HVX + Mini 35mm?

[D_and_G]

For all you techs-perts.

Given the specs, on paper, of the HVX and the better colourspace etc... Do you think (if they make the mod to fit the HVX)
that the mini P+S Technik Mini35 will have better efficacy than it does now ?

After all the talk of fixed lens vs. removable, could this be a realistic compromise, considering the DVC PRO HD codec ?

[Jan_Crittenden]

For all you techs-perts.
P+S Technik Mini35 will have better efficacy than it does now ?


How do you mean? Webster says: the power to produce an effect

It does indeed do that. So I am left with a question as to what you mean.

Will it look and work well with the DVCPRO HD codec, no question.

Anyhow, not sure how else to answer.

Best,

Jan

[Daniel Skubal]

Yeah, I think he was just asking if we felt if the mini35 would perform better on a high def/and different codec... I believe it will.

Going out on a limb here for an assumption:

He may have thought that the mini35 may have a ceiling of ability... and with a camera like the hvs with superior picture quality and high definition, the camera could possibly pick up grain on the ground glass of the mini35

To counter that idea though, I believe that the mini35 will improve, rather than downgrade the image of the HVX.

Gosh, I hope that made sense. lol

[Jan_Crittenden]

Well if that is the question, I would have to agree. The recording format is high definition and thus won't stand in the way. Hope this helps,

Jan

[D_and_G]

Yes that's what I meant.

And also, if you are trying to achieve a look closer to film , then with the HVX, as opposed to the DVX, with the mini35 , you'll be closer to your goal.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough :)


A fellow I know would never spring for the mini35 because he felt the DVX didn't take advantage of it and the capability. I just thought it might now be a different story with the HVX.

[fiercecurry]

Still depends on the image resolution of the camera. Which we still dont know yet. If the pixels on the HVX aren't true 1280x720, and its using pixel shift, than its kind of a waste to use cine style lens. The only gain you will get is shallower depth of field, not detail.

We only know the camera will give us a 1920x1080 or 1280x720 image, but as to the actual resolution in terms of pixels, that it records at, that is still in question. I highly doubt that for $6000 we will be getting anywhere close to the resolution that the Varicam delivers, even though it is the same codec. 2/3 and 1/3 are a big difference.The quality of HD lenses would not be justified (or do justice) to the 1/3 chips resolution. If you want shallow depth of field (without cinestyle lens) zoom in with your camcorder lens, and physically back your camera up away from the subject you are shooting, as far as you can.

[letsburnbridges]

I cant imagine theyd use pixel shift...gad i hope not.

[Barry_Green]

Still depends on the image resolution of the camera. Which we still dont know yet. If the pixels on the HVX aren't true 1280x720, and its using pixel shift, than its kind of a waste to use cine style lens. The only gain you will get is shallower depth of field, not detail.
Using genuine pixel shift will only increase resolution, not decrease it. And a mini35 type of device will not ever add detail, it inherently softens detail. You will never get a sharper image from a mini35/micro35/G35/anything35 than you would from the stock lens. The only possible exception would be the XL2 (or perhaps the upcoming HD100), but that remains to be seen.

[Barry_Green]

I cant imagine theyd use pixel shift...gad i hope not.
They almost unquestionably will use pixel shift, if they're smart (and I think they are). Pixel shift increases resolution, while also increasing dynamic range and low light sensitivity. A properly-implemented pixel-shift system, using (for example) 960x1080 CCD pixels to deliver a 1280x1080 image, will give you native 1280x1080 resolution at 4:2:2 color, with better low-light sensitivity, lower noise, and wider dynamic range, than you would get from a 1280x1080 chip.

Having the native pixel resolution only truly helps you if you're recording 4:4:4 color (which this camera won't), and even then, it only helps with chroma resolution, at the expense of introducing more noise, less sensitivity, and lower dynamic range. All to get higher color resolution that you won't be recording anyway.

[icicle22]

Using genuine pixel shift will only increase resolution, not decrease it. And a mini35 type of device will not ever add detail, it inherently softens detail. You will never get a sharper image from a mini35/micro35/G35/anything35 than you would from the stock lens. The only possible exception would be the XL2 (or perhaps the upcoming HD100), but that remains to be seen.

Barry,
Are you saying that the Mini35 style could potentially produce cleaner more detailed images on cameras that don;t have a fixed lens? For example on the XL series you take off the manufactures lens and attach the Mini35 and it uses its own lens system to focus the image on the CCD as oppossed to say the DVX where the image produced on the ground glass has to travel through the DVX lens also? I realize that you are still limited to the res of the CCD but at least you are removing one extra layer of optical elements from the chain.

If we assume that most manufactures engineer the lens to meet the specs of the CCD that would mean that no ammount of adding optics on the end of the lens could ever really make the image any sharper or higher res. It could make it have the DOF properties of a larger format camera but it will not add perceived clarity or sharpness.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. However, it all has to work together for the overall image. I've shot with the mini35 on the DVX and the results were easily quite a bit sharper than the demo footage of the mini35 on the XL1. But I would expect the XL2 to deliver a sharper mini35 image than the DVX could.

Both the DVX and the XL2 have a lens between the chips and the mini35. On the DVX, it's the built-in Leica camera lens, on the XL2 it's a purpose-built relay lens supplied with the mini35. It just stands to reason that a special-purpose, single-focal-length lens like the XL2's relay lens should be sharper than a multi-element 10x zoom.

I would expect similar results with the JVC HD100 -- it would seem reasonable to expect that a purpose-built relay lens would provide for the ultimate sharpness being transferred to the CCD (but, with HDV, other issues will come into play, so the comparison isn't quite as clear-cut as it is when you're comparing DV to DV).


If we assume that most manufactures engineer the lens to meet the specs of the CCD that would mean that no ammount of adding optics on the end of the lens could ever really make the image any sharper or higher res. It could make it have the DOF properties of a larger format camera but it will not add perceived clarity or sharpness
That's what I believe, yes. The mini35 certainly doesn't make the DVX image any sharper, and I've used it with some pretty expensive cinema lenses. It does change the image in many ways however -- the contrast, the color, the "feel" of the image is definitely more cinema-like. The softening actually helps the image look more filmlike and less video.

[icicle22]

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I figured that a dedicated relay lens would be better suited for delivering image to the CCD but wanted to hear your input.

[Antoine_Fabi]

I think it should look a ton sharper on the XL2 because the light from the 35mm lense goes directly to the relay lense, and then directly to the CCDs.

I like the shallow DOF of the mini35, but i dont like the softening effect at all...
To my eyes, film looks very very tight compared to video. Smooth, yes, but much much tighter.

I would like to see rez chart A/B grabs...