they are soft, it can still look good.

Depends what you're looking for...

All the best

Marcel

Btw I believe the image is sharper on filmouts when an anamorphic adaptor is used.

Edited March 5, 2005 by MarcelZyskind

elvworks · February 10, 2006

I understand the anamorphic adapter makes a non-native 16/9 camera into the real deal. But besides being 1.78 now, does the picture look any better?

It's not like film where it has the capacity to absorb the wide angle picture being sent to it, it's a chip, so can it really absorb the extra detail so when it's played back, it actually is noticably different? Better?

Thanks,

Rick

Edited February 10, 2006 by elvworks

Patrick Neary · February 10, 2006

Hi- I've used the adaptor on one short and hope to never use it again- Optically it's junk, and severely limits your close focus and range of useable focal lengths. Especially if you're finishing for TV/DVD, it just doesn't make any sense to use it. If you're projecting it to a big 16:9 screen, it's a toss-up whether the bit of CCD surface area gained can overcome the softness and generally crappy quality of the optics.

elvworks · February 11, 2006

Thank you for your informative reply.

That's what I wondered, I'm going to conduct tests soon, but just in what I've learned and people's feedback, I believe I'm better off using wide/long lenses which you can change during the movie as opposed to the anamorphic adapter that you have to stick with through the whole movie and deal with lighting and focusing issues.

All the best,

Rick