Has anyone tested a SD lens on the HPX500?

[Kit Hannah]

Just wondering if anyone has tested a SD lens on the HPX500 and what they found the results to be. Would be interesting to see a comaprison, or just some standard frame grabs from that of a SD lens. I have seen numerous posts saying that SD lenses can produce very acceptable results, even on HD cameras.

ALso, with the HPX500 CAC, would this help when using a SD lens?

Thanks
Kit

[hunter richards]

1. I have tried an old fujinon 14x (non-IF) and it was sharper, and had more edge-shapness than the fuji 17x CAC HD lens. I am totally serious and the Letus team witnessed it. There was about 100 lines more res on a res chart over the fujinon HD lens. And if that wasnt enough, there was less CA than the fujinon with CAC!

The difference is more about Broadcast lenses vs "HD" lenses. The canon J series are great and the fujinon A series. Some might tell a difference in HD vs SD glass, and the Lens manufacturers would love to help you, but bottom line.. you clients will never tell the difference.

Mind you this old SD lens was made in the 90's and looks a bit retro.

2.The CAC function only works with designated lenses. You can download CAC files that are for NON-CAC HD lenses, but thats it. It wont help out in the process.

I am open to arguments about this subject, I would love to get to the bottom of this HD vs SD glass thing.

[mcgeedigital]

I have heard the same thing from a DOP out of Baltimore. A QUALITY SD glass he puts on the rental HPX he uses looks great, according to him.....

[Kit Hannah]

Wow - suprising, Hunter.

Through my research, it always seems to me that people just "assume" that the HD glass is going to be so much better than SD glass. But from the people that I have heard from and talked to, SD glass can yield very acceptable results. I need to get a couple cameras and don't want to sell a kidney to get into it for the time being.

I really like the fact that you are someone who has actually tested this out. I am not submitting my material for Discovery HD work and my clients will most likely not know much about HD and what it can do. I'm just looking for "acceptable" results. We're not going to show anyone any side by side footage with a super high end camera. This is all they're going to see. If it will produce a fairly clear image, that's all I am concerned with.

Hunter, if you have any other insight into how SD lenses on the HPX500 will look in final footage, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks buddy.
Kit

[Kit Hannah]

The difference is more about Broadcast lenses vs "HD" lenses. The canon J series are great and the fujinon A series. Some might tell a difference in HD vs SD glass, and the Lens manufacturers would love to help you, but bottom line.. you clients will never tell the difference.


Would a "YJ" lens be almost as good or do you think it would produce unacceptable results?
Thanks

[monkeyking]

I've used SD Broadcast ENG lenses on my 500 successfully, primarily when shooting DVC PRO 50. I've also shot with same lenses in HD for well-lit talking head interviews - footage also looked great. Lens is usually shot almost wide-open at longer focal length w/background out-of-focus. I would hesitate shooting HD wide shots w/SD glass; I think that would be noticablely inferior, especially around the edges.

chrisli/wash. dc area

[Kit Hannah]

I've used SD Broadcast ENG lenses on my 500 successfully, primarily when shooting DVC PRO 50. I've also shot with same lenses in HD for well-lit talking head interviews - footage also looked great. Lens is usually shot almost wide-open at longer focal length w/background out-of-focus. I would hesitate shooting HD wide shots w/SD glass; I think that would be noticablely inferior, especially around the edges.

chrisli/wash. dc area

May I ask what lens(es) you were using?

Also, it sure would be nice to see some HPX500/502/555 footage with a SD lens attached. If anyone is able to post some, even just some frame grabs, that would be great.

thanks

[monkeyking]

Not at the shop right now, but I do know there were 2 fuji and one canon. Only Canon had internal focus, but fuji lenses were high end (for their day). Very forgiving for well-lit talking head shots.

[hunter richards]

The canon "yj" series are the "professional" line.

So Lens makers like Canon and Fujinon have 2 lines:

The "Broadcast" line, which cost a few times more than the "Professional" line and have better coatings and optical designs to reduce breathing, CA, ect.

And the "professional" line, which are nice lenses they are just built differently for a different kind of application. You will see more CA and breathing on a "professional" lens. Also a lower "MTF"

I would not reccoment buying a YJ series for an HD camera, but who knows? Some one should test it out.

I just heard a report of someone putting a j11x4.5b (non-HD lens) on an f900, and then put the HD-Version and they said "I really cant tell the difference between the two"

hmmm...

[hunter richards]

Here is a jpeg of the HPX500 with a Fuji14xlens (non-IF) from the 90's. (Full wide @9mm)
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1199747199.jpg
Same lens
(full telephoto)
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1199835622.jpg
Its actually a bit sharper than that before I compressed it...
Pretty impressive? The detail was only set to +2. (thats what I use with my HD lens also when shooting landscapes)

[mcgeedigital]

Not bad, not bad at all....I'm going to have to take the lens off of my DSR-500 and try that.

[Kit Hannah]

WOW...Impressive to say the least.... That is absolutely stunning! If you have any more images to share I would appreciate it, but this is VERY good news. Real prrof instead of just hearsay. I love it! Gettin really excited about this!

[hunter richards]

I am planning on buying a new "SD" Broadcast wide angle and I will post some more results then. For now here is the Fujinon "HD" 17x7.6 lens that came with my hpx500 (for comparison to the wide shot before) its also compressed into a jpeg and yes, the image was sharper before I compressed it:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1199750361.jpg
Thats sharp as it gets. (I dont have a comparison between an SD vs HD lens on this shot)

(look at the small details in this close-up vs the details in the wide shot before, you can see that the SD lens is just a bit sharper)

[Kit Hannah]

Another great picture, Hunter. But honestly, I'm looking for a short term solution until I can afford expensive glass. If that is the difference between the 2, I can definitely live with the SD image for the time being. If someone had told me the first picture was with a SD lens, I probably would have been inclined to believe them.

Hey Hunter, I see you just did a screen shot on that - could you do a few more and post those up? That would be great, just for reference on the HD lens. Thanks!

[Kit Hannah]

Not bad, not bad at all....I'm going to have to take the lens off of my DSR-500 and try that.

Ohh, please do, Matt. That would be wonderful. I would like to see as many pictures as possible and even some very short clips would be great. That looks like a good quality HD image to me.

BTW, thaks to everyone for taking time out of your day to post these pictures and your comments. They are VERY helpful to me in making a decision to go with the HPX500 (well 555, but that's another story for another thread). Keep 'em comin'! :dankk2:

[hunter richards]

Wait untill I get a my new lens and I will try to shoot some charts.

[bwest]

What the hell is an sd lens? Arent HDlenses just a marketing ploy. My Leica's and Zeisses, and Nikons cant do HD?
I think they can...

[Kit Hannah]

What the hell is an sd lens? Arent HDlenses just a marketing ploy. My Leica's and Zeisses, and Nikons cant do HD?
I think they can...

SD = Standard Definition
HD= High Definition

We're talking about older ENG lenses that come from Standard Definition ENG camera bodies - "supposedly" they produce terrible images on HD ENG bodies, but we're quickly finding out they can look great. The camera companies say that you NEED a HD lens, but I think they're wrong. Your lenses will be fine with HD and an adapter...Total marketing ploy. But I will admit that they have done a good job with it! More money in their pockets.

[Kit Hannah]

Wait untill I get a my new lens and I will try to shoot some charts.

Cool man. Thanks Hunter. I look forward to seeing it.
Kit

[bwest]

I always thought film was capable of 4K which I though was "Reds" biggest claim to fame with its new sensor... first to match film

[hunter richards]

There are differences in HD lenses and SD lenses, its not just marketing. But on a camera like mine(the HPX500), and for the projects I do (Mostly delivered on web and a few 720p for broadcast)... The HD version of a lens isnt worth the extra $15k. (To Me anyways)

[Kit Hannah]

There are differences in HD lenses and SD lenses, its not just marketing. But on a camera like mine(the HPX500), and for the projects I do (Mostly delivered on web and a few 720p for broadcast)... The HD version of a lens isnt worth the extra $15k. (To Me anyways)

And I am in pretty much the same boat that you are, Hunter. I'm sure there are differences, but the extra $$$ to me is much better spent on something else.

[hunter richards]

Like rent...

[Barry_Green]

SD lenses were supposed to be engineered to hit a target resolving power of about 30 line-pairs per millimeter. HD lenses are supposed to hit about 85 lp/mm.

Hunter, be sure to try at different focal lengths, especially full telephoto and full wide, to see how it holds up.

[hunter richards]

I have another screen grab from that same day of the parking lot at full telephoto (w/o 2x) I will post it when I go back to the office tomorrow.

-Hunter

[dlang]

ooooh I'm in suspense(: What would be really helpful if time permits is an SD and HD lens shooting the same the shot each matching focal lengths etc...That would be a sticky worthy thread huh. It would be great if there truly was only a mild difference and save us all some $$ Is it wishful thinking

[hunter richards]

I should have an Angenieux 12x5.3 AIF HR sometime in the next week or two (its being shipped from Europe) I will try to test it next to a few other lenses. Here is what I am hoping to do:

A complete HD vs SD lens test (on the HPX500), involving various lenses at various focal lengths and apertures.

Lenses (Hopefully):

The less than $600 (on ebay) Fujinon non-if 14x9 lens (SD)
Angenieux 12x5.3 aif HR (SD)
Canon j9x5.5 (HD)
Fujinon 18x7.8 (HD-non-CAC)
Fujinon 17x7.6 CAC lens
And rental house willing... a few digiprimes or Fuji EC Primes

& maybe even the new letus35 relay!

Tests will be conducted as follows:

1.Backfocus
2.Lenses will be calibrated for shading
3.White balanced
4.Res chart (at various aperatures and full-wide,medium, and telephoto focal lengths)
5.Real-life tests with people/ and landscapes

I am not incredibly articulate when it comes to this kind of tedious task, but I will try my best.

Give me some time on this one (a month-ish) , I will make a new post/website when I have the results.

-Hunter

[Kit Hannah]

You're the man Hunter. I'm sure it will be great. I really look forward to it. By then though, I will definitely have my cameras with SD glass. If the SD lenses don't work out for me, at least I'm not out that much $$$ and can step up to the HD...
Kit

[Kit Hannah]

So do any others have any experience with this? Do any of you guys have HPX500's / 502's / /555's and an SD lens? Sure would be nice to see some more pictures and what lens you are using. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. Hunter suggested Canon "J" series and Fujinon "A" series, but I would definitely like to see the Canon "YJ" series as there are some pretty nice looking lenses out there for the money. Anybody?

[Kit Hannah]

Is anyone else able to do any tests? We're going to be purchasing in the next week or so and I would like to see as much as possible. Thanks,
Kit

[dregenthal]

I'm hoping this thread will be around for a while (pretty important issue) . . . might rate a sticky?

[mcgeedigital]

I'm out shooting all next week on the road.....when I get back I could do some quick tests with a nice piece of SD glass off of my dsr-500 and the HPX with the Fuji CAC.....

[Noel Evans]

Give me some time on this one (a month-ish) , I will make a new post/website when I have the results.

-Hunter

Cant wait to see your results.

[Kit Hannah]

Gawd, rained out this morning.
Here's the quick clip that I shot yesterday. Nothing fabulous though.
But I think broadcast SD lens works really well.
http://www.onebikeguy.com/KakugyoBlog/Podcast/Entries/2008/1/12_AG-HPX555_with_sd_lens.html
(The large file is taking long time to upload, so please visit again later for the 1080 file)

Just wanted to post this over here since we have a lot of people interested. Take a look at this video posted by Kaku and tell me that an SD lens would not be good on a budget... I dare ya!

This was shot with a Canon J13x9B SD Broadcast Lens, pretty old glass, something that can be had on Ebay from about $50 to $300 depending on what it is. Compared to the cheapest 2/3" HD lens at $6500, I would say with the evidence I have seen, going this route, a large format ENG HD camera is VERY affordable to get in to. You could very well have a full shooting package for around $11k - $12k with a couple of batteries.

Let me say this again... Body, Viewfinder, 16GB Free P2 Card (some companies are including them with the 500 as well), Lens, 2 IDX Batteries, Ready to roll for just over $11,000! Another $2400 if you want to round out your P2 Cards.... $13,400 is a far cry from the $20k + packages that were being offered. I haven't even seen the XDCAM 335 Body Only for less than around $15k, without anything.....

[Kit Hannah]

Ohh, stick. THANKS! I think this IS a very important thing. Thanks everyone.

[Andy Mogg]

I have. I have used my 18X from my Sony DSR500WS and the lens works great. It really surprised me. I tested it on the HPX2000 as well and much the same results. On a really hi resolution monitor toy can see the difference, but honestly, in my opinion. for many many things I could get away with using the SD lens. It made me realize how much hype there is in the HD Lenses. And the prices are way out of whack. I will qualify this by saying My SD Lens is a really good quality Fuji lens.

Andy

[Stephen Mick]

Andy,

Exactly which lens are you using? Just curious.

--SM

[dlang]

AMAZING....IS this too good to be true?? Someone list some draw backs. If they're all minor then is the price difference justifiable? (I can probably conclude that on my own, buy hey wondering what ya'll think)

[Kit Hannah]

Andy,

Exactly which lens are you using? Just curious.

--SM

I too am very interested in knowing what the exact model number is of the lens you tested. I keep hearing all this stuff about "Canon J lenses and Fujinon A lenses", but nobody has posted any evidence to the contrary. Nobody out there has any footage or pics to post? I would like to see what the other lower quality lenses look like as well.

[Jim Carswell]

For those into the technical side of HD and SD lens differences... here's an article I came across recently:

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/broadcasting_hdtv_lens_design_4/

Jim

[hunter richards]

Thats good info Jim. Thanks for posting. I have read a lot of what I would call "Lens Propaganda". I know there is a difference between HD/SD glass but what I am seeing is less than 2-10% difference in resolution(if any at all). However, I still have high hopes that when I slap a zeiss digiprime on my camera I will see a large difference.

This is kinda like what some "old guys" say about the time when the first ccd cameras came out. Before that, all of the cameras were tube based (I am glad I didnt have to go through that!). So when this new standard of "CCD" came about, Lens makers started slapping the "CCD" emblem on their new lenses with a hefty price inflation. The "old guys" I have talked too who watched this happen said there wasnt any noticeable difference in quality between the lenses. Is this all to familar with what happens today with the "HD" emblem and higher prices with little to no increase in quality?

[sbaileymediaman]

I know we'd all love to have the top hd lens and the best camera but providing it's colour corrected and shot well would our target audiences notice a difference between a hdcam with top hd lens and a hpx500 with an sd lens?

The only people who would realise the difference is people like us which make up a fraction of a percent of the people watching so as long as it's shot well, the scripts good and the content entertaining I don't think most audiences would care if its's an hd lens or an sd one.

E.g. some elderly people I know can't even tell the difference between a vhs and a dvd except the rewinding. So for them a hd lens won't make their favourite sitcom any better.

Thats just my word of advice when considering a hd lens or something else (like a new car or house loan)

[murrayjob]

I have my suspicions about lens manufacturers wanting to ride the huge "HD" wave by simply re-branding lenses HD when in fact they are admitting that up until now they have been producing inferior standard lenses, so with the HD lenses they will try a little harder ??

[joe 1008]

Comparing SD to HD also is quite relative:

NTSC´s 480 lines compared to 1080 HD-lines show a big gap in numbers. But
PAL´s 575 lines compared to 720 HD-lines don´t.

I suppose that all SD lenses are made to match PAL resolution so at least 720 lines should be within or very close to their resolution range.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, but PAL's 10 million pixels per second, versus 720p's 46 million pixels per second, go to show that 720p HD is massively more detailed than PAL. Just looking at the vertical lines doesn't tell 1/4 the story.

[joe 1008]

If you compare 50i to 60p, then 720p in fact has even five times more pixels per second than PAL. But I think time doesn´t matter here. What matters is the single frame and here the difference is much smaller:

PAL: 576x768, equal to 442368 pixels
720p: 720x1280, equal to 921600 pixels

in fact, here you are comparing 4:3 against 16:9. A 16:9 PAL sensor with square pixels would be 576x1024 which would result in 589824 pixels.

Of course there is no PAL-format with that resolution but we are talking about the relation of sensor and lens, so I think this asumption is not too far fetched.

In this case - assuming that both sensors are 16:9 - the resolution of a 720p sensor would be just slightly 1/3 more than a PAL sensor! No big deal for a good SD lens, I suppose.

[Barry_Green]

But I think time doesn´t matter here
Sorry, time matters extremely much. Have you seen 720p -- it blows the doors off of PAL. It's much better. Much, much, much better. 720p is legitimate HD, and the PAL-using European Broadcast Union endorsed 720p as the preferred HD broadcast format for European broadcasters.

I've heard this mathematical argument before, but all you have to do is take one look at the footage to realize that 720p is leagues better than PAL ever was.

[joe 1008]

I did look at 720p footage and I don´t doubt that it is ways better than PAL. And It is clear for me that 720p has about twice the detail resolution of PAL - AND: Twice the motion resolution. But the motion resolution doesn´t affect the performance of the lens (at least if we´re not talking about low light.)

Stretching the 4:3 PAL-resolution to a 16:9 proportion, which to me seems correct in this special case, I still belive that 720p only needs 33-40% more lens performance than PAL. That might be well within the limits of an SD lens.

I think there might be many other reasons beside the sheer resolution that make look 720p so much better than PAL.

[joe 1008]

I still belive that 720p only needs 33-40% more lens performance than PAL.

Ah, I got that numbers wrong: That supposed 16:9 PAL would have exactly 36% less resolution than 720p. But starting from the lower end an SD lens would need to feed 56% more pixels to match the 720p resolution.

To make it clear again: True PAL has only 768 pixels in one line, there isn´t such a thing like full 16:9 PAL resolution in the real world. I just feel that you can´t blame that resolution loss on the capacity of a lens...

Anyway, 56%more lensperformance needed... Now I´m not that sure anymore that it really works... Better go to bed...:Drogar-Kriz(DBG):

[Postmaster]

I think that´s pure Marketing Propagande.

Look at all those $300 little digital still cameras. They all have a sherd of a lense and most of them doing a pretty good job resolving far more than HD resolution.

Even the lenses for professional digital stiill cameras can handle way more than HD at a fraction of $$.

How about the lenses for analog still cameras? 6x6 or the 12x12 big ones?
A multitude of HD resolution. No one ever daubt that the glas can handle that pretty well.

And here comes little old HD with only 1920x1080. That´s nothing! But the big companys want us do belive that we have to buy the overpriced glas to get good pictures?

ahhh, come on...


Frank

[Kit Hannah]

I think that´s pure Marketing Propagande.

Look at all those $300 little digital still cameras. They all have a sherd of a lense and most of them doing a pretty good job resolving far more than HD resolution.

Even the lenses for professional digital stiill cameras can handle way more than HD at a fraction of $$.

Very good point, postmaster. It would be interesting to see the specs on a lens of a small digital camera, what kind of glass they have in front of those things.

This is the funny thing:

I hear this crap about "you'll get a bad image" and "it just won't work". But the truth is that I have not seen any evidence SHOWING it doesn't work. We have numerous posts here of people showing that it looks great, stills, video, etc. And quite honestly, most people are not going to care if it doesn't look like a freakin varicam. The whole reason I am purchasing the 500 and an SD lens is to save money, because the difference, if any, is very minor.

I posted this thread for people to show why you can or can't use an SD lens on the 500. Seems like the general consesus is that it works great. And when I get my 2 HPX500's with the SD lenses this next week, you better believe I'll be posting some footage.

[hunter richards]

Word

[joe 1008]

And when I get my 2 HPX500's with the SD lenses this next week, you better believe I'll be posting some footage.

New SD lenses or 2nd hand? What fabricate, what price?

[Kit Hannah]

New SD lenses or 2nd hand? What fabricate, what price?

They will be USED Canon "J" series and/or Fujinon "A" series, which is there top end SD models. The price will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 - $1000. I may spend just a little more than that depending on what I can find, but that will be the ballpark.

[hunter richards]

You might want to pick up the old SD one I tested before, The fujinon 13x (called the "pegasus 2") Its on ebay for about $400.

[Kit Hannah]

You might want to pick up the old SD one I tested before, The fujinon 13x (called the "pegasus 2") Its on ebay for about $400.

Yeah, I have seen those. At this point, I'm not sure I care too much what I get as long as the glass isnt scratched up.

BTW Hunter, were you ever able to put some screen shots / short footage up? I just had a chat with my guys and we'll be getting everything hopefully later this week. It would be really nice if someone had some more footage or pics to post.
Thanks
Kit

[hunter richards]

I'm still waiting on lenses to arrive. But its coming, I already have tested(resolution chart and real-world) the Fuji17x CAC HD lens for now (I have just sold it and I am shipping it out tomorrow)

I have a canon J8x6 SD lens coming soon and the "On-j-new" 12x5.3 HR SD lens. After I test those, then I will rent the rest of the lenses I want to test.

[hunter richards]

I just got a very old j14x9 with 2x.

This lens opens up to f1.6! That makes it around a 2.8-4 split in s35mm. (very shallow dof)

Here are some quick grabs (nothing technical)

DISCLAIMER: I DIDNT CALIBRATE THE BACKFOCUS!


f1.6 at about 20mm
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201125217.jpeg

f5.6 at almost full-telephoto
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201125326.jpeg

This lens is over 15 years old and has been sitting on a betasp in a garage.
here is the sony him self:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201125504.jpeg

[Kit Hannah]

SOLD! Looks fantastic to me. I will be pleanty happy if that what my images look like.

Kit

[hunter richards]

One more, The old spdeck collecting dust; same lens(j14x9):
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201132073.jpeg

[Kit Hannah]

Hey hunter, just for "S&G", since you have that lens and a HD lens, do you mind posting some almost identical footage comparing the 2 lenses when you have some time? It would be really nice to once and for all see the exact difference, kinda like an A/B comparison.

[hunter richards]

I will have the same res chart photographed. I just sold my HD lens so I cant shoot the same scenes. Pictures from both look good and I dont think anyone could tell the difference.

[Kit Hannah]

I will have the same res chart photographed. I just sold my HD lens so I cant shoot the same scenes. Pictures from both look good and I dont think anyone could tell the difference.

So does that mean that you did away with the HD lens completely?

[Kaku Ito]

kit, seen this yet? I wonder how shoter length SD lens would go with Brevis.

http://web.mac.com/kakuito/KakugyoBlog/Podcast/Entries/2008/1/25_AG-HPX555-Brevis35-Flip.html

[Kit Hannah]

kit, seen this yet? I wonder how shoter length SD lens would go with Brevis.

http://web.mac.com/kakuito/KakugyoBlog/Podcast/Entries/2008/1/25_AG-HPX555-Brevis35-Flip.html

Yeah, cool man. Looks great. Keep it coming. Thanks for all the shots.

[hunter richards]

I just got my j8x6, there is seriously no noticeable breathing at any focal length. I will post some grabs when I go to the office.(my computer is there)

[Kaku Ito]

I just got my j8x6, there is seriously no noticeable breathing at any focal length. I will post some grabs when I go to the office.(my computer is there)

sounds good hunter.

[Kit Hannah]

Hey kaku, did you ever get any more grabs? It would be cool to post a few of your things over here on DVX...

Hunter, looking forward to it....
Kit

[hunter richards]

Oh snap! Grabs from 3 different wide-angle lenses on the Hpx500. (all lenses are at their maximum wide angle)

The first is an SD lens (the j8x6) You can buy this lens used for around $4-6K
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201746427.jpeg

Here is the new fujinon HD lens (HA13x4.5) like the action? This lens costs more than $20k with a doubler.
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201746880.jpeg

Here is a canon HD lens (HJ9x5.5) You can buy this lens used for around $12-16k
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1201746649.jpeg


Please take that the HPX500 is not the best camera for high-frequency detail that exists in wide shots. (and it doesnt help that I set mine up to be softer on purpose) The HPX performs best in medium and tight applications (imo)

But can really see any difference?I think there is a bunch of BS being fed to cameramen about "HD" lenses. You can take these pictures for what it worth.

Oh yeah and all of the lenses had a proper back focus, and I still plan on shooting res charts soon.

[Kaku Ito]

I've been busy shooting with Brevis, and my SD lens doesn't allow putting Brevis, so what I've been posting are clips with Fujinon HD lens/Brevis combination.

[NeverColdCall]

I'm reading this thread as an HVX owner looking to add an HPX500, so, is it safe to say that an HPX500 with SD glass will far exceed the HVX?

I have to assume the HVX uses very cheap glass just based on the price point of the camera.

I am in need of a 2nd camera and getting into an HPX500 at the SD glass price point would make more sense than buying another HVX.

[Kit Hannah]

I'm reading this thread as an HVX owner looking to add an HPX500, so, is it safe to say that an HPX500 with SD glass will far exceed the HVX?

I have to assume the HVX uses very cheap glass just based on the price point of the camera.

I am in need of a 2nd camera and getting into an HPX500 at the SD glass price point would make more sense than buying another HVX.

That was the full intention of this thread, to show that you don't have to spend $20k + to get into a nice camera.

Yes, the HPX500 with SD glasss will still outperform the 200. The low-light capabilities, interchangeable lenses, added pixel count and looking professional are very worth it. Not to mention all of the other advantages.

[NeverColdCall]

Yes, the HPX500 with SD glasss will still outperform the 200. The low-light capabilities, interchangeable lenses, added pixel count and looking professional are very worth it. Not to mention all of the other advantages.

Nice, that makes it a no-brainer for me!

[augenblick]

My HPX500 is on the UPS airplane to Switzerland right now. On monday, I will be a proud owner of this baby!
Beautiful HD times to come.

Peter

[Kit Hannah]

My HPX500 is on the UPS airplane to Switzerland right now. On monday, I will be a proud owner of this baby!
Beautiful HD times to come.

Peter

Hey Peter,

What lens will you be using with your 500? Could you post some full size frame grabs online and link to them? Let us know what you are using and the current settings.
Thanks

[augenblick]

I plan to use the Letus Extreme with to soon to be released relay lens. Quyen Le told me on the phone that it'll be ready in about two weeks from now. Until then I rent a lens. No idea which model yet.

But I'll post pictures asap.

Peter

[augenblick]

My HPX500 arrived on monday. :thumbsup:

A friend of mine gave me a lens I can use for a little while and play around with. Is't a Canon J9ax5.4 with an 2x extender. I slapped it on, switched on my monitor and went: "OH MY GOD! YES, YES, YES!"

OK, bottom line. In my eyes - until proven otherwise - there is no need for a HD Lens. The pictures I saw where awsome. The 500 outperforms the HVX200 easily. Especially on the F-Stop and the noise.

I will post pictures and charts asap. But right now I have to write a script and meet with a client later today. :happy:

Peter

[Kit Hannah]

Wow - Nice lens, must be a great friend. I wish that my friends had some lenses to throw my way to check out for awhile.

I think we're in the same mindset - SD lenses are where it's at. They will get cheaper and cheaper as HD cameras become more prevalent. There's a few of us rolling around with only SD lenses that are posting. Hell, Hunter Richards SOLD his HD lens and got a couple of SD lenses.

I'm glad you like it Peter. If you have a chance, post up some full size screen shots so we can view for ourselves. Even some footage would be nice.

Thanks!

[hunter richards]

Yep, and I dont miss my HD lens one bit.

[augenblick]

Don't worry. Charts and footage will come asap.
My friend is a nature videographer. A few years ago he went from DigiBeta to HDCAM. The lens was used on his "old" DigiBeta Equipment that has been retired. I edited some stuff he shot, so he lent me the lens until he needs it again. Like in a few years :happy:

Peter

[mule ferguson]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23608333@N03/?saved=1
Photo at this site
Lens Canon IF J15x8B4 IRS
HPX2000

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/11128/1203013523.jpg



Video at this site
http://www.vimeo.com/686230


Mule Ferguson

[Kit Hannah]

Even more compelling evidence....

[NorthernFilmMaker]

You know what would be very helpful is a list of lenses with prices and how they perform as based on user experience. I am very interested in this thread, getting a cheaper high quality SD lens over an expensive sub par HD lens is what i'm in to!

[Kit Hannah]

You know what would be very helpful is a list of lenses with prices and how they perform as based on user experience. I am very interested in this thread, getting a cheaper high quality SD lens over an expensive sub par HD lens is what i'm in to!

And that's exactly what we're talking about here.

So check this out - I don't have time to post any screen grabs tonight - I will do so hopefully this weekend, but here's a quick picture of the lenses we are using:

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/IMG_5678.jpg


I purchased these lenses on Ebay for $125 Each and they work perfectly. They are Canon J15x9.5B4 KRS SD lenses. They're pretty old, but they function perfectly (I had to change the connector on the lens from a 6 pin to a 12 pin, which cost me $32 each, if you have questions on how to do this, let me know). The images coming from these look wonderful and I will post as soon as I have time (gotta get the grabs and footage from the office). This just goes to show that you can find some great deals on some nice used lenses and not spend a small fortune doing it. SD lenses are only going to get cheaper and easier to come by too.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

That's awesome Kit, I've done a bit of looking around on ebay and different online stores... which lenses would be the best choices? I've noticed alot of different lettering on the model types.... i read an earlier post that said, Canon YJ...Fuji A models were a good choice? any other types I could keep an eye out for? Thanks Kit.... much appreciated :thumbsup:


I'd be very interested to know how the Canon YJ13x6 BIRS w/ 2x would perform, that looks like one nice lens..... its about 8600, which is about the cost of the Fuji 17x HD lens w/2x extender.... the Canon would definitely take care of the wide angle and the telephoto, all in one lens

[Kit Hannah]

That's awesome Kit, I've done a bit of looking around on ebay and different online stores... which lenses would be the best choices? I've noticed alot of different lettering on the model types.... i read an earlier post that said, Canon YJ...Fuji A models were a good choice? any other types I could keep an eye out for? Thanks Kit.... much appreciated :thumbsup:


I'd be very interested to know how the Canon YJ13x6 BIRS w/ 2x would perform, that looks like one nice lens..... its about 8600, which is about the cost of the Fuji 17x HD lens w/2x extender.... the Canon would definitely take care of the wide angle and the telephoto, all in one lens


Not YJ - I don't know how those would work as they are not Canon's top of the line lens.


They need to be either Canon "J" series or Fujinon "A" series. Both of these are their top of the line lenses. The YJ series is a midgrade model, so the optics on those lenses are going to be inferior.

You can get some really nice Fujinon wide angle lenses in the $2000 - $5000. I know Hunter has used a couple of the wide angles with great success.

And there should be no need to spend $8600 on most lenses. Here are some links to a few lenses that would be nice:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fujinon-A18x7-6BERM-2-3-Broadcast-Lens-with-2x_W0QQitemZ310023483100QQihZ021QQcategoryZ3319QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fujinon-A17x9BDM-17x-2-3-Internal-Focus-Lens-NEAR-MINT_W0QQitemZ230221886059QQihZ013QQcategoryZ21165 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fujinon-A17x7-8-BERM-M28C-1-1-8-7-8-133mm-Brodcast-Lens_W0QQitemZ150215965893QQihZ005QQcategoryZ21165 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-J8x6b-Broadcast-Wideangle-2-3-B4-mount-lens_W0QQitemZ300198352916QQihZ020QQcategoryZ3319Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

There's lots of deals to be had out there, you just have to watch. The last lens is the one Hunter is selling I think... the "J8x6"

Kit

[NorthernFilmMaker]

:thumbsup:

[J.D.]

I have an old Fujinon A12X10BRM-88 1.7 10-120mm
2/3 format, sony mount, manual focus,servo zoom
will this work on the HPX?

[mcgeedigital]

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/6185/1203100652.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/6185/1203100630.jpg

The kit Fujinon lens on an HPX500 and the SD Canon lens off of my DSR-500.

Thanks to Emmanuel (screen name "emmanetim") from RHED Pixel for the help in this test.

I'll be selling the DSR500, but I think I'll KEEP the lens!

[emmanetim]

I am convinced that high end SD glass will do as well, if not better than our Fujinon HD glass.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, here's some perspective from the manufacturer's side. Canon has written up many white papers on HDTV lens design and usage, many of which are available for download off Abel CineTech's website here:
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=45

I would advise those planning on skipping HD lenses to look at maybe this paper: SDTV Lens on HDTV Camera: To Be or Not To Be? (http://www.abelcine.com/articles/images/pdf/white_paper_sdtv_lens_onhdtv_camera.pdf)

Note, I'm not telling anyone to use, or not use, any particular lens. Furthermore I'd say the mere idea of classifying lenses collectively does a great disservice to the better lenses; there's a reason that certain lenses cost $80,000 and a JVC HD100's "HD" lens is $800. So: read up for yourself, test them yourself, and make your own determination. Just because an SD lens may work out in some circumstances, it may not work out in all, etc; you'd better be properly informed beforehand. And it's also possible that a great SD lens might outperform a lousy HD lens too... there is no one simple answer. Do your homework.

[hunter richards]

The SD lens looks better to my eyes!


Barry, Thanks for posting ( I have very high-respect for you so don't take this the wrong way).

I have read those documents before. But in application, do these white papers mean anything? These documents are for the engineers (or the engineer at heart) at networks and production companies, they see "Oh, these charts show that HD lenses have more resolution and flatter MTF, thats worth the extra money". And maybe thats true to a point.

This thread I think has turned into more of a help thread for potential hpx500 buyers. They get to see that on the hpx500 (and hpx2000), there is little or no visual difference in quality with HD lenses and Broadcast (J or A series) SD lenses. This is good news for the indie filmmaker/DP or small production company looking growing their business/production value/cleintel with full-size HD cameras on a budget. (Like Kit and I)

What I have found with SD lenses is that the coatings permit more unwanted flair.(In some cases) This is probably because of less advanced coatings and possibly fewer special elements. However, there is always flair unless your shooting with extremly high-end glass. I have used now on my hpx500 4 broadcast SD lenses, and 3 HD lenses (2 of them were very high-end). I shot my film "goodSAM" with an older Canon SD j8x6 in 1080/24pA mode. I watched it on a 1080p monitor and it looked like film! I wouldnt use an SD lens for a filmout (I wouldnt use any ENG for a film-out anyways for that matter)

But every tool has its place and most of the time, My SD lenses have their place on my camera for 99% of my business work.And my clients dont care, they see the final image and the last thing on their mind is...you shot this with an SD lens?

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Okay, here's some perspective from the manufacturer's side. Canon has written up many white papers on HDTV lens design and usage, many of which are available for download off Abel CineTech's website here:
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=45

I would advise those planning on skipping HD lenses to look at maybe this paper: SDTV Lens on HDTV Camera: To Be or Not To Be? (http://www.abelcine.com/articles/images/pdf/white_paper_sdtv_lens_onhdtv_camera.pdf)

Note, I'm not telling anyone to use, or not use, any particular lens. Furthermore I'd say the mere idea of classifying lenses collectively does a great disservice to the better lenses; there's a reason that certain lenses cost $80,000 and a JVC HD100's "HD" lens is $800. So: read up for yourself, test them yourself, and make your own determination. Just because an SD lens may work out in some circumstances, it may not work out in all, etc; you'd better be properly informed beforehand. And it's also possible that a great SD lens might outperform a lousy HD lens too... there is no one simple answer. Do your homework.


So, will an SD lens on an HD Camera cause physical Harm to the camera in any way? if not then i wouldn't hesitate on using a good SD lens if it saves me thousands of dollars!

[mcgeedigital]

So, will an SD lens on an HD Camera cause physical Harm to the camera in any way? if not then i wouldn't hesitate on using a good SD lens if it saves me thousands of dollars!

As long as it is the same mount, in this case 2/3" b4, it should be fine.

[Barry_Green]

So, will an SD lens on an HD Camera cause physical Harm to the camera in any way?
No, definitely not -- as long as it's the same mount it should be fine physically.


if not then i wouldn't hesitate on using a good SD lens if it saves me thousands of dollars!
Yeah, there's just that old saying of "you get what you pay for" that keeps ringing in my ears. I find it hard to believe that companies like Canon and Fujinon would "get away" with selling lenses for $80,000 that don't have any real-world performance difference from a $3,000 lens, y'know?

There's got to be reasons. The question for you is: do you care? If you get what you want out of the $3,000 lens, then by all means, go ahead.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

No, definitely not -- as long as it's the same mount it should be fine physically.


Yeah, there's just that old saying of "you get what you pay for" that keeps ringing in my ears. I find it hard to believe that companies like Canon and Fujinon would "get away" with selling lenses for $80,000 that don't have any real-world performance difference from a $3,000 lens, y'know?

There's got to be reasons. The question for you is: do you care? If you get what you want out of the $3,000 lens, then by all means, go ahead.


Cheers Barry, :beer:

[hunter richards]

hey mule...you said that your hpx2000 isnt making you any money now because business is slow...want to trade cameras for a while? My hpx500 for your 2000...

Have you thought about putting the avc-intra board in? Its really easy to do.

10-bit fullraster 1080p!

[mule ferguson]

The AVC Intra Board is on its way. and I will be installing ,. If I have ? I will give you a ring. Thanks for the offer but I welcome slow time. I'm not as young as some of you young film makers :) :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) 3 projects starting next week.

Mule

[hunter richards]

Post some grabs and footage asap after you get that avcintra board! Please!

[Kit Hannah]

Hey all,

Well, finally, here are some quick screen grabs from outside of my place using the HPX500 and a Canon J15.95B4 KRS lens (I changed the 6 pin to a 12 pin on the lens). These were shot at 1080 24p & 30p, No menu corrections, nothing done to the picture, just exported.

Although it doesn't look terrible, and some of it is cause by the jpeg compression, but I would like to see if I can get some of that noise out of there. Lemme know what you think.

Click on the picture for a full 1920 x 1080 shot.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image5.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image5.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image4.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image4.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image3.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image3.jpg)

[dolph2000]

I think it's a very very nice car

[Kit Hannah]

Thanks, Dolph. I appreciate that. I like it, fun to drive. It's my production vehicle - I have to fit 2x HPX500's in there along with accessories and a 6 light Cool Lights rig (albiet 4 are softbox fixtures that break down pretty small). I always wanted a convertible and finally got one.

[Jim Carswell]

Please don't take this the wrong way Kit... but those shots really don't look that great. I don't know if it's the lens you used or your camera settings or what but the focus just wasn't "tack on". It looks as if it was shot with a Beta SP.

Like you said it may be the jpeg compression.

I've been paying close attention to this discussion because I too am about to purchase a 500 and the thought of getting a better lens by going the SD route seems attractive. But if these images are an example of what I would get... I just don't know...
Jim

[Kit Hannah]

Please don't take this the wrong way Kit... but those shots really don't look that great. I don't know if it's the lens you used or your camera settings or what but the focus just wasn't "tack on". It looks as if it was shot with a Beta SP.

Like you said it may be the jpeg compression.

I've been paying close attention to this discussion because I too am about to purchase a 500 and the thought of getting a better lens by going the SD route seems attractive. But if these images are an example of what I would get... I just don't know...
Jim

Not taken the wrong way at all, Jim. I think I agree with you. I don't think the images look that great either, that's the problem I am having. Granted, I am using $125 lenses on the cameras. What I am seeing though is quite a bit of noise. I hooked up the camera to a 37" lcd tv and I could visually see the noise. Keep in mind, I have not made any adjustments to the camera's menu, that was just some "out of the box" test shots. I am willing to try some different things if you guys want to give me some suggestions. I don't think the lens is creating the noise, I think it has to do more with the camera's settings.

Also keep in mind that these were also handheld shots. I'm pretty good with a handheld camera as I have done a ton of handheld work for broadcast and news type applications, and there are many projects that we shoot handheld. What I will have to do is re-check my back focus to see if it's a bit soft. I back focused very quickly, took like 10 seconds to do it, so I will spend a bit more time on it today.

I whole heartedly believe that once the settings are good, I will have a nice image coming out of a very cheap lens. We needed 2 cameras, so I couldn't afford to go all out and buy nicer lenses, but I will be doing so in the next couple of months. If you guys have any suggestions, please, by all means, let me know. I don't get offended when people say things don't look good, but maybe offer me some sugegstions to try (other than "go buy a new lens"). I have the better part of the day to check some things out, so that's my plans for today. Thanks in advance for everyone's help.

Kit

[hunter richards]

Beta SP? Come on... That doesnt look like betaSP.

Here is a chunk of reality:

The hpx500 is not a Red camera, the pictures taken with it will not look like it came from a DSLR. A sony EX1 takes sharper pictures than the hpx500. You wont get much better pictures no matter what glass you put on the hpx500. Just a friendly dose. If your looking for the sharpest HD footage for a bargain price, you may want to go HDV.

Kit,

I noticed that the component output is very noisy, It doesnt show up on the actual footage. You may want to try an SDI to hdmi converter.

I will PM you the scene file I use and you can see if that helps.

[Kit Hannah]

Here are a couple more:

Settings

Detail Level: -2
V. Detail Level: +4
Detail Coring: +2
Master Ped: -3
Gamma: B Press
Matrix: Cine-Like
Skin Detail: On

I believe everything else is at the default settings.

Another thing, I am getting the screen shots off of the Vegas timeleine using Raylight Blue, Just so you know.


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image8.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image8.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image7.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image7.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image6.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image6.jpg)

[hunter richards]

Those look plenty sharp for a 720p down conversion. The Hpx500 cant resolve a full 1080 lines, but It can do 720p. Try the setting I just PM'ed you.

[hunter richards]

Turn that skin detail off kit!!!! Ahhhh, not that!

[Kit Hannah]

Thanks Hunter. What I did is rendered an actual avi file with the video and it does in fact look a lot better. I'm sitting here looking at my Dell 24" from 12" away. Does it look perfect, definitely not, but when I am a couple of feet away it looks as clean as I have ever seen HD. This will be displayed on 42" screens probably viewed most of the time from 15-20 feet away, so I think it's going to be plenty acceptable.

I have another question - the 1080 30p footage is a bit jumpy when played. When I mean jumpy, it looks like it is playing it back correctly, but the movement in the screen seems to be more or less jumping across (car driving by). Do 1080p televisions only support 1080 24p or will they do 30p as well?

I suppose I can shoot at 720p just for better integration, but I really don't want to "dumb down" the quality when outputting.

Keep 'em coming guys.

Thanks
Kit

[Kit Hannah]

OK, gonna take some 720p footage. I'll post back again in 20 minutes or so with some grabs.

[hunter richards]

Kit, for compression reasons, I usually stay 1080/24pA and then Down convert to 720p if need be. Shooting in 720p is a lot more compressed (at 24p).

If your shooting at 30p, try to keep your shutter @ 1/60th (180 degrees) That will help smooth things out. If not that, maybe check your TV menus?

And another quick rant (this will just take a second):

We video nerds, sit too freaking close to our monitors. When you sit at a normal viewing distance everything looks better! Stop pressing your nose against the lcd looking for noise and compression artifacts!

Ok, I feel better now!

Cheers!

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Can someone who owns an SD lens that is of better quality post some grabs? I'm thinking of getting an SD lens but i don't think i will get one for $125, well maybe, but then it would be the lens that can be for crash bang filming.... i'm thinking more in the range of $2500- $5000, I think Mule has a lens that i was checking out on ebay.... but his grab is from his HPX2000, i would like to see a grab with the same or similar type of lens on the 500.

[Kit Hannah]

And another quick rant (this will just take a second):

We video nerds, sit too freaking close to our monitors. When you sit at a normal viewing distance everything looks better! Stop pressing your nose against the lcd looking for noise and compression artifacts!

Ok, I feel better now!

Cheers!


That's what I'm saying. Who the f$%& is going to be watching your video from that distance anyways? That's why I say it looks fine, because it does.

[Kit Hannah]

More....

720 30p

This is also with Hunter's Scene File

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image30.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image30.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image19.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image19.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image18.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image18.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image17.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image17.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image16.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image16.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image15.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image15.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image14.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image14.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image13.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image13.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image11.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image11.jpg)

[Kit Hannah]

This is a comparison of the same shot, 1 exported from a 1080p timeline, one from a 720p timeleine


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image11.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image11.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image10.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image10.jpg)

[NorthernFilmMaker]

This is a comparison of the same shot, 1 exported from a 1080p timeline, one from a 720p timeleine


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image11.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image11.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/th_Image10.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images/Image10.jpg)


Is this a comparison of the HD lens and the $125 SD lens?

[Kit Hannah]

Honestly, Over all, I am decently happy with the results of my $125 lenses. I will surely upgrade in the future, but for now, I think the lenses will produce acceptable results for what we're doing.

Thanks to hunter for the Scene files - it does look much less noisy.

I'm going to stick to 1080 24p(a) for our HD delivery for us. It looks great when viewed from only a couple feet away, nobody is going to have their face 10" from the screen. When viewed from where everybody will be watching, it will look fantastic. I'm quite pleased with everything.

[Kit Hannah]

Is this a comparison of the HD lens and the $125 SD lens?

No, 720 and 1080 comparison (same shot from 1080 24p)

[hunter richards]

There is a bit of CA from those images where there is high-contrast. That is mostly from the lenses being so cheap. I got some pretty grabs from footage I shot last week i will post. Taken with the Canon j8x6.

[hunter richards]

Oh yeah, kit: One of the reasons the CA looks bad in some shots is because your at max telephoto.

[Kit Hannah]

Oh yeah, kit: One of the reasons the CA looks bad in some shots is because your at max telephoto.

It's all good. I did some test videos and they relly look quite nice. Especially when viewing them from a few feet away, everything looks great. I'm going to look into some higher quality lenses and see what I can find in the next couple of weeks. I will post more footage as we do some projects in the upcoming weeks,

Thanks for all the help.

Kit

[hunter richards]

Here is one from full-wide:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203364431.jpg
I applied slight sharpening in post and made an exposure adjustment. From the Hpx500 with Canon j8x6 (sd) wideangle lens.

[hunter richards]

untouched just compressed to jpg:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203366652.jpg

Just Gods pretty sky:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203366738.jpg

My baby girl Anneli (3months old):
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203369901.jpg

[hunter richards]

I noticed that moving images from this camera always look sharper than stills.

[mcgeedigital]

Can someone who owns an SD lens that is of better quality post some grabs? I'm thinking of getting an SD lens but i don't think i will get one for $125, well maybe, but then it would be the lens that can be for crash bang filming.... i'm thinking more in the range of $2500- $5000, I think Mule has a lens that i was checking out on ebay.... but his grab is from his HPX2000, i would like to see a grab with the same or similar type of lens on the 500.

You don't get better than the one I posted before, it is NOT a cheap lens.

[hunter richards]

The hpx2000 is also sharp as a tack!

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Does anyone have a grab with the higher end CAC HD lens? The Canon HDgc KJ16x7.7B-IRSD

[Kit Hannah]

I don't think it's fair to compare the 2000 against the 500, kinda night and day. The 2000 costs $12,000 more.

[hunter richards]

All "CAC" branded lenses are lower-end HD lenses, notice the "KJ" at the begining (meaning professional HD lens) There are some lenses that function with "Cac", but arent called "Cac" lenses. I posted a grab from an HJ9x5.5 a few pages back. ("HJ" is the highest teir of canon eng lenses, It means broadcast HD) I also posed grabs from Fujinon's CAC XA17x7.6 HD lens (as did a few others). That lens is the Canon equivalent to the lens you listed.

[hunter richards]

Yep the 2000 is way more crisp, but it also lacks VFRs, and it costs 2x the price. But still if you throw in an avc-intra board in it, its a bargain for 10-bit 1920x1080/24p.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

The 2000 is going to be my next camera, the 500 is my stepping stone :thumbsup:

[Kit Hannah]

The 2000 is going to be my next camera, the 500 is my stepping stone :thumbsup:

Well, when you're ready to let your 500 go really cheap, let me know. :laugh:

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Well, when you're ready to let your 500 go really cheap, let me know. :laugh:

i'll keep you in mind.... :thumbsup:

[Kit Hannah]

Another round of pictures.

These are untouched from Hunter's Scene files:

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image8.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image8.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image7.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image7.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image6.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image6.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image5.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image5.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image2.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image2.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image1.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image1.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image0.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image0.jpg)

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Another round of pictures.

These are untouched from Hunter's Scene files:

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image8.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image8.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image7.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image7.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image6.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image6.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image5.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image5.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image2.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image2.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image1.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image1.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/th_Image0.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Exported%20HD%20Images%202/Image0.jpg)

Dude, those look awesome!!

[hunter richards]

I know, I know...My scenefile recipie is the best.


The hpx500 is great for medium to tight shots, it stuggles with high-frequency detail in very wide shots. Thats why these shots look great!

[Kit Hannah]

Dude, those look awesome!!

Yeah, not too bad for a $125 lens and your scene file. THANKS BUDDY!

[Kit Hannah]

I know, I know...My scenefile recipie is the best.


The hpx500 is great for medium to tight shots, it stuggles with high-frequency detail in very wide shots. Thats why these shots look great!

It IS great. yeah, those were wide angle, but of close up things outside my condo. I'm very happy with the way things are shaping up It looks even better output to avi and on the tv. I'm stoked.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

I know, I know...My scenefile recipie is the best.


The hpx500 is great for medium to tight shots, it stuggles with high-frequency detail in very wide shots. Thats why these shots look great!


Where can I find your recipe?

[hunter richards]

Hunter's FILM16 Recipe

Ingredients:

1 Hpx500
1 Lens
1 Beer


Step 1: Open beer and drink.

Step 2: Take your hpx500 and input the following.

Detail -2
V Detail +4
Coring -4
Color (not the phase) -2
Master Ped +8
Gamma: Cine D
Matrix norm2

(everything not listed set to 0)

Step 3: Now shoot something nice. As you shoot click though all of the other factory scenefiles for comparison.

Step 4: View your footage at full-resolution. Notice how all of the other factory scene files look like crap now.

Step 5: Give me a high-five!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this scene file is to give you a low-contrast, neutrally saturated image, for maximum potential in post and a real "film-look". Yes, its really a +8 on the master pedestal.

[mule ferguson]

Yep the 2000 is way more crisp, but it also lacks VFRs....


I still have my HVX200 that I would never sell for this reason. The first paying job with the HVX200 in 2006 was for GE (General Electric) with lots of footage Shot in slo mo. They were shocked and impressed with the footage played back on and HD monitor. and coming from a small camera... I still use the 200 and mix footage with the 2000. There are settings to get a film look with the 2000

main menu
paint

manual knee on
knee slope 50
knee point 85.0

gama
filmlike 3

The settings are listed in the manual.

Mule

[hunter richards]

I really wish the hpx500 had more menus for image control...

If I had the extra cash, I would pick an 2000 over the 500. But then after a while, I would want the 3000. But then after more time, I would want the Varicam2...

Did you get that avc-intra board yet!?

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Hunter, why did you sell your canon j8x6? If you don't mind me asking? Seems like it would be a keeper.... ?

[hunter richards]

It is a keeper! I am trying to gear up for an indiefeature (isnt everyone?) and I was planning to rent a cinestyle lens. I found a good deal on a Canon EC wideangle zoom from a friend and I had to sell what I had in order to buy it. Otherwise, I would have kept the j8x6, its a great eng lens!

EDIT! NEW!

Here is a still from my film goodsam shot with the j8x6 SD lens, dont mind the grade or post added grain. Errr. Its also a highly compressed jpeg...
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203728033.jpg

[J.D.]

What is the model is the a Canon EC wideangle zoom?

[J.D.]

I think I found it on your web site Canon 9x5.2mm t2.0 EC

[hunter richards]

Canon and Optex got together to make their Canon Branded EC lenses. Now Canon has a new line called HD-EC. The lens I have was replaced with the 8x5.5 HD-EC version. The new HDEC lenses are just too expensive and overkill to put on my hpx500 (more than $30K!)

So in effect, this Canon EC zoom I have doesn't have the "HD" branding, but I have a hunch that it performs much better than HD ENG lenses, my friend used it on the f900 without complaint.

[Brad Neal]

...So in effect, this Canon EC zoom I have doesn't have the "HD" branding, but I have a hunch that it performs much better than HD ENG lenses, my friend used it on the f900 without complaint.

It would be interesting to see some scientific data on the HD vs. SD lenses.

[Barry_Green]

It would be interesting to see some scientific data on the HD vs. SD lenses.
Lots of scientific data in Canon's white papers, available here:
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=45

[hunter richards]

The HD cinema lens paper is a great read. I found out that my 9x5.2mm was cannons first made cinematography lens for 2/3" cameras.

Something I thought was interesting from these papers was that canons first generation of HDEC primes were called "too sharp" by dp's. So canons 2nd generation of HDec lenses addressed this by making them look softer, but still have a high MTF. Thats kind of funny to me. I guess a lens can be too sharp.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Hey Hunter, It would be awesome to see a grab from your shiny new Canon EC lens! :grin:

[hunter richards]

I haven't shot anything with it yet but when I take some pretty pictures I will post them. Here are some pretty pictures of the lens though:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203902609.jpg

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1203902639.jpg

No more eng lens gears! Forgot to add: This thing is built like a beast. Its BIG and Heavy! That may or may not be a good thing...

[taormina]

Hey Hunter - forgive if I missed this but how much was that lens?

[hunter richards]

1080p stills from the 9x5.2mm cinezoom with the hpx500: (sorry they arent amazingly lit!) There are 6 in total (sorry if you have a small monitor!)

(These stills are untouched strait from the camera with a detial setting of -2. They have just been recompressed into web quality jpeg)

Anneli's Eyes:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080029.jpg

Flowers:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080167.jpg

(This one is a bit underexposed, the sun had set, sorry!)
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080302.jpg

Curry Dinner:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080437.jpg

Rocks and my diy doorwaydolly in the background:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080696.jpg

Our new cat!:
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204080763.jpg

Sorry there wasnt any shots at 5.2mm, I'm working on a wide shot for ya.

[hunter richards]

Basically for the same price as a new 2/3" cheap HD lens, I got this Cine Lens. It has no noticeable CA, no noticeable lens breathing, calibrated T stops, 270 degrees of focus barrel rotation. Its very solid too, There isnt any plastic I can find! (Its a bit heavy, but thats expected with cinestyle zoom lenses)

[xianchi]

So Hunter... when are you going to take that beast out and upload some stills/footage for us to drool over?

[hunter richards]

I'm working on it! What I am seeing so far is that this lens is sharp as a tack, all the way from the wide-end to the telephoto-end. I don't see any ramping or vignetting either. I really think this lens performs better (optically and mechanically) than any eng HD lens. Yep I said it.

[hunter richards]

I posted the grabs above from my cinezoom!

& here is one at 720p from 5.2mm to show angle of view:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23459/1204081861.jpg

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Thanks Hunter for uploading those.... they look really good! :beer:

[xianchi]

Thanks Hunter! Got a napkin?

[Kit Hannah]

crap man, where do I get one? Can you add a servoto that lens?

[hunter richards]

You can add a microforce zoom controller, but not a lens handgrip servo. You could add a follow focus on the zoom gear though...

I can get you one of those lenses for $8200 (I gotta import it)

[aidancry]

Hey Hunter
thanks for all the good tips. Im just about to buy a hpx500 and a 2nd hand SD lens, convinced by your sweet-ass stills.
you mentioned earlier in the thread that the hpx500 suffered in wide angle because of noise? I was thinking of doing some really close up stuff like a 2 inch area with diopters or macro lenses. Do you think I should avoid the hpx500 if I hope to get a good image with close up?
I was also considering the 2nd hand Varicam option to get the best image I can but having a hvx200 I thought the similarities and P2 cards would compliment each other, and warranties help me sleep.
any advice would be much appreciated.
thanks, a

[hunter richards]

aidancry:

About the hpx500 on the wide side of things. Let me first say, its not bad at all! Its just not to be compared to an hpx3000. On the hpx500, Its not the noise (it has pretty low noise actually), there just isn't enough resolution in the chips to resolves all of the fine details that show up on a landscape. (It definatly looks good-enough though!) I personally don't have a problem with the crispness from the hpx500 and when you watch your footage from a normal viewing distance you cant perceive that level of detail anyways.(And neither will your clients)

But on the medium to close-up (and macro) it's great. Really good! I actually prefer the images I get out of my camera vs cameras with a sharper picture. Its just enough crispness for skin, and it produces a look very similar to super16 (Just with finer grain). See the picture of my Daughter's eyes!

On buying a used Varicam vs Hpx500:
I wouldn't mind having a used Varicam, but tape is really on its way out. Also keep in mind that there inst a firewire i/o on the varicam, you need a DVCPROHD deck which will cost you more than the used varicam. Also, the varicam is power hungry @ something like 38watts vs 23watts for the hpx500. There can be tape problems, jams, ect. P2 is really the way to go.

If you can afford to and having an extremely sharp image is very important to you, get the hpx2000 (Then later you can throw an avc-intra board in it)

[aidancry]

thanks man, that really helps.

the new hpx500 option- with local support and an immediate replacement if it breaks. second hand sd lens makes it more affordable.

So Im going to look for an sd lens. You mentioned some lenses already - but do you know what lenses are good for wide angle? I have no idea what to search for or even where to search for it (except here and ebay) . any advice much appreciated.

I saw you were selling a good looking canon earlier- do you have or know of any to sell?

a

[hunter richards]

You welcome! I just sent you a PM.

[alexdias]

I still can't figure out a solution for a wide zoom at a reasonable cost for the HPX500.
I've been renting the 500 with the standard fujinon and I've tested a few SD lenses.
I've also read most of the white papers at the Abel site (thanks Barry) and there're some strong considerations why not go with a SD lens and use CAC.
Cine lenses are not for me, heavy, servo zoom, etc...
My problem with the available standard CAC lenses is their limited wide capabilities.
I shoot docs, almost entirely, and I really don't like adaptors. They're heavy and in many situations I don't even have the time to attach to the lenses.
It's run and gun with constant adaptations, a lot of traveling and limited $.
Anyway, I'll keep reading and testing whenever I can.

[Noel Evans]

Hunter's FILM16 Recipe

Ingredients:

1 Hpx500
1 Lens
1 Beer


Step 1: Open beer and drink.

Step 2: Take your hpx500 and input the following.

Detail -2
V Detail +4
Coring -4
Color (not the phase) -2
Master Ped +8
Gamma: Cine D
Matrix norm2

(everything not listed set to 0)

Step 3: Now shoot something nice. As you shoot click though all of the other factory scenefiles for comparison.

Step 4: View your footage at full-resolution. Notice how all of the other factory scene files look like crap now.

Step 5: Give me a high-five!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this scene file is to give you a low-contrast, neutrally saturated image, for maximum potential in post and a real "film-look". Yes, its really a +8 on the master pedestal.
Understand where you are coming from, just not entirely sure I agree. I did read the "purpose", but post manipulation tells me theres no real gain. (just IMO remember)

Anyway I took these grabs as a comparison. First is your preferred second is my preferred. These are compressed jpeg files so they do show some signs of this.

1080 images.

http://www.scarlet-films.com/HPX/electric.jpg
http://www.scarlet-films.com/HPX/electric1.jpg
http://www.scarlet-films.com/HPX/note.jpg
http://www.scarlet-films.com/HPX/note1.jpg

[Noel Evans]

I want to add, there need to be some caution here. When shooting anything above f 5.6 your really dropping sharpness in any respect. So SD glass above 5.6 or below 2.8 may look good. At optimum sharpness of f4 to f5.6 you may notice a difference. This is where the comparison should be made. My shots above where all F4.

[Brad Neal]

Understand where you are coming from, just not entirely sure I agree. I did read the "purpose", but post manipulation tells me theres no real gain. (just IMO remember)

Anyway I took these grabs as a comparison. First is your preferred second is my preferred. These are compressed jpeg files so they do show some signs of this.

1080 images.


Noel,
Those look pretty sweet! What settings did you dial up? They really pop, and the saturation is just right.

-Brad

[hunter richards]

Your grabs look good Noel! I just prefer a lower-contrast look in camera. Thanks for posting those, I like the grungy electrical scene.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Noel, what lens where you using? and what were your settings?

[GaryinCalifornia]

I can get you one of those lenses for $8200 (I gotta import it)

Tired and I might have mixed it up... is this lens HD or SD...

[hunter richards]

Its not really either, its an EC cinezoom 1st generation.

[Kit Hannah]

Hi Noel,
I too am interested in your settings. I have been using Hunter's settings, except I did not shift the color like he has. We have been getting very nice images off our cheap ol lenses...

[Noel Evans]

Noel, what lens where you using? and what were your settings?

Using the pretty standard fujinon CAC lens.

Settings were

Detail -2
V Detail +4
Coring +4
Master Ped -5
Gamma: Cine V
Matrix cinelike

I change these depending on what I am shooting. But, most of the scene files I use I have stored on an SD for quick reference including my VFR settings like 2 fps.

BTW Hunter I am totally jealous of the that Canon lens. Where did you find it?

[hunter richards]

I got it from a friend in the Uk! I think there might be another for sale too.

[Pablo Lozano]

Hi,
We are just going to buy the HPX500 and we are going to follow your recomendatios and use SD lenses.
Do you know anything of the A16x9BRM FUJINON?
I am getting crazy around the 18 pages, It would be nice if you will do a revision of all the SD lenses tried until now.
Thanks

[hunter richards]

Lenses tried and OKed:

Fujinon:

A14x9 (pegasus 2)

Angenuiex:

12x5.3 AIFHR

Canon:

J8x6
J11x4.5
J15x9
J15x9.5
J14x9
J9x5.2 ECT2.0

-------------------------------------------------------

I think there were more lenses tried too, I bet the A16x9 would be fine. There hasn't been a lens tested yet that didn't produce an acceptable image on the hpx500.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Hi,
We are just going to buy the HPX500 and we are going to follow your recomendatios and use SD lenses.
Do you know anything of the A16x9BRM FUJINON?
I am getting crazy around the 18 pages, It would be nice if you will do a revision of all the SD lenses tried until now.
Thanks

Pablo, I have the Fujinon A16X9BRM (12 pin)... I just received it yesterday, initial observations of the lens are: it works!, it looks pretty sharp, it breathes quite abit, its very similar to the lenses that Kit has posted some stills on... but i think it might be a little better quality lens!? I think... new they'd run for $1000-1500? not sure though.... All in all it is a very inexpensive way to get going, until you can drop a few thousand on a high end SD or a decent HD lens.... I've got my eye on ebay, looking for The lens!! hope this helps

[Pablo Lozano]

Thank you very much for this sumary.
As soon as I will get everything I will post some photos or videos.

[joe 1008]

So far it seems obvious: For many if not most of our needs SD glass works. One issue I disliked testing the "cheap" HD lenses was breathing. (I put hands on the Canon CAC lens, it breathed like hell.) Some stated, that many, even older SD lenses didn´t breath. So, after this extremely revealing resolution/CA discussion, we should focus on breathing. That´s a point where cheaper SD lenses in fact might be superior to HD lenses.

WHAT ARE THE ULTIMATE SD LENSES THAT DO NO BREATH?

[hunter richards]

The Canon J8x6 has the least amount of breathing on an ENG lens that I have ever seen. There is none. (or at least its not visible) You can pull from inf. to 1foot with no change in framing, at all focal lengths.

Even newer SD lenses (and high-end HD lenses) breath more than the j8x6.

[joe 1008]

Huter, did you mean Canon J8x16?

[Kit Hannah]

No he meant 8x6

[hunter richards]

Yes I mean the J8x6mm eng-style SD wideangle lens.

[Ed Waters]

Hi All,

Just had my Fujinon 5.5X 8.5 rebuilt.
Looking forward to checking the wide angle possibilities with my 500.
I have the Fujinon7.6 X 17 HD that came with the camera.
I plan to compare the optics .
I'm hoping for excellent wide angle with my up to spec Fuji 5.5 wide angle.


Ed Waters

[Kit Hannah]

More 720p Samples, Ungraded using HPX500 & Canon J15x9.5B Lens.

These are some people from some of the interviews we have done over the past couple of weeks.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image2.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image2.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image3.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image3.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image5.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image5.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image6.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image6.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image7.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image7.jpg)

[Kit Hannah]

And some more photos..


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image0.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image0.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image1.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image1.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image4.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image4.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image8.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image8.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/th_Image9.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n190/sonydre1/Sample%20images/Image9.jpg)

[Pablo Lozano]

Hi,
I have just received my HPX 500. I only need the lense. I am going to buy a SD. I am thinking to buy the Fujinon A16X9BRM and I would like to know if I will have to change the cable or something to match the camera. I have read that Kit has to change from 6 pin to 12 pin. Norhterfilmaker wrote about Fujinon A16X9BRM (12 PIN). I dont know if it is something you have to do always.
Sorry, for such a simple question but it is going to be my first time with a 2/3 camera.
Thank you very much
Pablo

[Kit Hannah]

Hi,
I have just received my HPX 500. I only need the lense. I am going to buy a SD. I am thinking to buy the Fujinon A16X9BRM and I would like to know if I will have to change the cable or something to match the camera. I have read that Kit has to change from 6 pin to 12 pin. Norhterfilmaker wrote about Fujinon A16X9BRM (12 PIN). I dont know if it is something you have to do always.
Sorry, for such a simple question but it is going to be my first time with a 2/3 camera.
Thank you very much
Pablo

Actually, We have some of the older model lenses, which are Canon J 15x9.5B lenses. I did have to change the 6 pins to 12 pins, which was not a fun task. I hope you know how to solder well.

I would definitely recommend getting a newer SD lens with internal focus. The Fujinon "A" Series are usually a little better value. Try to get a wide lens if possible. Make sure before purchasing that it has a 12 pin already on it - most do but always nice to check. I think you'll be pleanty happy and satisfied.

[arifam]

Hello, it is my first post on this forum but I have been reading more than a year and
Thanking all their contributions to me is a great help.

I own a 200 and a HVX HPX 500 since July last year, working with
Apple and my job is in the field of advertising and documentary.

When I bought the HPX500 I chose an economic lens, hoping that the picture
Presented in terms of new models of lenses of different manufacturers, as well
I bought a canon 20X8.5 KRS-range industry.

With this lens I made music videos and documentaries, always giving good results
At 720p but not both at 1080p

I have worked with different optical fiction in the 500 HPX such as
Angenieux cinestyle 12-112 zoom and Canon cinestyle (always in rent). In
Both noticed a slight difference in smoothness and brightness compared to the abysmal
Optica 20X8.5 industrial canon.

But a few days ago came to my hands a very old lens, external focus,
canon IRS 13X9 broadcast quality as those that were commenting on this thread.

I have tested and he compared the material tested with filming done
Both with the angenieux and cinestyle canon, and the industrial 20X8.5 KRS, and
I have noticed is this.

1 .- The lens is not breathing, when you focus selective, everything is OK.
2 .- The image is very soft, there are no boundaries, it is equally or even softer
Cinestyle that.
3 .- The depth of field is smaller, although it is harder to focus, though,
Aid approach that has the Hpx500 responds with more sensitivity to this lens.
4 .- I have not seen an increase to the naked eye of an increased level of detail, but if
A more natural, less video and more film.

The question I have is how we can make it a lens that can take 10 or 12 years and
That the market is used by just over $ 1000 may have more
Quality lenses that are manufactured today with the advances that have taken place in
Technology in recent years.

Greetings.

PS: I apologize for my English is not very good.

[Dino]

I have an HDX900 with Fujinon HA18X7.6BERM HD ENG lens and have been sub-renting Fujinon HA13X4.5BERM HD wide angle ENG lenses. The other day
I had a shoot where there wasn't enough money in the budget for an HD wide
angle lens, so I evaluated one of my recently rebuilt Fujinon A8.5X5.5BERM SD wide angle lenses.

I was surprised to see that at F2.8, it had better corner to corner sharpness and was overall as sharp as my HA18X7.6 HD lens, white shading looked good. Chromatic aberration was similar on both lenses at the edges. The A8.5X5.5 just had a color shift at 3200K preset which was corrected by white balance or
a new lens file.

Anyway, given that the A8.5X5.5BERM was an $18K lens in the mid 1990's, it should look good, but it made a bit unimpressed with my $19K HA18X7.6BERM.

Maybe if I was using a camera with native 1080X1920 imagers and monitoring in 1080P, I would see some difference in sharpness, but it wouldn't have fixed the softness in the corners of my "HD" lens.

My client was very happy with the images and he's used to renting Varicams
and HDX900's with HD wide angle lenses. I know a DP who shoots with an
HPX500 and a Canon high end SD lens and is perfectly happy with the results.

I was around when we went from tube cameras to chip cameras in the late '80's and the lens manufacturers told us we had to buy new lenses that said
"CCD" on the side. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[dregenthal]

FUJINON TO SHOWCASE NEW SELECT SERIES OF COST-EFFECTIVE HDTV ENG LENSES AT NAB 2008.

Maybe this has already been posted elsewhere?
Thought it was appropriate interest to this thread:

http://www.fujinon.com/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/pr.aspx?id=222

[MikeD]

I
I was around when we went from tube cameras to chip cameras in the late '80's and the lens manufacturers told us we had to buy new lenses that said
"CCD" on the side. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Same here. I also remember when sony where trying to show off there 3000s they looked crap with the CCD lens. But take the lens off your M3 and there was a definite improvement.

I've had my 502 (in australia) for about a month now and when I first got it I used my Pegasus II lens and the pictures where fine. Then I put on my antique. A fujinon 17x9berm-48. This lens is 20 years old and started life on the front of a BVP3. The pictures leap out at you.

When I was thinking about buying the camera I hired one for the week end with a HD lens and to be honest I can't see why I should spend the money on a HD lens. When I need a wide angle I probably will hire a HD then. But for the now the fujinon is staying right where it is.

[STORMDAVE]

Guys, I found a Canon j8x6 with a 2x doubler for $3.5k...good deal?
I have a question, can I remove the 2x extender since it loses sharpness a bit? Or it's not worth it?

These lenses are kinda old, so wouldn't I be better off getting let's say a J16x8 and wide angle lens adapter?

If anyone would be kind enough to answer within a day or two, I would highly appreciate it.

Almost done with getting the camera, just need to figure out how to make the lens work.

[hunter richards]

The j8x6 is a good lens, you could probably get one for a little cheaper than that though. Removing the 2x will do nothing to the performance of the lens, you flip it on when you need it, otherwise its like its not even on there.

Find a good deal on the j8x6 and you wont regret it!

[STORMDAVE]

Thanks Hunter, Appreciate it :)

Does the 8x6 have the speed control for the zoom?

If I can get it for ~3k that should be ok right?

[hunter richards]

Not really, I have opened up the servo-handle grips of canon lenses though and there are adjustments you can set it to slower or faster, but the servos are pretty smooth on the j8x6 as is. Yes $3000 for a decent j8x6 should be fine. the funny thing is, your probably going to be buying my j8x6 that i sold to someone on ebay...is that where you found it for $3500?

[STORMDAVE]

Oh, I was speaking about those "shuttle" knobs where you can adjust the zoom speed and set memory settings...I think only the newer ones have this.

Not buying it from eBay but a local place here, but I did see one j8x6 on ebay so I think it's yours heh

[hunter richards]

Go for it.

[dotconnproductions]

Glad to hear the J8x6 is a cool lens. I've been pining after your 3,500 lens on Ebay but actually just sniped one that posted yesterday for $1,700. Heck of a steal I believe.

[hunter richards]

It is! While I am not actually selling any lenses on ebay right now, I'm pretty sure I sold that j8x6 to them, and they are trying to sell it for a profit. (I sold it for $2700) $1700 is a steal!

[mcgeedigital]

Just got my HPX, and also scored a PRISTINE Angenieux 5.3x10 Wide angle HD lens for it...I am a happy man!

[STORMDAVE]

Got the J8x6 (Good condition) for $3,500..I couldn't get it any cheaper :(
I wish Hunter sold me his I would've grabbed it.

Anyways, now I'm just waiting for all the kinks to work out. Can't wait!

[MikeD]

Just did the first aerial shots with the Gyrozoom on the 502. No signs of problems with this lens.

[Workstation]

I am a newby on this forum (first post actually) got my brandnew hpx500 today, imported out of the USA (crazy dollar rates make it cheaper to import) and shot some test today. Straight from the box, I put my second-hand Canon J9x5.2IRS on it and went outside. Blazing sun so I shot 720P25 with ND1/64 with apertures around 5.6 and 8. Wanna share some stills from it. Imported in my Media100 HD, exported without any corrections or anything (just JPEG-ed it). Shot with sceneFile6 (cinegamma D)

1. and 2. Full Wide 5.2 mm (F 5.6)
3. around 40 mm (F8)
4. around 7 mm (F4)

Next week I'll receive a Fujinon 15x8 BERM, will post stuff with longer focal points then.

[robstowell]

Nice pictures. HD is a lovely thing for us camera-fiends.
I'm looking forward to getting into it. I'll order my cam very soon. I have a similar lens.
To me, the jpegs are nice BUT a little soft. And some CA in the usual sorts of places. I can get away with it. But I'd love to see similar pics with the OEM fujinon XA lens.
Will you shoot dvcPro50 as well? I'm planning to use that for SD projects for a while- and I'm hoping that the SD lenses will be rock-solid for that. Anyone else tried it?

[rogha]

Thinking to buy HPX500 with the lenses below:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/473487-REG/Fujinon_HAC18X7_6B_HAc18x76B_2_3_Compact_Cinema.ht ml
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393557-REG/Canon_FJS24MM_T1_5_FJs24_HDEC_2_3_Prime.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/191218-REG/Fujinon_MAF10B_MAF10B_10_mm_f_2_0.html

Anyone can give a thought regarding the lenses above? I need to know more to the quality side. What's make these lenses above be different than the 'broadcast' type offered by either Canon or Fujinon?
Well, the lenses will be used mostly for TVC or Feature Film.

[Workstation]

To start off with the practical side: the latter two have a bayonet mount, so you'll need to concert this one way or antother to B4 mount. Don't know if that'll change focal distances? And all of the above lenses are of great quality, probably somewhat better optics than the 'normal' broadcast quality lenses. Other members might have used both sort lenses and can say more about the difference in quality.
But you'll need to operate them with some sort of follow focus sytem/zoom control, if you want operate ENG-style (Handheld). Since there is no servocontrol on the lens.

[Bayne]

B4 and bayonet aren't the same thing?

[212film]

Is anyone interested in buying A8.5x5.5?
I might sell that lens for $2600

heavy real glass, low distortions, clean optics, available in NY
comes with manual, UV filter and Cavision hood

some specs: http://www.212film.com/pic/fuji_a85_55.jpg (http://www.212film.com/pic/fuji_a85_55.jpg)

[Kit Hannah]

I may be interested in the next few weeks....

[Bayne]

Can you send pics of the optics to derek@alan-curtis.com and if you have some footage that shows wide and tight zoom? I am looking for a wide lens for interiors...

[CamVega]

Hi guys,

I just got an 500, and I'm looking for a good used SD lens.
I'm having trouble figuring out which Fujinons are "Broadcast" and which are "Professional"

Canon is pretty easy with their "YJ" but Fuji seems to use A for both.

anyone know the secret to decoding it?

[CamVega]

So... nobody has the Fujinon decoder ring?
maybe someone happens to know for a specific lens... A15x8BERM-28B
Everything I've found seems to point to it being broadcast, but I really don't want to buy it without knowing for sure.

[Workstation]

I happen to own this lens, and it's a broadcast lens. Although I too, don't know how to decode the Fujinon code's, I am sure about this particular type. (I actually own a 15x8BEVM, but the difference is just the servo capabilities of the motor)

[Bokes]

Where are you guys finding these lens?
I am thinking about going with the HPX500, but first I need to know where I can buy a SD EC Canon cine zoom. I tried Ebay and - nothing.
Any used/rental houses selling?

[Ducatimark]

I just took delivery of my HPX500 (thanks Spec-Comm!) and tested it out late yesterday with a Fujinon Eagle III A16x9.5BRM-28 with 2X extender that I bought on eBay a couple of months ago.

It has a twelve pin connector and hooked right up to the HPX. Servo, Auto Aperture, VTR, and last clip check (RET) all worked perfectly. Having only the HPX and a Sony A1U to compare to, I was shocked at the ease of use of both the camera and the smoothness of the lens controls. And best of all, the picture is just a huge leap from the HVX and lightyears from the HDV image of the A1U. My only issue with the lens is some breathing which I expected.

I was on the fence about buying the HPX because of the cost of all the add-ons to move up. But my total so far have been the cost of the following:

A/B LQS4 Quad charger (Ni-Cad)...................... $ 75
A/B Pro Pac Battery ($5.00 eBay and recell)..... $175
12v Power supply (new - eBay)........................ $ 48
Sony Hardshell shipping case with casters....... $150
Extra Shan TM-700 adapter plate (eBay).......... $185
Bogen Manfrotto 516 Head .............................. $565
1GGb P2 card.............................................. ...... $829
Fujinon Lens.............................................. ........ $350

Total $2377+$7995 for the camera (includes Porta-Brace bag and TM-700).

These are items that were must have's beyond my current HVX package that includes 3 8Gb cards and a Carrion HD monitor. Of course, I'll be adding more batteries and cards, but for the short format work I do this is more than sufficient.

My point is that from the information that Kit and others have provided gave me the encouragement to get the HPX and work with the SD glass. It came down to a business decision as Kit says that few clients in the range that I work would know or care about what glass I use, as long as I keep the cost to them as reasonable as possible and the quality the best they can afford. And from here I can rent for the client that wants the best the camera can deliver.

But for my eyes, the quality of the SD glass is perfect for the midrange corporate client, local broadcast commercials, web work, etc... I'm anxious to get a job that requires an HD lens to do the direct comparison.

In the meantime, will work on getting some demos up for review here.

Mark G
www.newmediadevcorp.com (http://www.newmediadevcorp.com)

[dregenthal]

I'm thinking that something which might be useful would be to compile a list of SD/SD Broadcast lenses (maybe a seperate thread?) that could be added to/authenticated by those who either own or have tested the candidates . . .

Like, I suspect many others, I've been on the fence regarding this camera only because of the lens issue . . . nobody wants to make a mistake.

Anyhow, my thought was that it's something of a community issue and the help would be appreciated by many (and might rate a sticky).

[Kit Hannah]

I don't think it's any particular lens that will work well, it's more the lens series. Canon "J" Series and Fujinon "A" Series are what you want to have.


Ducatimark, that's great that it is working out for you. I'm glad yo had the courage to give it a try with the inexpensive lens and it's working out for you. If you have a chance to post some stills, we would like to see them.

Kit

[SPZ]

I'm thinking that something which might be useful would be to compile a list of SD/SD Broadcast lenses (maybe a seperate thread?) that could be added to/authenticated by those who either own or have tested the candidates . . .

Like, I suspect many others, I've been on the fence regarding this camera only because of the lens issue . . . nobody wants to make a mistake.

Anyhow, my thought was that it's something of a community issue and the help would be appreciated by many (and might rate a sticky).

Agreed. To all our busy forum members, please help out potential HPX 500 buyers and cuntribute to such list!

[Workstation]

Although I agree that non some 'HD' lenses can be used (I myself use a Canon J 9x5.2IRS and a Fujinon A15x8BEVM to my and my clients satisfaction), compiling a list would create a problem. Although all 2/3" B4 mount lenses will 'work' (eg function in a technical way), it will not always produce acceptable end results.

For some work some lenses would be suitable but for other jobs the same lenses would not suffice. Therefore a conclusive list will be diificult to compile. The assesment of a suitable lens is very subjective and depends on the job at hand. For webmovies and SD broadcast the criteria are obviously different than for high-end musicvideo's, corporate productions and commercials. Normally I use my own lenses, but for commercials I'll rent HD prime lenses and for a new HD documentary series for NatGeoChannel I'll be shooting coming fall, i will rent HD broadcast lenses.

What would be useful is a 'sticky' or something in which we could post screengrabs from our lenses (HD and SD) but then according to some fixed set of standards (testcharts,iris,focal distance etc) so that a comparison would actually mean something regarding usability etc (sharpness, CA etc)

[Postmaster]

Selling my Canon J15 x 9.5 B II - 9.5 x 143 mm 1:1,8

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=139562

Frank

[mcgeedigital]

My original comparison. (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1189797&postcount=89) Between a J series Canon 20x SD lens and the 17x Fujinon "Kit" lens.

Now here I compared my Angeniex 10x5.3 HD lens to the same Canon SD glass:

Vimeo link (http://www.vimeo.com/1244031)

[cheezweezl]

does anyone have a link to video showing an example of breathing? i want to see how big a deal this is...

[Spartacus]

Hey guys,
so is there a final conlusion to make?
Could it be: score an old, but formerly expensive SD lens and you will be good?
Does it make any sense, to put a new 15-20K glass in front of the 10K HPX?
My main concern with the HPX is, if it will recognisably improve picture quality over the HVX200 for me.
So far I´ve not been that impressed with the HPX image quality, but I thought maybe it was the bundled glass (can´t remember if it was the Canon or Fuji CAC lens...)
Xianchi´s footage impressed me the most so far and made me think about the HPX again.
So what´s the "perfect" HPX/Lens combination? At which point does it make more sense to rather step up to a better imager like the HPX2000/3000 ?

[lawriejaffa]

Hey guys - what do you reckon of the following lenses,

Im looking at two Fujinons,
A15x8BEVM x2 extender
A12x6.8BRM Wide Angle

Which do you think would be preferable for drama/ narrative? (so little to no breathing on them hehe, Im wondering what kinda price would you go for these?

Im also looking at the Canon J9x5BIR SD Super Wide , but that may be a bit restrictive! Thoughts appreciated friends :)

[mcgeedigital]

Hey guys,
so is there a final conlusion to make?
Could it be: score an old, but formerly expensive SD lens and you will be good?
Does it make any sense, to put a new 15-20K glass in front of the 10K HPX?
My main concern with the HPX is, if it will recognisably improve picture quality over the HVX200 for me.
So far I´ve not been that impressed with the HPX image quality, but I thought maybe it was the bundled glass (can´t remember if it was the Canon or Fuji CAC lens...)
Xianchi´s footage impressed me the most so far and made me think about the HPX again.
So what´s the "perfect" HPX/Lens combination? At which point does it make more sense to rather step up to a better imager like the HPX2000/3000 ?

Not to my mind it doesn't


Absolutely it will.

In my mind a decent 18x Canon J series with a 2x extender, (Under $5k), and good used HD wide angle.

This is what I went with. An awesome 20x J Canon 20x SD lens with 2x. Bought it used several years ago for $5k.

Then after buying the HPX, scored a mint Angenieux HD 10x5.3 wide angle HD lens for $8.5k.

That covers all iof your bases for less than buying a new piece of HD glass.


Now, I would never put the SD lens on a better camera like the 2000 or 3000. But they work just fine on the 500.

[Workstation]

I'm actually using the A15x8BEVMx2, (paid 3200 US dollars) and Canon J9x5.2 with 2x ext. ($4500), for us europeans these prices are very good, because of the weak dollar at the moment. (bought them both from Dale at resource Video)

If you're shooting interiors I would recommend a wider lens than the 15x8. Which lens would suits your scenes best is a matter of style and taste of course. But what I can say about the lenses that I own is that the Fujinon breathes a bit more than the Canon. The Canon has no breathing at all, so if you're pulling focus a lot, I would go for the Canon. I'm actually using the Canon 99% of the time, but I'm shooting documentary most of the time. (Lots of handheld stuff as well, so a slightly wider lens is always preferable)

Good luck with the lens hunting!

[lawriejaffa]

Righto i'll bear that in mind mate cheers,

currently im looking at the J15ax8 B4 IRS, with x2 extender. Though I was hoping to try and just get away with interior shoots with this too but basically im gonna get no love trying that?

Ive been offered one in the uk for £1500 ($3000 roughly)

[Workstation]

I don't know how much love you're trying to get :)

But in my experience with 8mm you always wanna break down the walls, and shooting 6 or 5,2 mm makes you much happier. What lens are you currently using, because maybe you could make a comparison? (are you buying from a dealer, because he should give you the possibility to compare the 15x with a 9x for instance)

good luck

[Spartacus]

@Workstation: How much did you pay for shipping and customs to the NL?
And how long did it take to ship?
Buying old class without being able to test it means trusting a lot on the seller, can you recomend Resource Video?

[lawriejaffa]

Cheers for the advice workstation! Well at the moment im using the hvx lens hehe... ;)

Im basically wanting a lens that gives me flexibility shooting indoors and outdoors, that would be used to produce my wonderful movie and hence for pull focus etc, im really wanting to minimise breathing with whatever i choose!

Im also a bit limited on the ol' budget though hrmph!

I can also afford however, the Fujinon A12x6.8BRM so that would be wider - but any idea what thats like for breathing anyone?

[Workstation]

Well, I thought a lot about it before doing it, but I got some hi resolution pictures from Dale which showed the condition of the glass etc. I contacted a former client of his from France, who recommended Resource Video and I just closed my eyes and did it. It turned out very well (50 euro's for the shipping, 75 euro's for customs) and Dale shipped very quickly anyway. The deal went well so I did it again a week or so later with the other lens (same shipping, no customs, don't know why, though)

So, to answer your question, yeah I trust Dale from Resource Video. But caution is always good, I suppose, its a balance between trust and the price for me.

[Workstation]

Have no idea, don't know this lens. It's just that the Canon J9x5.2 is famous for his non-breathing. So I expect this one will breathe more. Basicly I'm just a fan of my Canon....

[Workstation]

By the way, seen this?
Creative video in the UK has an used Fuji 15x (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/view_item_cat.php?catalogue_number=used_fujinon_a1 5x8bevm-28)

[lawriejaffa]

Oooh yeah im thinking of that one - but i wonder about the breathing whaaa... how bad do u think might be? Im also interested in the wider one actually at cvp (look 2 above) the 6.5

[Workstation]

You mean the Canon YJ 12x6.5 ? I would stay away from the YJ series from canon, you'll definitely need the J-series for the HPX (if you're planning to shoot HD anyway) I would save some money and get the 9x5.2, the 6.5 is a KRS, which means there's no extender, so crippling you're capability in the longer focal range.

[lawriejaffa]

Cheers mate much appreciated advice! When you say crippling in the longer focal range - i would think that was still normally long enough no (for most narrative shooting) its max focal length 12x6.8 would be what comparable to 250mm on a 35mm cam?

[Workstation]

Don't know by heart what it would be compared to 35mm cam's, but i meant that the 9x5.2 with 2x ext. gives you a range from 5.2 tot 93.6 mm and the KRS only from 6.5 to 78.

For a comparison to 35mm; i think there was another thread about that , i'll try to find it.

[lawriejaffa]

Cheers mate i should add tho i was thinking lol (35mm photography) rather than 35mm cine lenses hehe (again coming of my dippy hvx adapter brain)

[lawriejaffa]

Yep just to confirm that the 6x8 J series Canon Lens is yummy :)

[Jonny Bravo]

i have tested a HPX502 with Canon SD J11x4.5 & a Fuji HD AH13x4.5 lens i edited the footage in FCP & saw output on Panny HD monitor & there after no one could identify which footage was from with lens. they looked just the same ... my conclusion >>> I am buying a HPX502 with Canon J11x4.5 a great combo with 6 x32Gb P2 cards & a P2 gear (i hate the prices of p2 cards) but still :thumbup:

[Jonny Bravo]

yet another test,

HPX502 Canon j114.5 vs HDX900 canon j11x4.5 both the cams at an event

both cams shot & were intercut on FCP .... The broadcasting engineers from stations were not able to distinguish between both the cams result. Nothing much with the help of vector scopes etc... Does that mean both are quite similar in performances !!:huh:

[cheezweezl]

yet another test,

HPX502 Canon j114.5 vs HDX900 canon j11x4.5 both the cams at an event

both cams shot & were intercut on FCP .... The broadcasting engineers from stations were not able to distinguish between both the cams result. Nothing much with the help of vector scopes etc... Does that mean both are quite similar in performances !!:huh:

i've shot with both and there are subtle differences. i haven't done any technical a/b tests but the hdx900 seems to have a little better lattitude. the last time i shot with it we were on a backlit white cloth set with areas of blowout. i remember being very impressed at how the camera dealt with the blowout and the near blowout areas. nice film-like falloff. the 500 is a little more harsh in this scenario. otherwise, in a well lit event situation, i could understand the two cameras producing nearly identical images...

[Noel Evans]

I am going to try and get myself some prime rental leeway and test some OLD OLD zoom lenses. Will post my findings as they become available.

[Raknimar]

I'm using a YJ canon on my cam. The novice client can't tell the difference in HD mode or DV.
I have focus issues at full zoom.
There is noticeable blue hazing around edges of objects with an overexposed white sky.
If your using a SD lens there is a sweet spot, you'll have to zoom in and out and mess with the back focus to find it. Then compose your shots around these settings.

But if an SD lens is all you have until you can get a kick butt 12,000 dollar and up lens. You'll be fine. Hardly any TV clients of mine are asking for HD video.

I have shot Music videos in DVCPROHD 720PN using under cranking and over cranking. Used tons of lights, even my camera buddies couldn't tell it was a SD lens.

By the time you crap up the video to mpeg2 for DVD all the flaws in HD disappear.

Using SD lenses be sure to record as much color and gamma information as possible. Don't use on lens filters. Don't use the cine settings that cam with the HPX500. All that stuff can be manipulated in post with better control than any filter or cam setting ever will with the exception of UV filters and Polarizing filters.

Happy Shooting:Drogar-Dum(DBG):

[David See]

I am not sure if this is a problem with the 500 or it is a problem relating to using an SD lens on it, but this week I have noticed that, when using the 2x extender on my SD lens (Canon) if I turn the focus ring to make the camera go out of focus (when checking focus, for example), the image - when out of focus - goes either a bright and very noticeable green or red. When I hit the focus "sweet spot", the discoloration is gone. Only happens using the extender.

I have also noticed that, when monitoring on the LCD on the side of the camera in normal use, that there is sometimes a flash of discoloration to the picture, but only for a brief moment. Not sure if the discoloration is recorded or not - I haven't noticed it yet.

DS

[tom pearson]

i have a fuji A16x9 berm on my 500 and it works well i shoot a hunting show in the midwest so i add a wide glass for the epic shots