|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 28th, 2009, 08:57 PM | #16 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palo Alto California
Posts: 110
|
Ken - I waded in on this issue elsewhere - some thinking was along the lines that the zoom range on many of these lenses is just too high - resulting in very complex optical design that even the best fluorite and/or ED elements can not correct for.
As an example - my DSLR Canon L glass delivers stunning images - WAY WAY beyond the current HD 1920 x 1080. The zoom range though is 70mm - 200mm - 1.5x or something compared to the HD video lens at 20x...... |
June 29th, 2009, 08:39 AM | #17 |
New Boot
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17
|
Of all the cameras I own, my XHA1 gives by far the most CA. Basically ruins everything shot with it in my opinion. My Sony Fx1 typically has about half as much or less. My $600 Samsung HMX20 seems to have essentially no CA. Perhaps it runs some digital filter internally to automatically remove any. Some newer still camera do exactly that.
Cheers, Anna |
June 29th, 2009, 08:46 AM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 532
|
i use a Canon 17-85 lens on a DSLR which is a little notorious for CA and wonky barrel distortion, but i think its flexibility is more important than the effect of CA at the wide end, which i really don't notice that much (plus, i LIKE wonky)...
in Adobe camera raw, there are ways of dealing with CA and barrel distortion in a still picture, and then saving a profile for the lens... not sure if there is such a thing for video. |
July 14th, 2009, 02:43 PM | #19 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huddersfield, UK
Posts: 469
|
Can't help thinking this is a pretty minor problem that the vast majority of people will NEVER notice especially if the composition of the shot is good enough - something that often gets neglected with all these technical quibbles.
|
| ||||||
|
|