|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 19th, 2005, 05:14 PM
|
#1 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
Lens Size
I have an XL1s, obviously, and have the stock lens that came with it 16X. A while ago someone asked me what the size is, 35mm, 16mm etc. I am embarrassed to say I don't know. Anyone want to enlighten me...
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
|
|
|
May 19th, 2005, 11:04 PM
|
#2 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Tell 'em it's a one-third-inch video lens, 'cause that's what it is. Hope this helps,
|
|
|
|
|
May 20th, 2005, 11:16 AM
|
#3 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
Ok. Thanks, that makes sense. I didn't think it was a specific mm.
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
|
|
|
|
May 20th, 2005, 11:39 AM
|
#4 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Well, it should be a specific millimeter size. The nomenclature used in video camcorders is outdated, archaic and inaccurate, but for some reason the industry insists on hanging onto them. Your DV camcorder is referred to as a one-third-inch camera and lens because that's the size of the CCD image sensors inside the camera head. Except it really isn't. They're actually a bit smaller than that. One-third inch, one-half inch, etc. are tube diameters back from the days before CCD technology when video cameras used orthicon, plumbicon and saticon tubes for creating images. To make an image plane the same size as those tubes used to make, the CCD needs to be only as big as a 4:3 rectangle that would fit inside the diameter of that tube. Therefore, a one-third-inch CCD is actually a bit smaller than one-third of an inch. Then there's also the appalling practice of expressing other CCD sizes as mixed fractions, such as 1/3.4 of an inch. If the industry would simply switch to an actual millimeter measurement of the CCD diagonal, we'd all be so much less confused.
|
|
|
|
|
May 20th, 2005, 03:05 PM
|
#5 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
No doubt... That sounds like it could be really confusing! Thanks for the information, sincerely.
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
|
|
|
|
May 21st, 2005, 03:57 PM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hinckley UK
Posts: 25
|
Marco,
The standard 16x lens is a 5.5 to 88mm zoom, which is equivalent to a 40 - 630mm zoom in 35mm format. So its a pretty long lens! I have to admit that I normally use the 3x wide angle = 3.4 - 10.2mm (24 - 72mm in 35mm format) as I find it a more useful range. The manual 16x lens is very close to the standard one for lengths (5.4 - 86.4) I hope this helps
__________________
Richard M |
|
|
|
|
May 23rd, 2005, 11:53 AM
|
#7 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
Yeah that def. helps. Thanks a bunch. One less thing to ponder, lol...
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
|
|
|
|
May 25th, 2005, 06:31 AM
|
#8 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
Keep in mind that Richard is talking about the focal length of the lens, not
the diagonal of the imaging frame (the CCD sensor in this case), which is what 16/35mm in film refers to. Unless you where talking about a 16 or 35mm lens, heh.
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
May 25th, 2005, 01:44 PM
|
#9 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
I see.. Ok. So the 16/35mm refering to the diag is really what i was getting at. Thank you.
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
