PDA

View Full Version : HVX & HD100 - Differences and how to overcome it.



redindian
05-06-2005, 04:46 PM
After seeing the pictures with Nikon 35mm lens attached ('http://www.prohd.co.uk/page7/page7.html'), I am leaning towards JVC (again). So I am trying to list out the shortcomings (between HVX and HD100) and see how to practically overcome it.

Please answer below if you know the answer - think creatively and under $1000 :)


How to achieve Varicam rates ?

Do it in post production in a software. Surely not as good as the real one - but maybe we can live with it.

Slowmotion - How to record 720/60p

Somehow record the 'Live output' to HDD. Barry says it is impractical for outdoor work as it takes a powerful comp + HD-SDI cards + RAID HDD + lots of space. So how to do slow-mo ? Using Software ?.

How to bypass GOP6 compression

Dropouts might not be bad as we think and hopefully JVC did a better job than Sony. An expensive option is to record uncompressed to HDD.

From DMN article:

"What about dropouts on the HDV format? Is it any different than DV?

Walton: In the HDV progressive system we are using the same track layout as the DV format. There are 10 tracks per frame on DV and each track has an area for video data, audio, and subcode. With HDV , the tape speed is the same, but frames are grouped in to groups of six. Since it’s a six frame GOP, instead of using 10 tracks per frame we’re using 60 tracks per GOP. Critical data is interleaved throughout the entire GOP, so if you had a dropout somewhere—a defect in the tape or piece of dust—the recovery data is more likely not to be affected, and therefore you won’t see a defect in the recording. So, the actual dropout performance of HDV is superior to DV. It’s more robust. "


How to made 4:2:0 look like 4:2:2

No, you cant - maybe the lens can create a rich image which cheats the eye.

Lack of P2 solid state device

Maybe a boon in disguise as the startup cost is just $6. If P2 takes 4minutes to dump the footage into a comp, maybe double that time as 'capture' time (Tape-->Comp).

No 1080/24p

We donno the chip size of HVX, so maybe it upresses the footage. If so then it is not real 1080/24p - so maybe we can do some software upressing from 720/24p --> 1080/24p.

Only 19mbs vs 100mbs

There was a talk of JVC having more resolution with its larger chips - maybe somebody can fill this in

Compressed Audio

Maybe use a _ _ _ _ _ - answers please



Hopefully if JVC can come 80-90% of HVX's functionality...... then it wins - as it gives one killer functionality which HVX can never overcome - Interchangable 35mm lenses - we can attach 35mm Nikon/Canon still lenses to the JVC cam!! . As for 35mm lens not up to the mark - I am not sure as I have never used HD - but someone said 35mm lens have been doing this for a long time (ie., resolving power)

Focal Length changes 7x
A 50mm lens becomes a 350mm lens or the image is magnified 7x times with respect to its CCD. (thisiswells)

I am sure I have missed details - I will update this post with correct answers as they come in.

ram

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 05:04 PM
Excellent vB formatting, friend.
Hopefully this will bring many helpful responses.

Rosestar
05-06-2005, 06:12 PM
The ability to put different lenses on the JVC cam is, IMO, irrelavant. You could put the newest Panavision DigPrimes on this camera and it will still be a 1/3" HDV camera. No one here is gonna debate that the JVC cam is probably the best HDV cam, but it is still an HDV cam.

The problem is HDV. I (and I believe that I am speaking for a lot of people on this site) do not want to work with HDV. HDV as a format has inherent flaws that I do not want to deal with. I want 1080 24P DVC-PRO HD. The HVX will have that.

Go to DV.com and look at there features page, there is an article, "HDV: a Hands on Test Drive" that explains some of my
misgivings about HDV.

If you do not need/want the quality advantages that DVC-PRO HD offers, then I think that the JVC Pro HD cam would be a great choice.

redindian
05-06-2005, 06:20 PM
HDV is a problem yes,... this thread looks for creative practical answers to solve/overcome other problems. Also lets give the benefit of doubt to JVC's 6GOP compression.

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 06:20 PM
Interchangable 35mm lenses [/size] - we can attach 35mm Nikon/Canon still lenses to the JVC cam!! bye bye mini35. As for 35mm lens not up to the mark - I am not sure as I have never used HD - but someone said 35mm lens have been doing this for a long time (ie., resolving power)

You can do the same thing with a Canon XL2 using the $450 EOS lens adapter.
You can even connect a Nikon lens to a Canon XL2 using a $20 mechanical adapter.

That isn't the same effect as a mini35.
A Nikon lens on a JVC HD100 will have about a 7x "crop factor" so a 50mm lens would
have equivalent "field of view" of about a 350mm lens on a still camera.

The mini35, through miraculous mojo of reimaging on an intermediate screen achieves
the same field of view of a 50mm lens on a miniDV camera and that's why it costs 10K.

If you update your post to reflect this, I'll delete/edit mine. Thanks.

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 06:27 PM
50mm lens has the exact same depth of field no matter what the format.
As a photgrapher, you should know this.

If you take 50mm lens and put it on a Nikon D70 (with a 1.5 "crop factor" does the depth of field
change? Absolutely not. Only the field of view changes. Depth of field is exactly the same as
the same lens on a Nikon F70 (a 35mm film camera)

redindian
05-06-2005, 06:34 PM
Focal Length is the same - but DOF changes with field of view

If I need to move back to cover the subject, my field of view changes - hence as a sideeffect DOF.

So on a D70, you put a 50mm lens , it becomes effectively a 75mm (50x1.5 - or it produces an image 1.5 larger) - so you need to move back to cover the same person, now your field of view changes.

Thats what I said.

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 06:41 PM
Depth of field never changes regardless of film/sensor size.
The affect of using different focal lengths for useful field of view on different formats creates the
perception of a change in depth of field, but the depth of field is part of physics and cannot be
different on different formats. It is a mathematical impossibility.

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 06:49 PM
Simple physics experiment:

Take your brighest SLR lens, hold it up to a ceiling light and hold a piece of white paper behind the
lens as if it were your film. See the inverted image? Try it with different sizes of paper.

The depth of field does not change regardless of the sensor size (in this case, paper)

redindian
05-06-2005, 07:04 PM
Using a 50mm lens on a D70 and a F100 will change the DOF (But the image FOV will be different)

The focal length is what is constant - coz of the law of physics regardless of the camera/sensor/format.

DOF changes on many factors aperture, focal length, distance from subject, distance from background, distance from foreground

(aperture) a 50mm f2.8 has a shallow DOF than a 50mm f16
(focal length) a 200mm f2.8 has shallow DOF than a 12mm f2.8

redindian
05-06-2005, 07:06 PM
ok , are we getting Focal Length and DOF mixed up ? as i said in my prev post Focal length of a lens is constant.

Isaac_Brody
05-06-2005, 07:11 PM
The proof is in the footage. Until we see both cams side by side and see what they produce specs and figures don't mean a thing.

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 07:18 PM
Using a 50mm lens on a D70 and a F100 will change the DOF (But the image FOV will be different)

All other settings being the same (aperture, shutter, object distances, etc.) the same lens
on any camera will have the exact same depth of field as that same lens on a different
camera with a different sensor size. 50mm on a XL2 has the exact same depth of field
(all other settings being the same) as the same 50mm lens on a D70 and a F100, etc.

The only thing that appears different is field of view. That's it; nothing else.

You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't change fact.
I'm not going to argue this with you.

redindian
05-06-2005, 07:22 PM
Wasnt trying to be argumentive - this is the last post :)

Here is the article from PHOTO.NET

Depth of Field and the Digital Domain
by Bob Atkins
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/index
Quote from Article:

Using the same lens on a EOS 10D and a 35mm film body, the 10D image has 1.6x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different)

DOF Calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

thisiswells
05-06-2005, 08:04 PM
Bob Atkins' article uses misleading terminology. I can only (at this point) rely on comments
made by Schneider Optics' Lens-Master, Bill Turner on these forums from some time ago:


Please keep in mind that the depth of field for a given image quality is a function of focal length and f number, the size of the CCD has no effect. Now it is true that the larger CCD will let you use a longer focal length to achieve the same angular field of view (what is in the frame) and the longer lens will have less depth of field at the same f stop.


My point is that at the same focal length setting on the zoom, say 10mm, the depth of field will be the same.


If you pick the focal lengths that give exactly the same framing (field of view) the smaller chip will require a shorter focal length setting to see the same field of view. The shorter focal length will have greater depth of field at the same f stop.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=21892

mr._guiyotinne
05-06-2005, 08:58 PM
Thisiswells is right... What changes is the field of view, as you use the same lens in a shorter CCD, you get a cropped view of the image you are pointing the camera to, So a 50mm lens will produce an image that through CCDs will be more likely as a bigger lens (because will be able to see a cropped part), but DOF will be the same. The only problem is that it will be neccesary to take back the camera to get the same FOV a bigger CCD or negative will get.

You are saying the same, but mixing. It´s easier when somebody like me, who has no idea, get the concept, but not the terms...

scharky
05-07-2005, 09:02 AM
Redindan, give it up. You are wrong. DOF will never change. IT is always a constant with the focal length of the lens (to sum up what everyone is telling you) Attatching a Nikkon 50mm lens to the camera will not be (bye bye Mini 35), all you did was attatch a semi telephoto lens, that will give you the same Dof as the stock JVC lens will at 50mm. I don't know why this is such a hard topic to grasp. The standard JVC lens is a 7.5 to 90 or (something like that) mm lens. Why would a prime 50 or 70 or 90mm lens be any different?

thisiswells
05-07-2005, 09:09 AM
Sharky: Have a brownie. Or, two. My treat. : )

redindian
05-07-2005, 11:11 AM
my 'bye bye mini-35' was wrong - as I dint understand what a mini35 did. I saw the fancy set up at ProHD website and thot big :)

ok I maybe wrong abt DOF or maybe we are talking about different things.

Focal length is fixed - I think we all agree.
A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what.
But what a CCD *sees*, depends on how small/large it is compared to normal size(35mm)

Now,
sharky- i will refer to your own picture in your website (stefweb)
http://www.stefweb.net/lens.jpg

35mm you get the couple happy and smiling.
16mm you get a crop of her face, and a groom with a cut limb (due to multipling factor)
1/3CCD you get her left eye and top of her mouth.

so what do you do ?
you move back to include the groom, else the couple wont be happy.

now,
what do you change ? you MOVE BACK,
if you move back what changes ?
your field of view, hence a different DOF (I thought) - as you have changed the distance between the CCD and the subject.

I just cannot understand how the DOF will be same - maybe after i do a test, i can agree with you guys :)

yesterday in post #7 I wrote:


Focal Length is the same - but DOF changes with field of view

If I need to move back to cover the subject, my field of view changes - hence as a sideeffect DOF.

So on a D70, you put a 50mm lens , it becomes effectively a 75mm (50x1.5 - or it produces an image 1.5 larger) - so you need to move back to cover the same person, now your field of view changes.



so essentially, a 50mm lens behaves like a 75mm lens. Now, you move back to cover the same image - So are you saying the DOF doesnt change ?

If that is true - then I am wrong :)

If you read my posts - thats what I have been saying (or trying to say)

ram

thisiswells
05-07-2005, 11:23 AM
redindian,
don't worry. we're all using different words and trying to say the same thing...
unfortunately in this area, using non-precise terminology leads to a lot of confusion.

it's alright. you knew all along (never doubted it)

Neil Rowe
05-07-2005, 11:46 AM
.. i went off on this subject yesterday. i dont know why.. just started typing and couldnt stop.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=212085&postcount=60

but it basically explains that DOF from imager size does NOt change.. but given the practicality factor.. is affected indirectly through having to change the FOV to maintain the same framing. it also covers focal point distance and the apparent DOF resulting which also comes into play.

David Jimerson
05-07-2005, 11:51 AM
I just cannot understand how the DOF will be same - maybe after i do a test, i can agree with you guys :)


Would the depth of field change if the couple simply stepped backwards so as to be in the entire frame?

No. Their position in the field would change, but the depth of field of the focal length does not.

When you move the camera back, it's physically identical and indistinguishable from have the couple move.

redindian
05-07-2005, 12:01 PM
There is only one point of focus in a picture - infront/behind of this point is depth of field

Depth of field is affected camera to subject distance (also with aperture+FL). The closer the subject the smaller the depth of field, and vice-versa

So would u not re-focus to account for the change in subject/camera position, hence what was in-focus before will move into circle of confusion.

as wells said, maybe we have the teriminology mixedup - I am sure everybody is right :)

scharky
05-07-2005, 12:09 PM
Hey thanks for bringing up the little page that I did. I almost forgot I had that little illustration.
Yes, redindian, you would refocus the camera, but I still don't see the point. a 50mm lens on the JVC will be the same as a 50mm lens on the HVX. the Dof will be exactly the same. Now, the benifit that you would get is that you can use a 200 or 600mm lens on the JVC (if you wanted) and get very shallow Dof, however, you would have to be shooting from 100yds away! The point is, it doesn't matter what lens you use, the 1/3 in ccd is the limiting factor in how wide your field of view is. so while you may be using a 200mm lens, you will get the same Dof as a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera, but your field of view will be greatly condensed.
This for some reason seams to be a very difficult to understand subject, and I think it is because people get "FIELD OF VIEW" and "DEPTH OF FIELD" mixed up. They are related to eachother in that that coexist, but they are completly different things.
The misconception of the mini 35 is that it does not give you a shallower DEPTH OF FIELD but it gives you a wider FIELD OF VIEW. Adding a 35mm lens on a 1/3" ccd camera will give you the DEPTH OF FIELD of the lens, but it will limit your FIELD OF VIEW. I hope that makes more sense.

Barry_Green
05-07-2005, 12:18 PM
When you move the camera back, it's physically identical and indistinguishable from have the couple move.


Right, but if they move, then you have to change the plane you're focusing to, and distance to subject *is* part of the whole DOF calculation.

Okay, here's the deal: as a technical matter, depth of field does not change based on image size. I mean, the whole notion is silly -- depth of field is a property of the lens, not of what the lens is projecting onto.

However, as a practical matter, smaller imagers will always exhibit deeper depth of field than larger imagers. The reason is because with a smaller imager, you require wider focal length lenses in order to deliver comparable fields of view, and the wider lenses are what create the deeper depth of field look.

Now, back to the mm-is-a-mm argument -- yes, exactly right. Take, for example, a Canon XL2. Its maximum telephoto is about 105mm. If you removed the video lens, and attached an EOS adapter and a 105mm EOS lens, you would get *exactly* the same field of view, and *exactly* the same depth of field, as if you were still using the video lens. A millimeter is a millimeter.

Now, if you put that 105mm EOS lens on an EOS camera, you would have a *wildly* different (and much wider) field of view. As long as you stayed at the same distance to the subject, you would have the same depth of field, but a much different field of view. And if you wanted to make the same field of view, you'd have to march the EOS camera much, much closer to the subject. When you do, THAT's when you change the depth of field.

DOF is determined by three stats: aperture, focal length, and distance to subject. A given lens at a given mm setting will deliver identical DOF if all those three elements are the same. But when you start talking about different imager sizes, you never keep all three elements the same. Typically, with a smaller sensor, you either get way further back, or use a shorter focal length -- and either (or both) techniques will cause deeper DOF.

thisiswells
05-07-2005, 12:23 PM
It's like taking a picture with a 100mm lens on a 35mm still camera and printing a 4x6 of it.

Then, you take a pair of scissors and cut the edges of the print off so it's only a 1x1.5 print.
That's like what a 1/3" CCD would capture from the same lens.

But, you see, depth of field didn't change. Only angular field of view changed. Get it!?

redindian
05-07-2005, 12:26 PM
Now, the benifit that you would get is that you can use a 200 or 600mm lens on the JVC (if you wanted) and get very shallow Dof, however, you would have to be shooting from 100yds away! .

yes - u have to move waay back...but u will have a shallow DOF & a very narrow field of view.... in a JVC you CAN fit a real super-astro-telephoto 50mm lens :)

I havent worked with adapters, so are you saying attaching a 3x on a fixed HVX is the same ?


maybe time to hijak my own thread :)
here are few i shot with 'extenders' to get very very shallow DOF

http://andshoot.smugmug.com/photos/12578109-M.jpg
http://andshoot.smugmug.com/photos/12578108-M.jpg
http://andshoot.smugmug.com/photos/12578111-M.jpg

maybe somebody can answer the rest of the points in page1

thisiswells
05-07-2005, 12:35 PM
redindian,
You could take those same pictures with the same lenses on the JVC. What would look different
is you would only see 1/7.2 of the center of the frame. Does this make sense yet?

Cut the edges of those stills off in Photoshop to see what I mean.

redindian
05-07-2005, 12:42 PM
yes - your statement is right - I understand where we mixed up. I wanted to keep the image same, you wanted to chop it off.

"DOF doesnt change" - thisiswells

"DOF changes if u want to keep your subject same"- me

thisiswells
05-07-2005, 12:53 PM
In summary, your pictures would look the same when using a mini35 as those lenses on
a motion picture Super35mm camera (yes, they're using a full aperture gate in mini35)

Neil Rowe
05-07-2005, 12:58 PM
yeah.. i think the part your missing redindian, i that a different field of view doe not make a different DOF.. its the same. the illustration picture you posted above shows this. the feild of view is how much you can see.. how wide or narrow the angle of vision is. but just because you can see more or less of an image. it doesnt chnage what the image is.. just like in the picture.. the different sensors see different amounts of the exact same image.


.. and if you back up .. you feild of view is till the same.. you still have the same angle of visiion.. lets say its 15 degrees.. if you move the camera back and dont touch anythiing.. you still only see 15 degrees in your FOV.. you just brought what you wanted to see into that 15 degrees is all. but the apparent DOF will change when you change your focal point distance to refocus on the subject further away. DOF is not actually directly linked to feild of view at all. the DOF only changes when you change the focal distance.







on a side techy head interesting note thats interesting to know..(well at least for me): technically, DOF is also NOT affected whatsoever by focal length.
yes .. i did just say that.

heres the deal. we all know that focal length affects apparent DOF which is all that matters as far as the image is concerned. but does changing the focal length actually change the DOF(aka: the depth of the plane which is in focus) of the lense if given a constant focal distance?.. answer.. no.
all that chaging the focal length does is magnify the image and change your FOV. it doesnt actually change whats in the image. so basically the DOF is exactly the same at a focal length of 4mm as it is at 300 if given a constant focal distance/distance to subject.

you can test this by focusing on a subject at a short focal length with your dvx and getting a frame grab, and then only change the focal length/zoom in and get another grab. use a smaller subject with the background far enough away so when you zoom in you can see the apparent DOF change around the whole subject

the apparent DOF will be different in the initial shots.. which again.. we all know is all that we care about .. but if you take the same FOV shot section out of the short focal legth grab, and uprez it to the size of the other image, you will see that the area around the subject is just as out of focus as it is in the longer focal legth grab.. the problem is just that you cant see how out of focus it is until you zoom in and magnify the issue. so again you want to look at the zoomed in grab, and then cut out the same image from a smaller area of the wide image.. then uprezblow up the image part you cut out till its the same size as the zoomed in image.. youll see that loss of detail due to limited optics and resolution set aside, it is the same image. therefore focal length DOES NOT technically affect DOF.. only arpeture setting and focal point distance do. it sort of like looking at a pointialism painting from a distance .. it looks crisp and good.. as you get up closer you see its little dot making up the image. same with a blurry image.. it looks acceptably sharp from far away.

but for all practical purposes.. it affects apparent DOF .. so who cares. :)

Barry_Green
05-07-2005, 01:35 PM
IAL is correct; technically, focal length actually doesn't affect DOF. However, visually, it most certainly does. The narrower field of view of a telephoto lens will serve to magnify the background much more, which will exaggerate its out-of-focusness.

For example, these shots were taken at the same aperture. One was zoomed all the way out, the other was zoomed all the way in, and the camera moved to make sure that the subject size stayed the same. Clearly the telephoto shot looks like its background is more out of focus (even though they're equally out of focus, if you were to magnify the background in the wide-angle shot to be as big as the background in the telephoto shot, it'd be the same!)
http://icexpo.com/dvx100/DOF-Combined.jpg

So when you're shooting, zoom all the way in and open the iris all the way open, and you'll get the shallowest DOF you can get (optically). Or, get as absolutely close as you possibly can (like in Redindian's shots) and open the iris up, and that can give you very shallow DOF.

Aaron Koolen
05-07-2005, 02:55 PM
Wow! Finally someone said it!

It is "perceived" DoF that changes with focal length. I think we had this argument on here a looong time ago.

Aaron

David Jimerson
05-07-2005, 03:07 PM
DOF is determined by three stats: aperture, focal length, and distance to subject. A given lens at a given mm setting will deliver identical DOF if all those three elements are the same. But when you start talking about different imager sizes, you never keep all three elements the same. Typically, with a smaller sensor, you either get way further back, or use a shorter focal length -- and either (or both) techniques will cause deeper DOF.

It's splitting hairs, but the DOF does not change when the subject moves. The DOF settings which produce the image you want may, but the DOF itself does not. If you have an adjustable flashlight set to beam useable light 100 feet in front of you, and something you want to see is 115 feet in front of you, you can get closer and illuminate that something. But you didn't change the range of the light. You changed the conditions of the environment.

EDIT: Gosh, this train left the station without me . . .

vanguy
05-07-2005, 03:30 PM
[list=1]
How to achieve Varicam rates ?

Do it in post production in a software. Surely not as good as the real one - but maybe we can live with it.

Slowmotion - How to record 720/60p

Somehow record the 'Live output' to HDD. Barry says it is impractical for outdoor work as it takes a powerful comp + HD-SDI cards + RAID HDD + lots of space. So how to do slow-mo ? Using Software ?.


Here's another option. The JVC has real-time 60P analog outputs. On the day you want to do slow-mo, rent a DVCPRO-HD deck (or something else capable of 720/60P) and plug it in. Instant 60fps.



How to bypass GOP6 compression
[indent]Dropouts might not be bad as we think and hopefully JVC did a better job than Sony. An expensive option is to record uncompressed to HDD.


I've shot with the FX-1 and didn't notice serious dropouts at all.

I hope Panasonic makes the HDX more practical for guys like me, but until the JVC or the Panasonic is in a store somewhere, I gotta use the Sony.

So! I'm withholding judgement until these cameras actually hit the market and I can hold one in my hand. Who knows? Maybe Panasonic will figure out a way of recording DVCPRO-HD to cheap little DV tapes...

Neil Rowe
05-09-2005, 05:52 AM
..i think barrys illustration shold also help people understand why focus is so critical for the big screen. cause thiungs may look focused enough on a little monitor. but throw that same image ona 30 foot screen effectively magnifying it ..alot. and things which look to be in focus will soon reveal whether they actually are or not. thats why its important to know what your doing to get the best focus.. especially when working with optics like the anamorphic adaptor. barrys guide is reaaly helpful for giving you the methods to be sure your shots will hold up if you plan on going to the big screen.

this is why im particularily glad that the HVX will have a distance readout on the focus display. it gives you a sure fire way to check focus by distance to be sure in the HD world.. where the 3.5"inch lcd screen may not be doing the justice you want(even though it has focus peaking and zooming and all) to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt and know your really nailing it. i normally eyball it, but when it has to be perfect.. this should provide a way to be airtight.

Aaron Koolen
05-09-2005, 01:05 PM
Where did you read that it's going to have a distance readout for focus? I've only heard that it will have ranged numbers like the DVX? I hope it has distance readouts.

Cheers
Aaron

Neil Rowe
05-09-2005, 01:09 PM
id have to look waaay back in the HVX threads to find it.. but its there somewhere.. unless i just dreamed it up after a binge of cookies one night. :) check with barry green. im pretty sure he had mentioned it at some point.

Barry_Green
05-09-2005, 01:17 PM
It gives you MF00-MF99, plus meters, plus feet. You get 'em all!

Aaron Koolen
05-09-2005, 02:31 PM
Holy craparooni!

I remember something you posted Barry G about it only being a 0-99 readout (Don't know if you heard that from NAB or what) but obviously that's not the case now. Nice.


Now, that's got me wondering...I've no experience with lenses but I thought because it's not a proper manual focus with hard stops, that the focus readouts can only be relative, hence the 0-99 but being able to have a distance readout meant it had to be manual or something like that? Can someone clear this up for me?

Aza

Barry_Green
05-09-2005, 02:42 PM
It is a 100% "proper" manual focus -- completely precise, repeatable, and measurable.

What it doesn't have is hard stops. But it does have precise focus. If you really want hard stops, Century makes a ring that can be added that will give you hard stops as well. But as is, it gives you control and precision like a broadcast lens, and gives you distance markings that far surpass what a conventional broadcast lens has. The only functional difference is that it doesn't have a hard stop on the ends of travel.

It's not like the PD150/XL2 servo focus rings. This is the real deal.

Aaron Koolen
05-09-2005, 02:48 PM
Ahhhh, thanks Barry. I for some reason thought it was some hybrid jobbie.

Cheers
Aaron

reservoir
05-09-2005, 04:15 PM
Maybe Panasonic will figure out a way of recording DVCPRO-HD to cheap little DV tapes...

Seriously? :shocked:

?????????????:huh:

~reservoir~