Attn: Jan and Panasonic: informal poll on removable lense for HVX-200

[Pappasarts]

<<<>>>>

Yes you would. The same reason when you hook up a P+S TECHNIK to a fixed lens on a low res SD camcorder like a DVX100a or PD170.

Even though the fixed lens is now the weakest link. Your lens performance is improved.

Now on a High Def with no weak link, like a fixed lens. It’s even better. A B4 or 1/3 mount is about “OPTIONS”

[Deleted User]

[Graeme Nattress] “But is not the mini35 famous for lowering your resolution, even in SD? I like the idea of controling DOF better, but surely reducing resolution is no solution either? …”

The P+S Technik mini35 adaptor was just one of several senarios I listed concerning a purely hypothetical situation, but in any event: Lots of folks like the look the mini35 generates when used with a prime lens on a 1/3″ camcorder. Those who don’t probably won’t spend money on it. It’s an asthetic choice as much as it’s a technical solution to any particular problem.

Resolution isn’t everything. That’s why I’m underwhelmed by JVC’s & Sony’s initial HDV cams. Give me a smooth, good-looking, color-accurate image instead. Good ol’ uncompressed 16:9 480p standard definition NTSC is more than good enough for 99% of most shoots I’m likely to particiapte in anytime soon, especially if this video is generated by a current-technology 2/3″ 3-CDD pro camera head. But even a modern 1/3″ native 16:9, SD 3-chipper can look pretty darn good in uncompressed 480p mode.

[Graeme Nattress] “… Same with using an SD lens on an HD camera – how is that going to effect the resolution.”

I suggested occasionally using a high-end SD lens on a low-end HD cam (e.g.: the new 1/3″ HD cams). In many cases this might be a better solution than using a low-end HD lens on these cams.

All the best,

– Peter

Just a friendly reminder to all: Please consider filling-in your COW user profile information so we have a better idea who you are, where you’re from, and so forth. It’s the friendly thing to do. Thanks!

[Pappasarts]

Graeme,

I would rent my lenses depending on my needs. Good lenses are cheap to rent. Compared to camera packages. Outside of that, I would find a good 1/3 or hook up a B4 mount adapter and test lesnes that work. But when I need the best lenses, I rent lenses.

It’s about the “OPTIONs”

Here is example!

On my Canon DSLR I have a Canon – 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM It’s a 2,000 dollar lens on a DSLR rebel that cost less then half that. When you have lens options it’s always better. I rented a month ago a ( Canon – 28-300mm ) that is a $2,600 dollar lens that is three times more then the my camera. From our rental house here it was $56 a day to shoot for two days.

It’s all about “”OPTIONS”

<<>>>

[Pappasarts]

So Noah you going to get condescending and call me ” MIKEY ” now

I thought we had no Issue?

You know, I only care about pushing envelope as far as I can.

But condescending is what your going to do to someone you have NEVER met and have no reason to be childish too………..

[Noah Kadner]

Wow you sure have thin skin for someone who insists on broadcasting their every word on multiple forums, Michael. Feel better? Good, now how about answering the actual question?

[Graeme Nattress]

As far as I understand the physics of optics, for a given ccd resolution, a 1/3″ chip is giong to need a higher resolution lens than a 2/3″ ccd does.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

So by adding a spinning groud glass disc and some prisms, lenses etc, you’re going to get a better picture??? Sure you get much reduced DOF, but you do so at the expense of resolution and contrast.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

Totally agree that options are good – I just don’t think there any affordable lens options for an affordable HD camera that are of a quality to do justice. From my understanding of optics, you need a better lens for a 1/3″ HD ccd than you do for a 2/3″ HD ccd than you do for 35mm film. Amd I totally agree that reting is a great idea for special stuff, but you still really need to buy a stock lens, and that’s where i come unstuck.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Pappasarts]

Noah,

Of cousre there is difference between the CCD’s. Night and Day

So even more so, putting a B4 or 1/3 mount won’t hurt Varicam sales.

But, cripple the camera? Why kill “” OPTIONS “”

Simple, Panasonic has B4 and 1/3 mounts in their resources. In the end it’s cheaper. To make a fixed lens requires for you to hire a 3rd party company to design the optics and a long time of testing to marry it to your system.

This alone 1 to 2 years of R&D. That will cost a lot more then using mounts or the tooling you already have in your resources.

They do however machine 100 dollar mounts, the technology has been in their company for many years.

Why is this hard for you to understand Noah. If you do understand this, then you would easily understand by Panasonic going the mount route that is cheaper for them to do.

You know as a Filmmaker you could rent lenses, renting is mostly how it’s done.

Noah I have a question for you…

If you had made Formosa with the HVX (if it was out then), would you not prefer to have the option using professional lenses from a rental house.

Noah, why didn’t you make Formosa using Varicam?

[Barry Green]

[Luis Caffesse] “But, why not a fully manual fixed lens?
What is so difficult about giving us an iris, focus, and zoom ring with reliable markings that is not a servo based infinite spinning design?

At that point many people would stop screaming for a removable lens, realizing that all along what they wanted was the same manual controls you would get with a removable lens, but at the price of a fixed lens design.”

Forgive me for sounding facetious, but — isn’t that EXACTLY what they’re delivering? Except better?

Here’s what I mean: the zoom is a fully manual, cam-driven zoom. Certainly should be every bit the match of any other manual lens zoom. Much better feel than the DVX lens’ zoom, it’s an improved design. So it should be at least as good as what you’d expect on a “manual” lens, because it *is* manual. How is it better? Because instead of just relying on markings on the barrel (which it will have, of course) it also offers a much more precise scale in the viewfinder. Where the barrel markings on the existing DVX lens show 20mm and 45mm, and if you want to know the focal length inbetween (via the markings) you have to guess, the in-camera viewfinder Z00-Z99 scale shows 25 discrete distances between 20mm and 45mm. And in the HVX, they’ll probably incorporate actual mm displays in the viewfinder too.

Okay, on to iris: a “real” lens has a ring. The HVX will have a wheel. Exactly what more control do you get from the ring, than from the wheel? Granted you can take your eye away from the viewfinder, tilt the camera up, and dial in a specific f-stop on the ring. But using the viewfinder display you can dial in exactly the specific f-stop you want using the wheel, while not having to take your eye away. I know the ring is familiar, and “feels right”, but does it actually give you more control? Yes the ring can be set between f-stops, but so can the wheel. The wheel on the DVX gives you 1/6 stop control. You have more control with the wheel than the display even shows — the display shows half-stops, but the wheel is calibrated in 1/6 stops. Again, not being facetious, I’m asking a serious question — what is it that you can do with the iris ring on the lens, that you can’t accomplish with the wheel on the DVX? I’ve used every modern broadcast camera, I’m not arguing that the wheel is “better”, I’m just saying — I can do everything with the wheel that I can do with the ring. What additional feature are you looking for?

Finally, focus. Everyone seems to gripe about the “infinitely spinning servo wheel”. And to that I say — this ain’t no VX2000 or XL1. The DVX focus ring has no hard stops, that’s true, but it provides precise, measurable, repeatable focus moves. It doesn’t move the focus elements based on the speed you move the ring, like the PD150 does. It is directly, precisely, completely measurable. It moves the elements based on how you move the ring. That’s why Century could make their markable focus ring with hard stops — because the DVX ring was precise and repeatable.

So what was it missing? Markings and hard stops. That’s about it. And how does the HVX address it? First, the ring will have more dampening, more control, more precision. Second, it will have markings. Not on the barrel, but in the viewfinder. Which is, of course, more usable and better. Why? Because the markings on the barrel must inevitably be done in certain steps, so you’ll see a marking of maybe 10′ and the next marking is 15′. On the HVX, you’ll be able to turn the ring to 10′, and turn it further and it’ll say 15′. But what if you want 11′? With the markings-on-the-barrel, you have to look at the 10 and the 15, and then kind of guess as to where 11 would come in, realizing that 12.5 is *not* halfway between 10 and 15 of course. So if you measure 11′ from film plane to subject, using lens barrel markings on a broadcast lens will be imprecise. But with the HVX, just turn the ring until it says 11′. It’ll read out 11′ in the viewfinder, far more precisely than the lens barrel markings would. You will have precise, repeatable, discrete focus control, and you will have distance markings — they’ll just be in the viewfinder, not on the barrel. Which is more user friendly anyway — now the operator can see the markings while still looking through the viewfinder, instead of having to pull his head away from the viewfinder to go look at the physical lens barrel. And an AC can have the same functionality by turning the LCD panel around — instead of looking to the barrel, they can see more precise distance marks by looking at the LCD.

So — as a practical, functional matter, the HVX is going to offer you all the manual control that you would otherwise be getting on a “fully manual” lens, because it is a fully manual lens (except that it also supports optical image stabilization, and the possibility for autofocus if you choose to use it, something you’re not going to have available on a fully manual lens). So what’s the problem? Is it the lack of hard stops? Do having hard stops somehow help you focus better? Really? Does the ring stopping really make it easier to focus with? I’ve never found a circumstance where in an actual, real, production environment, the fact that the ring stops has made any difference. The HVX lens will stop at infinity and minimum object distance, whether the ring stops or not — so what difference does it make? And, assuming that someone just really *needs* hard stops, you can have that — get the Century manual focus ring, which adds gear teeth, hard stops, and a markable surface.

Which is a several-thousand-word way of saying “relax — they’re already giving you a fully manual lens.”

—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available at https://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/ and at Amazon (https://tinyurl.com/54u4a)