16:9 Century MK1 on HMC150

[Tommy59]

Hi guys,

Just go myself a vx_fisheye_sales adapter ring to bring my MK1 back to life and get away from my Canon 8-15mm blue vig.
Was hoping to get it look closer to an Xtreme too.

Could only find info on how to do it in Premiere (which I don't use anymore), anybody got some DaVinci settings he likes and would be willing to share with me?

Thanks in advance!

[pj chad]

I tried the same setup. It’s really only usable for 4:3. For 16:9, the vig is horrendous. You can zoom/crop obviously, but in my experience it makes the vig look blurry and less than ideal.

Was always interested in seeing a comparison of mk1 vs mk1 intermediate. Mk1 intermediate has a slightly larger thread size once the bayo is removed so it makes it all the harder.

[lydius]

I would go back to Premiere just to use the method @green laid out for getting an Xtreme look on a normal circular fisheye. Reddit used to have a thread on how to get a cracked copy of Premiere for free...

**so he was actually using AfterEffects, but maybe DaVinci has a similar optics compensation feature. his post is in this thread: https://www.slapmagazine.com/index.php?topic=121531.0

[Tommy59]

I tried the same setup. It’s really only usable for 4:3. For 16:9, the vig is horrendous. You can zoom/crop obviously, but in my experience it makes the vig look blurry and less than ideal.

Was always interested in seeing a comparison of mk1 vs mk1 intermediate. Mk1 intermediate has a slightly larger thread size once the bayo is removed so it makes it all the harder.

Yes, I wish I had seen this before spending 150$ but I agree, the image is way too soft when you see it in fullscreen.. (it looked like a great idea on IG though)

I would go back to Premiere just to use the method @green laid out for getting an Xtreme look on a normal circular fisheye. Reddit used to have a thread on how to get a cracked copy of Premiere for free...

**so he was actually using AfterEffects, but maybe DaVinci has a similar optics compensation feature. his post is in this thread: https://www.slapmagazine.com/index.php?topic=121531.0

I will sure give it a try once I get back home, but unfortunately I think the crop in post is too much on a 720p clip..
Anyway, thank you guys for taking the time to answer!

[andyandyandy]

I mounted my MK1 to HMC150 and it's pretty much not useable as a 16:9 fisheye unless you either

1. Zoom to make the vig smaller. The amount of zoom needed defeats the purpose of even using an MK1, and also the zig isn't sharp.

2. Do something in post that instead of cropping distorts the footage. I have seen some IG accounts mention doing this, but i'm not sure which editing program they use. Also I think you would need a pretty powerful computer to edit a timeline where its doing that in every clip.

[Tommy59]

I mounted my MK1 to HMC150 and it's pretty much not useable as a 16:9 fisheye unless you either

1. Zoom to make the vig smaller. The amount of zoom needed defeats the purpose of even using an MK1, and also the zig isn't sharp.

2. Do something in post that instead of cropping distorts the footage. I have seen some IG accounts mention doing this, but i'm not sure which editing program they use. Also I think you would need a pretty powerful computer to edit a timeline where its doing that in every clip.

Yes, unfortunately learnt it after spending 150€ on the ring.. As I said, it looks decent on IG but not on full screen.
They use some kind of lens distortion effect, available in Premiere but also in Da Vinci (it's in the inspector tab).

I guess this ring is worth it if you want 4:3 ratio or if you use an higher resolution camera (like the Rom Bat's setup).

[andyandyandy]

Expand Quote

I mounted my MK1 to HMC150 and it's pretty much not useable as a 16:9 fisheye unless you either

1. Zoom to make the vig smaller. The amount of zoom needed defeats the purpose of even using an MK1, and also the zig isn't sharp.

2. Do something in post that instead of cropping distorts the footage. I have seen some IG accounts mention doing this, but i'm not sure which editing program they use. Also I think you would need a pretty powerful computer to edit a timeline where its doing that in every clip.

[close]

Yes, unfortunately learnt it after spending 150€ on the ring.. As I said, it looks decent on IG but not on full screen.
They use some kind of lens distortion effect, available in Premiere but also in Da Vinci (it's in the inspector tab).

I guess this ring is worth it if you want 4:3 ratio or if you use an higher resolution camera (like the Rom Bat's setup).

Yup it looks really nice 4:3, but really not even worth bothering if your trying to use 16:9.

[swan pablo murphy]

Shot the fisheye clips on an HVX200 with an MK1, aside from the line starting at :14 which was filmed with an HPX170/Opteka setup.. I wish the vig was sharper with the MK1, but I enjoyed filming with it and I personally like how it looks a lot more than Opteka. It feels nicer to film with, definitely wider. I used the lens distortion effect in Premiere and cropped the image ever so slightly to get rid of a bit of vig. Again, to each their own but I really liked this setup. The width is not even comparable to an Opteka imo, perhaps I'm biased purely because of how much more I enjoyed filming with the MK1. My two cents.

[Tommy59]

Shot the fisheye clips on an HVX200 with an MK1, aside from the line starting at :14 which was filmed with an HPX170/Opteka setup.. I wish the vig was sharper with the MK1, but I enjoyed filming with it and I personally like how it looks a lot more than Opteka. It feels nicer to film with, definitely wider. I used the lens distortion effect in Premiere and cropped the image ever so slightly to get rid of a bit of vig. Again, to each their own but I really liked this setup. The width is not even comparable to an Opteka imo, perhaps I'm biased purely because of how much more I enjoyed filming with the MK1. My two cents.

Hey man,

Thank you for taking the time to show us how it looks on the HVX!

Wonder how much vig you had before the post prod process as in my opinion, quality seems better than the tests I did on my HMC. Probably has to do with the different settings you are able to record on P2 card vs SD card..

[OwlGreen]

Fisheye 16:9 was a temporary mistake that is finally starting to fall by the wayside. It forces you either to stay far away to the point of shit looking smaller and slower than ideal, or you get in close and cut off heads. In 4:3 you can be in close and not cut off heads. You would never print a photo with a cut off head; I don't see how filmers tolerate it with their footy. I've seen Mk1 clips in 4:3 on HD and 4K cameras that didn't look bad. You might need to stop down your taking lens' aperture a bit to get rid of some of the chromatic abberation of the MK1.

[green]

Fisheye 16:9 was a temporary mistake that is finally starting to fall by the wayside.

yeah for sure, definitely

[moshandwallies]

Expand Quote

Fisheye 16:9 was a temporary mistake that is finally starting to fall by the wayside.

[close]

where do you see the downfall exactly? Everyone is filming HD 16:9 by now, there are some people who film HD 4:3 but still the majority is 16:9

[OwlGreen]

I wouldn't call it a downfall. It's just a choice. VX Mk1 4:3 was the standard for a long time. It never went away as a standard, but it got supplanted in the main by the Panasonics in 16:9 HD with an Xtreme.

Now people shoot on absolutely any and everything, and make a conscious choice about aspect ratio which is not entirely dictated by the abilities of their hardware. For example, people will shoot on cameras with 16:9 or 3:2 sensors, and crop to 4:3.

I think of fisheye filming in 16:9 as a mistake perhaps partly because of the era I started in, when everything was 4:3. If you started when almost everything was already 16:9, you might have a different perspective on it.

Longlens, I could go either way. Longlens 16:9 is maybe preferable to 4:3, but with fisheye footy the opposite is true because of the issue of cutting off important parts of the image circle, specifically, where the head goes. Switching between 16:9 for long and 4:3 for fish could be done, but would probably be rather distracting. I can't remember if I've seen this done before.

[Burton Ernie]

Switching between 16:9 for long and 4:3 for fish could be done, but would probably be rather distracting. I can't remember if I've seen this done before.

They switched back and forth a lot in Real "Since Day One". It was distracting and I remember other people complaining about it here I think.

Also in Krooked LSD, Bobby's part at 7:19 they switched from 16:9 to 4:3 with little animations to indicate. That was tastefully done.

I think depending on the setup it can be tough to get a decent 16:9 Frame with a circular fisheye. It looks decent on my setup (Centry XA20 with a screw mount Mk 1) but not nearly as good as the Century Extreme lens obviously. I would zoom to set the vig where I wanted it as opposed to cropping in post, and the vig might be slightly blurry but nothing terrible. Gotta be careful not to cut off too much heads though.

I switched back to 4:3 and have done that for the past couple years, shooting fully zoomed out, then cropping to 4:3 in post.

[Thejumpoff]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cshjj59Pfn3/?igsh=MWY4NWE5a2kxM25qdQ==

This post shows how Kevin Perez does it using premiere. The instructions are in the caption. Essentially there is a feature called lens distortion that you edit. You would be able to do it for one clip and then apply the same settings to all of your fisheye clips to get identical vig on all of them.

[OwlGreen]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cshjj59Pfn3/?igsh=MWY4NWE5a2kxM25qdQ==

This post shows how Kevin Perez does it using premiere. The instructions are in the caption. Essentially there is a feature called lens distortion that you edit. You would be able to do it for one clip and then apply the same settings to all of your fisheye clips to get identical vig on all of them.

I gotta say, the original unfucked-with clip here doesn't look half bad. As in, MK1 on a 16:9 sensor, unzoomed, uncropped. I could almost see it working with 16:9 longlens clips. It's kind of halfway between 4:3 and 16:9. You get the full L/R edges of the fish, which is nice. The cropping to 4:3 and then stretching the sides thing is digusting; reminds me of that horrible gopro mode, "superview".