sensable Lux at DVinfo.net

George Beck · April 17th, 2004, 10:55 PM

Is there any change in the LUX sensitivity of 953/gs100k if you use large wide angle lenses?
(like Aspheron)

if you can show a test pic would be great if there's any change.

Frank Granovski · April 18th, 2004, 12:27 AM

This has been discussed before here and at dv.com's camera forum. A wide angle adaptor will not decrease the lux requirements of your miniDV cam. Here's a very lovely thread about this topic:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9862

George Beck · April 18th, 2004, 01:02 AM

Thanx Frank =)

Frank Granovski · April 18th, 2004, 01:15 AM

I've been looking for this certain other thread, but I think it got moved. It was even more lovely than the thread I posted above. I'll keep searching. :-))

I found it! But it's about pixel shift technology. Oops. (Funny as H_ll---now located in Area 51)

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9491

George Beck · April 18th, 2004, 01:32 AM

Frank... those people wrote a few books in the first thread you posted, but... no real tests =)
incredable
(why someone didn't just try it?)

oh.. hahaha... it's too late for comedy =) I'm reading the second thread (about the 3CCD cam that's not)

.. well...
little knowedge is a very dangerous thing =)

Frank Granovski · April 18th, 2004, 01:45 AM

One member that posted there has a PHD in Broadcast engineering, or something like that, and Jeff teaches photography at a college or a university. Regarding a test. Yes, that's a good idea. But when I tried a couple of wides on my MX300 (in low light), I couldn't tell any difference. Perhaps you can take your PV-DV953 somewhere and shoot some test footage with a wide or 2. Are you in Toronto? Henry's probably carry the 43mm Tiffens.

Guy Bruner · April 18th, 2004, 05:22 AM

Adding a wide angle conversion lens to the DV953 does not make it more sensitive. The aperture and gain settings do not decrease when I use a .42X fisheye on the 953.

George Beck · April 18th, 2004, 09:36 AM

=) ok
(since you've tested it and there's no difference)

Otherwise.. the theory in practice, cannot replace the practice in theory. ;-) -> or HPD in theory does not help you in practice :)

Rob Belics · April 18th, 2004, 11:33 AM

Lux is the measure of light falling onto an object. So lux only changes by the source, not the angle of the lens on the camera.

Frank Granovski · April 18th, 2004, 05:08 PM

If "this" were true, wide angles for pulling in more light, every Tom, Dick and Harry would be using wide angles on their cams, including this guy; and these adaptors would be big business---but, alas, it's not the case. :-))

George Beck · April 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Rob, you should tell that to those dumb-nuts that made the Hubble telescope. if they only knew what you know! =) they could have acheaved the same result with much smaller lesnses.
;-)

George Beck · April 18th, 2004, 10:33 PM

.. talking.. talking.. and no one posted any test pics...

if you have large lenses to put on your cam, make a shot without them, then put it "on"
move the cam (closer) so you have the same scene visible as in the first case. make another shot
then compare.. or better yet .. post them =)

Frank Granovski · April 19th, 2004, 12:34 AM

Quote:

. talking.. talking.. and no one posted any test pics..

A lot of members here own a wide lens for their Pana cam, and none of these mambers have ever mentioned that they have noticed a difference, except that everything gets wider. :-))

Justin Boyle · April 19th, 2004, 07:14 AM

Heh guys before you throw insults at people expecting that wide angle lenses might help for sensitivity lets look at it this way. If i were to put a 2x converter on my cam it would take light away. in a slr camera lens, if i put a 2x converter on the back of the lens it will double the fstop. this considered it would be logic that if you used wide angle converters it would do the opposite even if it might not. also you look at slr lenses again and take a wide angle lense and it might be f 1.8 or something similar to that. take the most expensive 600 mm lens and the best it will be is 2.8 so explain that. you can see the logic. also you could look at it in another way. a wide angle converter usually has larger elements so you would assume that it would let less light in. you look at it like a magnigying glass and when you put it in the sun and focus it on something to burn it. if you make the size of the light on the object the same size with two different size magnifying glasses the larger of the two would have a brighter and hotter focal point then the smaller one so the intensity would be higher indicating that a wide angle lens just might let in more light because after all the focal point will be the same all the time being the size of the ccd.

Thats my arguement so tell me why this may not be true
Justin

George Beck · April 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM

=)
Frank I can go into proving my point, but I saw so much written, and still there's no resolve. I don't have the option to test this, so if you do please test it.
I see that this test in particular can be a big pain... for some reason =)

April 17th, 2004, 10:55 PM	#1
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	sensable Lux Is there any change in the LUX sensitivity of 953/gs100k if you use large wide angle lenses? (like Aspheron) if you can show a test pic would be great if there's any change.

April 19th, 2004, 07:14 AM	#14
Justin Boyle Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 207	Heh guys before you throw insults at people expecting that wide angle lenses might help for sensitivity lets look at it this way. If i were to put a 2x converter on my cam it would take light away. in a slr camera lens, if i put a 2x converter on the back of the lens it will double the fstop. this considered it would be logic that if you used wide angle converters it would do the opposite even if it might not. also you look at slr lenses again and take a wide angle lense and it might be f 1.8 or something similar to that. take the most expensive 600 mm lens and the best it will be is 2.8 so explain that. you can see the logic. also you could look at it in another way. a wide angle converter usually has larger elements so you would assume that it would let less light in. you look at it like a magnigying glass and when you put it in the sun and focus it on something to burn it. if you make the size of the light on the object the same size with two different size magnifying glasses the larger of the two would have a brighter and hotter focal point then the smaller one so the intensity would be higher indicating that a wide angle lens just might let in more light because after all the focal point will be the same all the time being the size of the ccd. Thats my arguement so tell me why this may not be true Justin __________________ jlboyle

April 18th, 2004, 12:27 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	This has been discussed before here and at dv.com's camera forum. A wide angle adaptor will not decrease the lux requirements of your miniDV cam. Here's a very lovely thread about this topic: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9862

April 18th, 2004, 01:02 AM	#3
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	Thanx Frank =)

April 18th, 2004, 01:15 AM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I've been looking for this certain other thread, but I think it got moved. It was even more lovely than the thread I posted above. I'll keep searching. :-)) I found it! But it's about pixel shift technology. Oops. (Funny as H_ll---now located in Area 51) http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9491

April 18th, 2004, 01:32 AM	#5
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	Frank... those people wrote a few books in the first thread you posted, but... no real tests =) incredable (why someone didn't just try it?) oh.. hahaha... it's too late for comedy =) I'm reading the second thread (about the 3CCD cam that's not) .. well... little knowedge is a very dangerous thing =)

April 18th, 2004, 01:45 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	One member that posted there has a PHD in Broadcast engineering, or something like that, and Jeff teaches photography at a college or a university. Regarding a test. Yes, that's a good idea. But when I tried a couple of wides on my MX300 (in low light), I couldn't tell any difference. Perhaps you can take your PV-DV953 somewhere and shoot some test footage with a wide or 2. Are you in Toronto? Henry's probably carry the 43mm Tiffens.

April 18th, 2004, 05:22 AM	#7
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Adding a wide angle conversion lens to the DV953 does not make it more sensitive. The aperture and gain settings do not decrease when I use a .42X fisheye on the 953.

April 18th, 2004, 09:36 AM	#8
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	=) ok (since you've tested it and there's no difference) Otherwise.. the theory in practice, cannot replace the practice in theory. ;-) -> or HPD in theory does not help you in practice :)

April 18th, 2004, 11:33 AM	#9
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Lux is the measure of light falling onto an object. So lux only changes by the source, not the angle of the lens on the camera.

April 18th, 2004, 05:08 PM	#10
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	If "this" were true, wide angles for pulling in more light, every Tom, Dick and Harry would be using wide angles on their cams, including this guy; and these adaptors would be big business---but, alas, it's not the case. :-))

April 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM	#11
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	Rob, you should tell that to those dumb-nuts that made the Hubble telescope. if they only knew what you know! =) they could have acheaved the same result with much smaller lesnses. ;-)

April 18th, 2004, 10:33 PM	#12
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	.. talking.. talking.. and no one posted any test pics... if you have large lenses to put on your cam, make a shot without them, then put it "on" move the cam (closer) so you have the same scene visible as in the first case. make another shot then compare.. or better yet .. post them =)

April 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM	#15
George Beck Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 244	=) Frank I can go into proving my point, but I saw so much written, and still there's no resolve. I don't have the option to test this, so if you do please test it. I see that this test in particular can be a big pain... for some reason =)