Blub06
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks JeremyG, I have never mastered through firewire. Until JanC mentioned the firewire card I didnt understand that Firewire was an option. I saw the HD in and out on the deck and didnt think any further, but, Firewire would be a nice option.
I think I will be in the market to buy for both mastering and to archive the footage shot on location. Maybe a 2100 is the best option for archiveing, this is getting expensive…
Chris
-
My world is tv production for broadcast or cable, thats all I know, thats all i do.
Chris
-
Nobody’s talking about focal planes here.
When Graeme said something that inferred that the tolerances are tighter or harder for the smaller chips when it comes to getting a lens to work with them I inferred that he was saying that the tolerances were even more critical with smaller chips than with larger chips. My response was this might be so but the nature of non fixed focus means the focus ring adjusts for this.
Standard-def video lenses are typically engineered to provide 30 to 40 line-pairs per millimeter. That’s more than enough to resolve a standard-def image on a 2/3″ chip.
Okay, I guess, I always knew they were junk compared to my cine and still lenses. Not that that really matters.
High-def video lenses are typically engineered to resolve much more detail (which is why they cost 10x to 50x more!) High-def lenses typically can resolve around 85 line-pairs per millimeter, which is enough for a 2/3″ high-def chipset such as the CineAlta or Varicam.
I wonder if this is true. The story of optics is not unlike that of any industry. They have sort of figured out how to design and manufacture glass and lenses to resolve far more than 85line pairs per mm for general use. In the early 1980s film could resolve over 100LPMM the lenses (not the top of the line) were resolving well beyond that. Today even cheap lenses can resolve beyond the average of yesterday. Imagine if Intel was still making the 8088, WHY? They moved on, now they cant make a chip that does not have millions of circuits in them. Everything has moved on, no glass manufacture is going to find it economical to make low rez glass.
These new 1/3″ cameras have the same # of pixels on them, but in 1/6 the physical space! Meaning, they need a lens sharp enough to resolve between 133 line-pairs per millimeter (for 720p) and 200 (yes, 200!) line-pairs per millimeter, to adequately resolve a 1080-line image on a 1/3″ chip.
Think about it — a 1/3″ chip is about 2.95mm in height. 1080 lines in 2.95mm = 366 lines per millimeter, or about 183 line-pairs per millimeter. That means that, to resolve a comparable level of sharpness, you need a lens that can resolve twice as much resolution per millimeter as a typical high-def lens, such as would be used on a VariCam or CineAlta.
That is no small feat.
Right on. but they were doing it well before HIDEF came along. Remember the Sony analog Hid Def of the 1980s, they used the lenses of the 1980s.
And that’s why Graeme and I tend to believe that these little chips are pushing the limits of what we can expect in the way of high-def, and that their ultimate resolution will probably be more limited by the lens than by the chips themselves.
I think this is where we disagree the most. Unlike you guys I think that the cameras and electronics are still behind the resolving power of the most common lenses. If we are looking for the weak link (so that we can find where the most imporovments are to come) I dont see the optics as that link.
Chris
-
With respect, I seaid mid level video cameras and lower cost video cameras have similare pix density. I was careful not to say Hidef and low end have the same pixel density.
-
You write such crazy stuff, I don
-
In fact, in the original Star Wars film the effects shots were shot with a motion control camera that moved over a real three dimentional model. The lens used for this effects footage was a 55mm Nikon still lens.
What a lens!
Chris
-
When you talk about the QUALITY of the optics and the final quality of the image, glass and overall design is where its at. still lenses can be put on film and video cameras for the best quality. Comparing so called still lenses to video and film lenses is indeed relevant. With enough money you can adapt a good matte box system to these lenses.
My taste is for superior quality, perhaps you don
-
Augh, thats my fav, its the simple things you miss…
Chris
-
I hear ya, I guess we are dealing with a cost of production issue. How much can they give us for a cost we can swallow… I too like better zoom and focus controls for manuel use but, for the price I take what I am given.
I have looked at but not used the lens which Panasonic will include with the 200 and have played with the Z1 lens. From a control point of view they all look of the same family, you might call it the lower priced family, they work.
Chris
-
Or dub the tapes with the whites brought down to legal and redig the dubs and try again.
Chris