Graeme Nattress
Forum Replies Created
-
Jan, thanks for you insight. It’s been a fairly interesting discussion today!
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
Well I’ve said all I know. I don’t know more about lenses, but I wish I did. All I learned was when I was doing my R&D project with Panavision and needed all the lens and ccd specs for the software I was writing to deal with their lens metadata.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
The eye sees more because the brain is an amazing DSP – not because of the lens and sensor.
Still, you need a good MTF as that gives good contrast, and the eye likes contrast even more than it likes resolution in determining picture quality. The thing is, a lens is often the limiting factor in a camera, and they cannot always pass the resolution need to make the most of the CCDs.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
Try my Standards Conversion plugin at http://www.nattress.com which will do a 60i to 24p conversion for you, and it looks really good. There’s a tutorial movie that shows you have it works and a free demo too.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
But what you’re talking about here is a different camera. You’re talking about something bigger, and although the body costs could be very similar, I still think that if you’re putting a external lens on it, to do justice to the rest you’re looking at a cost greater than that of the whole camera, and that puts the package into a completely new price point.
I would really like the camera you envisage, but there’s no way I could afford it – just like I can’t afford the varicam.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
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? Same with using an SD lens on an HD camera – how is that going to effect the resolution.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP
-
I don’t think that’s so. The more the resolution AND the smaller the imaging area, the better lens you need. That means you need a better lens for HD than you do 35mm film. The HVX200 has a 1/3 imager and HD resolution, and if it uses pixelshift too, it’s going to need an even higher quality of lens than you’d stick on a HDCAM.
HD lenses are not bunk, and high MTF doesn’t come cheap.
https://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lenses_mtf/
https://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lens_design/I also tried to find the link to a web page where someone does the SD / HD lens comparison, but I can’t find it. Anyone know where it is??
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP