Give JVC and their Lens a break - It passed a tough test

[Brian Sveum]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

I personally like the way Honda & McDonalds handles their business.

I would be careful on this one. You should specify that whatever marketing firm the McDonalds Corporation has hired to promote themselves does a good job.

McDonalds themselves strong arms third world countries for a lower price on beef. I know that's quite off topic, but a corporation is what it is, a money mongering machine. All any of us get to see is their carefully controlled marketing.

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by Steven White

I didn't taking his post out of context at all - I read the whole thing. My amusement, and hence laughter, came entirely from reading the sentence independently... and as you can plainly see with it quoted on its own - it's a bloody hilarious way to look at the world.

The notion of starting at any one point in the camera and saying it's "backwards" place to begin struck me as very odd. Obviously you have to examine the whole package. But DVCPRO-HD coming out of a pinhole wouldn't garner much excitement now, would it?

I can definitely see how you'd find it amusing. I can see the humor in it, too, and you're right, it all starts with the lens. However, for new folks who are making the transition from SD to HD, I stand behind what I said: it's far more important to choose your format first. Then it becomes a much easier prospect to upgrade a camera or any other component in the chain if you've established which format you're going to be working in. Any actual difference there may be in the quality of the glass for camcorders in this price range is relatively minimal. What format, what kind of workflow is going to have a far greater impact on a person's productivity then which lens they're using. When people ask me for advice on purchase decisions, I ask them to look at productivity factors such as choice of format, editing platform and applications, choice of workflow, etc. The camera itself comes further down that list. I know that's where the image begins but what's much more important is where the image *ends* and that's why I ask folks to consider that aspect first. May seem backward, but if you think about it, it's really the right way to look at it, in terms of a broader perspective about productivity. Hope this helps,

[Graeme Nattress]

It all comes back to "what's the best camera?" - answer "The best camera is the one with the best camera person and lighting person behind it", eh, Chris?

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

The MTF definition of what is an HD lens is based upon 1920x1080 resolution. This is defined as 800 TVLines. Turns-out, 720p definition is at 530 TVLines. So, when we say a lens is HD we must qualify which system we will be using. A true 1920x10 lens may be very expense -- a 1280x720 HD lens could be dramatically cheaper!

An SD lens is only 400 TVLines -- so it really doesn't take much more quality to make an 720HD lens!

You're not taking into account sensor dimensions Steve.

Graeme

[Michael Pappas]

The difficulties of optically transmitting an image onto a 1/3 area, and have it be even just good, let alone be great is a tough hill to clime. A lot of people I know don't understand how optics and the photo elements play such a role with one another and that to get the right balance to achieve a certain level of optical performance is challenging.

Hell, if I were a lens company, ( joking ) I would promote the use of 1/2 to 1'' inch ccd/cmos technology only. I would do PR that said " Big CCD's Big CCD's- Bigger is better , smaller is bad" Something like that. It would make life so much better for the optical guys. One thing is true, the 1/3 R&D pushes the envelope of optical lens technology which we all benefit from in the long run.



You know, I miss 65mm cinematography.

Graeme

Did you ever meet Don Earl?

Don Earl was the first person to introduce me to 65mm technology when I was like 15 years old back in the mid 80's.

It was a curse, I tell ya. It's like eating a $100 burger, and then having to eat McDonalds most of the time after that. I guess I can settle for In & Out though....... I still have my earl slate from back then.. I just love 65mm.

Viper x 2 , and we will have 65mm like quality again. yum yum yum.......


Michael Pappas

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/a_frie...r_for_everyone

[Graeme Nattress]

I didn't - but sounds like a great bloke.

What I've been advocating is a move away from 3chips to 1 chip, but 1 bigger chip. Bigger chips, with bigger pixels should help noise levels, and put much less stress on the optics. Recording raw Bayer pattern (if that's what it uses) takes 1/3 the space of recording the same rez sensor at RGB (as if it were the data from a 3CCD set) and then you can do lots of funky post processing, and de-bayering algorithms are getting very good these days. I can smell the definition just thinking about it...

Graeme

[Michael Pappas]

Graeme,

I am with you 1 billion percent. I have been asking for one CCD or Cmos for some time. Yes! Canon. A single large Cmos or CCD on your XL3...Pleaseeeeeeeee


What is a Bloke?

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

I didn't - but sounds like a great bloke.

What I've been advocating is a move away from 3chips to 1 chip, but 1 bigger chip. Bigger chips, with bigger pixels should help noise levels, and put much less stress on the optics. Recording raw Bayer pattern (if that's what it uses) takes 1/3 the space of recording the same rez sensor at RGB (as if it were the data from a 3CCD set) and then you can do lots of funky post processing, and de-bayering algorithms are getting very good these days. I can smell the definition just thinking about it...

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

A bloke is a chap is a male person. Interesting that my british accent comes through in my typing too.

Graeme

[Michael Pappas]

Don was the top man of the 65mm Panavision at Panavision.

He is also known for The classic Don Earl 'Hollywood' clapper---I learned at 15yrs old the beauty of 65mm and showscan. I hated my ntsc video cameras after that.

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

A bloke is a chap is a male person. Interesting that my british accent comes through in my typing too.

Graeme

[Tim Le]

Although I like big chips as much as the next guy, I think one of the reasons the video world has stuck to small chips (2/3" and less) is because the smaller target area allows the lens manufacturer to make smaller, faster, high zoom ratio lenses. If the lens had to image for a large target area like a 35mm frame, it would be next to impossible to make a 16X f/1.9 zoom that wasn't the size of a bazooka and cost just about as much. Of course, digital cineamatographers probably could care less about high zoom ratio lenses, but those guys are a small market compared to all the ENG/EFP, event, industrial and broadcast folks who do care.

[Chris Hurd]

Excellent points, Tim!

People often forget, in this game, small equals affordable.

[Michael Pappas]

Bazooka cam, now your talking. HVX-Howitzer

Hi Tim, yes I can see your point.

Originally Posted by Tim N Le

Although mpossible to make a 16X f/1.9 zoom that wasn't the size of a bazooka. Of course, digital cineamatographers probably could care less about high zoom ratio lenses, b

[Graeme Nattress]

Tim - good point, and thanks for the info - another piece of the lens / CCD puzzle comes together.

Graeme

[Michael Pappas]

Now this is a Bazooka cam

http://www.prohd.co.uk/files/page1_1.jpg

[Michael Pappas]

Here is an option that is sure to come down the river for the HD100U- Sweet!

http://www.pstechnik.de/datasheets/p.../d_pro35_l.jpg