There doesn't seem to be very many lenses (that i can find anyway) aimed at 1/2" HD uses, most seem for SD.

I believe this camera is compatible with 2/3" mounts. So you could use DigiPrimes, but what would the mulitplication factor be? My guesstimate is around 4.8x, so a 5mm digiprime would work out to just under 20mm @ T1.9

So the concept of buying this and renting a set (when needed) would actually get 35mm dof from 20mm upwards.

Or could you use lenses designed for 16mm?

Or am i totally mistaken?

Paul I believe the conversion factor for 2/3 to 1/2 I think is 2:1 (check my math) So a 5mm Digi Prime would be closer to 10mm (in video terms). Now in terms of 35 mm it would be another 2.5:1 which would bring us closer to the 4.8x multiplier. Which puts it closer to a 25mm I believe. But I could be wrong.

I believe this camera is compatible with 2/3" mounts. So you could use DigiPrimes, but what would the mulitplication factor be? My guesstimate is around 4.8x

Paul I believe the conversion factor for 2/3 to 1/2 I think is 2:1 (check my math)

It is 1.34x or something around according Sony. For sure. I read it there, so try looking for at their website.

It is 1.34x or something around according Sony. For sure. I read it there, so try looking for at their website.It's 1.37x, sorry the inaccurate previous information.

Leuname, thanks can you tell me where you found this on the sony site?

I assume the 1/2 ccd is 16:9? That makes a difference too (seeing as it's horizontal FOV that im most interested in)

As far as i can tell, the horizontal sizes are

35mm still : 36mm (apparently...)
35 movie : 22.1mm
S16 : 12.5mm (1.76x to 35mm movie)
2/3 16:9 : 9.6mm (2.3x to 35mm movie)

if there's a 1.37 between 2/3 and 1/2 then:

1/2 16:9 : 7.00mm (3.15x to 35mm movie)

Of course i *could* be wrong, can anyone shed some light (pun not intended!) on this?

If im right a 9.5mm prime would be closer to a 30mm in terms of FOV. Which probably indicates that the best source of lenses for this are going to be proper dedicated 1/2" HD lenses and therefore difficult to rent/expensive.

I was/am considering getting the body and renting lenses for specific uses, most of the time a 'normal' lens would be fine but there are times when we'd need something specific. (I also have access to a number of 16mm film lenses anyway)

I can't really see 1/2" being around for long, so i don't really see why anyone would invest in making HD lenses (there are plenty of SD). Anyone know if this would be the case?

That's what would make me think twice about getting one of these: lack of wide, flexible fast lenses for narrative purposes. Im sure they're fantastic for ENG which is obviously their market.

paul

Fujinon has a nice 1/2" ENG lens which I have on a Sony HDC-X300. See http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?p=336

I have been told Canon will be introducing one or more 1/2" HD lenses at NAB, but I have seen nothing official from Canon.

The 19x Canon which ships with the HDC-X300K and is listed as an accessory for the PDW-F350 by Sony (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=2&sp=11&id=83382) is not really HD.

Michael, i will wait and see what NAB brings, although as you say that's an ENG lens, i'd rather cine style.

That HDC-X300 is an interesting box, can i ask what you use it for/record onto? And how is it compared to your H1?

paul

The multiplication factor is 1.37. It is on most of the XDCAM HD literature.

Regarding Paul's question about the X300, we got it to use as a POV camera on a sportfishing boat, although to date we have mostly used the H1 on the boat. I posted elsewhere some comparisons with the H1. The H1 is true 4:2:2 out the HDSDI, while the X300 (and XDCAMHD) is 4:2:0 converted to SMTPE 192M for the HDSDI. The resolution of the H1 seems slightly better (may be a lens issue) but the Sony has much greater lattitude (1.5 to 2.5 stops depending on how you view Sony's DCC (Auto-Knee) function), less vertical smear, better sensitivity and such. I am trading in the X300 as part of acquiring the F350. I need all the lattitude I can get for shooting outdoors in uncontrolled lighting situations and the Sonys perform well there.

Does either model come with a stock lens---or are they sold as bodies only.

Sony's site describes their products

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplaySubCategory?m=0&p=2&sp=19


You can find the F350 under Camcorders or under Optical Cameras. You can find the X300 under High Definition.

I just found this new XDCAM HD brochure (www.pci-canada.com/pdf%20files/XDCAM%20HD.pdf) on this page (www.pci-canada.com/XDCAM.htm) of the PCI website. If you look on page 17 of the brochure there are 6 new 1/2" lenses listed, 3 each from Canon and Fuji.

Canon
KH20x6.4 KRS
KH21ex5.7 IRSE
KH10ex3.6 IRSE

Fujinon
XS17x5.5BRM/BRD
XS13x3.3BRM/BRD
HS16x4.6BERM/BERD

but what would be the differance in between these digilenses and regular primes ?
I almost got all the books there is about HD, but they never go in detail..


im shooting a feature and shallow depth of field is crucial. what would your
take be with sony 350 and lenses ?

You won't get as shallow a depth of field with any 1/2" chip camera as you do with a 2/3" chip one, regardless of lenses. If that's your major criteria, you might be better off with a 2/3" chip SD camera. Also, all the lenses in this brochure are zoom lenses, not primes.

in that case; xl h1 with pro35 would be more suitable for me ?

I would think that the Pro35 should be adaptable to the F350 via the same adapter that allows for the use of other 2/3" lenses, but I have no official word on that. The focal length would probably be multiplied by 1.37 but the DoF would stay the same as when using a 2/3" camera.

If you like the look of the ground glass adapters, then it would be a cheaper solution than buying a more expensive camera. I haven't used one of those adapters personally, but have seen some footage. Some of it is good, some not so good. One nice thing about them is that you don't have to go rent motion picture camera primes--you can use 35mm still camera lenses.

I've looked into 35mm adapters quite a bit but don't really see them being a practical solution (for me anyway). I can't help feeling if they were, then the manufacturers would be building something similar into cameras/lenses themselves.

If you have a very specfic requirement and environment i guess they can be useful. But pretty much everything i've seen is quite soft, lots of aberrations and generally only used 'wide open' which makes for great web DOF tests but not very useful across the range (and you don't want to be pulling the apapter on and off for different shots). When you stop them down you get more noise and problems plus of course there's the light loss.

I don't know how fast the new 1/2" lenses are but i would imagine they are firmly aimed at ENG which doesn't really need the DOF narrative storytelling can find useful. And if you used 2/3" lenses you're probably looking at widest fov of 25mm-ish with a prime. With regard to using non HD lenses i've read that HD specific ones are coated in a way that reduces problems with 3 CCD blocks and the differences of light paths through prisms, i have no idea whether that makes a *real* difference though?

But if the latitude of this XDCAM s *that* much better (2 stops) than the prosumers that makes it interesting to me. Isn't there a 2/3" panasonic P2 as well? DPX400 or something? Plus there's the infinity as well, which is 2/3". Maybe NAB would gives us something to go on.

Obviously I haven't checked out yet, but I'm thinking that shooting with a 1/2" chip camera that has 16:9 chips, as these do, might give me about the same depth of field control I get when shooting in 4:3 with my DSR500. Since the camera crops in from the sides when doing 4:3, I'm essentially shooting with smaller chips when in that mode. In most situations, by adding an ND, I can keep my backgrounds as soft as I want, but it's more difficult than when I'm shooting using the full chip in 16:9.

Actually, it's not a major issue for me because, in most cases, I only want a shallower depth of field in closeups and some medium shots. I can do that fairly well with a 1/3" chip camera (at least the CUs).

When shooting with one of those ground glass adapters, isn't the image you see in the viewfinder flipped? I'd think it would be, but maybe not. In the footage I saw from a feature shot with one, projected theatrically, the closeups didn't look bad, though a bit soft. But the medium shots sort of looked as if they had been shot through a screen door.

when I look around the manufacturers sites for more telephoto reach, I couldn't find easily, including 2/3' lenses. isn't there any telephoto for xdcam beyond 20x,

I try to find an hd alternative for my xl2,

thanks
alkim.

Here are the links to the Fujinon lenses for the 1/2" XDCAM HD. The 18x5.5 would be the longest. Of course for 2/3" both Canon and Fujinon have lots of telephoto lenses, just visit their sites.

http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/pr.cgi?idPressRelease=165

http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?parent=349

Here are the links to the Fujinon lenses for the 1/2" XDCAM HD. The 18x5.5 would be the longest. Of course for 2/3" both Canon and Fujinon have lots of telephoto lenses, just visit their sites.

http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/pr.cgi?idPressRelease=165

http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?parent=349

I spent a little time on your site and also downloaded a number of your M2T files. Nice work!

I have access to a Canon XL-H1 that I have used from time to time for a documentary I am working on. I have a Sony Z1U and would like to sell it and upgrade to either the Canon H1 or one of the new Sony XDCAM HD cameras.

Originally I wanted to use the XL-H1 and output to HD SDI. However, lately I have been considering the Sony F330 or F350 instead. Here's why.

I noticed that the stock Canon lens on the XL-H1 has some problems with Chromatic Aberation (CA). When I saw your footage of the point, and the harbor at Cabo San Lucas, I noticed that your XL-H1 footage shows CA problems too.

I also downloaded your hummer trail files and noticed problems with CA in both of the files, hummer trail part1.m2t, and, hummer trail part2.m2t. The problems were most prominent in the upper-right hand area of the screen where the trees expose hard vertical edges, but also, anywhere hard vertical edges were contasted against a brighter background. Were these files both shot with your F350? What lens were you using?

I have been very dissatisfied with all the lenses I have used on low-end HD cameras. The Z1 has some problems, The HD100 has problems, The XL-H1 has problems and it appears that the Sony F330/350 lenses may have problems too.

In your opinion, do the stock lenses for the Sony XDCAM HD cameras have CA problems as severe as the XL-H1 lens? Do the other Canon and Fujinon lenses for the Sony F330/350 have CA problems too? Are my expectations too high?

I would appreciate any input you have since I am shooting in 24p with the XL-H1 (I'm shooting 50i on my Z1U and converting) and going to film. However I wouldn't want to look at CA as severe as that of the XL-H1 on a 60 foot screen. Are there better lenses for the XL-H1 or should I consider the Sony F330/350? How do the Sony lens options compare to Canon's XL-H1 lens?

You are my man since you have had experience with both cameras. I hope you are willing to share your experiences with these lenses.

--Dave

The Hummer shots were done with the F350 using the Fujinon HSs18x5.5BRD lens. The "stock" lens offered with the F300K is lower resolution and has more CA. The HSs18x5.5BRD is very sharp and has less (but still some) CA.

As I mentioned in another post, somehow the process of getting the 35Mbps from the camera to M2T files seems to exaggerate the CA slightly. I think it has something to do with the 4:2:0 sampling and the conversion from 35Mbps to HDSDI to Avid DNxHD then to M2T files. Once we can import files directly from the XDCAM HD (Media Composer 2.5, which should be next month) then this may improve. Anyway, there is less apparent CA live out through the HDSDI direct to a projector or even HDSDI into Avid, which tells me it is not all a lens issue. It is interesting how all the parts of the system interact. I have noticed that even just shooting a resolution chart the F350 does much better with diagonal or horizontal lines than the H1 (they are similar for vertical lines), so there are lots of things going on here.

As always, get the best lens you can. I am sure that if I went with the Fujinon HS16x4.6BERM (30% more cost than the HSs18x) there would be essentially no detectable CA. It does seem that more $ equals less CA (with exceptions I am sure). There are lots of good lens options now for the XDCAM HD, and I do think it is has more resolution and less CA than the XLH1. Both are great cameras (at different price points).

I guess another way to put it is that I have not used my XLH1 much since I got the F350, which probably tells you something! The extra lattitude is essential for all the outdoor work I do and often makes lighting an indoor shot easier.

The Hummer shots were done with the F350 using the Fujinon HSs18x5.5BRD lens. The "stock" lens offered with the F300K is lower resolution and has more CA. The HSs18x5.5BRD is very sharp and has less (but still some) CA...

...I guess another way to put it is that I have not used my XLH1 much since I got the F350, which probably tells you something! The extra lattitude is essential for all the outdoor work I do and often makes lighting an indoor shot easier.

Thank you Mike. I appreciate your reply. I am leaning even harder now in the direction of an XDCAM solution rather than the XL-H1. I don't shoot as much outdoors, but extra latitude is always useful.

Thanks again.

--Dave