BETO74 0 #1 February 29, 2004 Way Cool Industries is working on a prototype of a lens .25 super wide, they call it black eye lens, can,t wait to buy it and play with that baby. Anyone in my same position?http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlvaroCarvalho 0 #2 March 1, 2004 Hello! I have the 0.3x...i use side mount and the only problem i found so far is that a little bit of the helmet seems to get in the frame...i have to push just a little bit the zoom to correct this. I think this will happens as well on the 0.25x Blue skies! Hey...ho...let's go! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #3 March 1, 2004 Same here, I think we can expect that since is almost 180 degreeshttp://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unutsch 0 #4 March 1, 2004 i apologize for my rudness to come into this thread and ask a question which might be a bit off topic, but i have the same problem and a question regarding that: does the little bit of zoom do any harm to the footage, or doesn't affect it in anyway? thanks! Check out the site of the Fallen Angels FreeflY Organisation: http://www.padliangeli.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #5 March 1, 2004 What do you mean? the wider the angle you get more distortion on the footage, the feeling of what's far or close gets distored. Probably somebody here will be able to explain better.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #6 March 1, 2004 Lots of posters mention noticing lots of shake in the image when zoomed in. I've also heard that you can only zoom about 50% (still a good range) before the image starts to look fuzzy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unutsch 0 #7 March 1, 2004 no no, i do understand what a wide angle lens does to the footage, but am worried about the affect of the wide angle lens + a little bit of zoom (with which it is possible to get rid of the itzy winny little bit of helmet) on the footage... i hope i put it in a more understandable way now Check out the site of the Fallen Angels FreeflY Organisation: http://www.padliangeli.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unutsch 0 #8 March 1, 2004 thanks!! hm, to get rid of the helmet on the tape, i only have to zome in something like 5 to 10% (still way inside the analogue zoom)... well, i guess i'll just have to wait and try it out Check out the site of the Fallen Angels FreeflY Organisation: http://www.padliangeli.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #9 March 1, 2004 I'd bet you're fine with that. I think the shake is due to the image stabilization and gets worse the more you zoom. At 5 - 10% zoom I'd be suprised if its noticable. (caviat - don't jump camera yet, this is only book and ground experiance talking) Wait and try it out is the best conclusion ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #10 March 1, 2004 Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? Every time I download somebodies video, all I see is yet another countless example of seriously distorded images, degraded video, and absolutely no depth. I only jump with a .5, but I think this year I'm going to focus on jumping without a wide angle lens at all. Am I alone here? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koz2000 1 #11 March 1, 2004 I think the flyer should be able to fly close enough to fill the entire frame with the subject. A good .5 lens works well. I'd ask Quade on his opinion of lens (he's using a .6 Sony lens). I'd wouldn't use no lens since you'll be REALLY far away from the subjects. just my two cents. D______________________________________________ - Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #12 March 2, 2004 I did a couple jumps withot any wide angle lens and you only get the subject cut in half, What's crapier than that? maybe you like something more .5 but still not enough for FF jump in my opinion, like I said I followed the experts recommendations .3 for FF, .5 or close to it for RW. I seen the new trend of camera flyiers using .15 on still for tamdems and is just amazing how close they get to get the million $ shoot, That's were I'm shooting at. I admit a .25 wide angle lens will be more for more artistic footage, but damm I just got to.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #13 April 8, 2004 QuoteHello! I have the 0.3x...i use side mount and the only problem i found so far is that a little bit of the helmet seems to get in the frame...i I love it to have a bit of helmet and NOSE on the image... Who said I have a big nose ??scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlvaroCarvalho 0 #14 April 8, 2004 QuoteI love it to have a bit of helmet and NOSE on the image... Who said I have a big nose ?? Good! You can even put your name in the credits... Like "Guest star: my nose" Cheers, Hey...ho...let's go! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #15 April 8, 2004 QuoteHello! I have the 0.3x...i use side mount and the only problem i found so far is that a little bit of the helmet seems to get in the frame...i have to push just a little bit the zoom to correct this. I think this will happens as well on the 0.25x Blue skies! I was told you can't zoom on a single element wide angle lens??You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlvaroCarvalho 0 #16 April 8, 2004 QuoteI was told you can't zoom on a single element wide angle lens?? Yes you can...but just don't expect the Autofocus to work... Put on manual focus, zoom as close as you want and then adjust the focus ring. After that, make sure the focus ring don't move (tape it!).Cheers, Hey...ho...let's go! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #17 April 8, 2004 QuoteAfter that, make sure the focus ring don't move (tape it!). I've seen many people simply put an elactic (small stow) around the zoom ring, covering it and overlapping onto the body of the camera a bit. The rubber band provides enough friction to lock the zoom ring and comes on and off as many times as you want without worring about tape-gunk on your camera. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lister55 0 #18 April 8, 2004 The rubber band provides enough friction to lock the zoom ring and comes on and off as many times as you want without worring about tape-gunk on your camera. Quote Or just buy the Gaffers tape and then you dont have tape gunk either. (unless you leave yhe tape on for a long period of time) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #19 April 8, 2004 ***Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? ------------------------------------------------------- Nope. The freeflyers have made the ultra wide lenses popualr because you need them to film inside a freefly jump. Why an outside guy would use an ultra wide lens is anyone's guess. My guess is that those guys are hacks, and need the 'help' you get from an extra wide lens (less noticable shake, and easier to frame). I've been narrowing up my lenses for the last couple years, and the footage is much cleaner. I think Greg Gasson and some others are shooting with no lens. It's tougher, but the results are worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #20 April 8, 2004 Yeah, Gasson does not use a WA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gasson 0 #21 April 8, 2004 Quote*** I've been narrowing up my lenses for the last couple years, and the footage is much cleaner. I think Greg Gasson and some others are shooting with no lens. It's tougher, but the results are worth it. On rare occasion I will use a .6 but most of the time I shoot with no wide angle at all. In competition I never used one and got comments over the years that my video always had a different look to it. It really has a distinct effect when doing eagles. More distance is needed from the subject so it takes a little longer to complete but it has a nice dynamic look to it. The obvious trade off is if you get more distance from your subject it is more forgiving than a wide angle. The opposite is true that the closer you are the more critical framing and image stability become. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #22 April 9, 2004 ***More distance is needed from the subject so it takes a little longer to complete but it has a nice dynamic look to it. -------------------------------------- Side benefit: It's harder for your subject to kick you in the nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites d15859 0 #23 April 9, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? ----------------------------------------------------------------- I tend to agree with you, I like the look of video without any lens at all, but it's much harder to pull off for sure. I am using a .45 now, but I'm thinking bigger numbers as opposed to smaller ones, and none at all when possible.....that and learning to fly better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
davelepka 4 #19 April 8, 2004 ***Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? ------------------------------------------------------- Nope. The freeflyers have made the ultra wide lenses popualr because you need them to film inside a freefly jump. Why an outside guy would use an ultra wide lens is anyone's guess. My guess is that those guys are hacks, and need the 'help' you get from an extra wide lens (less noticable shake, and easier to frame). I've been narrowing up my lenses for the last couple years, and the footage is much cleaner. I think Greg Gasson and some others are shooting with no lens. It's tougher, but the results are worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #20 April 8, 2004 Yeah, Gasson does not use a WA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gasson 0 #21 April 8, 2004 Quote*** I've been narrowing up my lenses for the last couple years, and the footage is much cleaner. I think Greg Gasson and some others are shooting with no lens. It's tougher, but the results are worth it. On rare occasion I will use a .6 but most of the time I shoot with no wide angle at all. In competition I never used one and got comments over the years that my video always had a different look to it. It really has a distinct effect when doing eagles. More distance is needed from the subject so it takes a little longer to complete but it has a nice dynamic look to it. The obvious trade off is if you get more distance from your subject it is more forgiving than a wide angle. The opposite is true that the closer you are the more critical framing and image stability become. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #22 April 9, 2004 ***More distance is needed from the subject so it takes a little longer to complete but it has a nice dynamic look to it. -------------------------------------- Side benefit: It's harder for your subject to kick you in the nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d15859 0 #23 April 9, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? ----------------------------------------------------------------- I tend to agree with you, I like the look of video without any lens at all, but it's much harder to pull off for sure. I am using a .45 now, but I'm thinking bigger numbers as opposed to smaller ones, and none at all when possible.....that and learning to fly better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
