Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member Matthew Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    998
    Default
    Barry I hope to God they talked to you when building the sensor and worked out the line-skipping


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Resident Preditor mcgeedigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Potomac Falls, VA
    Posts
    7,886
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    Personally, I also think viewfinders are unnecessary, and they could lop that off too, if they put a good, sharp AMOLED screen on it that you could use in daylight.
    That would be an excellent way to kill a majority of it's sales, by not including a viewfinder.
    Matt Gottshalk - Director/ Dp/ and Emmy Award Winning Editor
    Producer, Digital Creative for the United States Postal Service


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Bennett View Post
    Barry I hope to God they talked to you when building the sensor and worked out the line-skipping
    I'm not a hardware engineer, so I leave that job up to them, but you can certainly be sure that we've clearly and thoroughly explained to them what the issues are that are caused by line-skipping, and from their press release and from Jan's statement it certainly sounds like those aren't going to be a problem in this AF100. Whether that's solved by implementing new technology or proper OLPF or whatever, I don't know, and frankly I'm not all that concerned about it -- my barometer is the end result of the process used, not the process itself.

    So we've told them what is acceptable, what is preferable, and what is unacceptable. And they've said that they understand and that we're going to be happy, so I'm okay with that!


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member Starshine Video's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ames, Iowa
    Posts
    224
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    It will sell no matter what. But it will sell much more if they make a custom lens for it, I think, that turns it into the HPX170/HMC150/etc. form factor (does anyone have a better name for this?). Something like the servo, rocker-zoom lens that Canon has for the XL1 or Sony for their EX3 (but don't turn it into a shoulder mount, though)

    Which is why I think it is important that they shrink the body more. Can they make it half as long? Maybe move the XLR jacks to the handle like Sony does. Personally, I also think viewfinders are unnecessary, and they could lop that off too, if they put a good, sharp AMOLED screen on it that you could use in daylight.

    Anyway, it's such a big deal that I think they should design the lens first. Then design the body shape and size after that so that the total is basically the handycam body style we all love. I'm guessing that the size and shape of the lens is less flexible than what you can do with a box for the sensor and cards, etc. You can move stuff around in there, etc., and try different layouts.

    That's my $2 million worth
    IDK, but it sounds to be as though you really aren't the market for this camera.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Macau
    Posts
    2,914
    Default
    But in theory the lens that comes with this camera doesn't need to resolve as much as the Still lenses for DSLR's. We are talking 1080p or maximum 2K through the outputs. For curiosity, what is the aperture range of the lens on the EX3?
    SÚrgio Perez
    Macanese Director
    http://vimeo.com/user1503556


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Seelys Bay, Ontario
    Posts
    603
    Default
    Event videography is why it needs the windowed 2/3" sensor. Throw on a 12-120mm t2.5 Angenieux and you are golden. (Usually around $1000 at reputable dealers) a 25mm 1.4 switar would get you through most of the low light stuff. 10mm schnieder and 5.7 kinoptic are both about t2. Switch over to full frame and a 50mm or longer for bride prep and photo montage when you want the dreamy soft focus stuff.

    Yes I'm hoping for the 2/3" option cause I have most of those lenses already. Just need to get a custom eclair mount made for my zoom. The idea of being able to use 16mm lenses for most shots, then switch to 35mm for close-ups with the same camera has my head spinning.

    My only concern at this point is exposure sensitivity of the smaller portion of the sensor. Pixels are the same size so it shouldn't matter, but if the use some kind of pixel binning/ averaging on the full sensor, would that be more sensitive. ie, would a t4 35mm lens be about the same as a t2 16mm all else being equal.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Default
    A lens like this would be great:



    As posted on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fujinon-TV-Zoo...item4cee69c66d

    I don't know how long that page will last, so I will copy its description here:

    This is a nice condition used Fujinon TV Zoom lens, 14-84mm F1.6 with a standard c-mount that fits the 16mm Bolex, Beaulieux etc. cine / movie cameras as well as - with optional adapters (not included) - modern micro4/3 cameras like the Panasonic G1, GH-1, GF-1, EP-1, EP-2 etc. It works perfectly on my GH1 without modification.

    I have tried several of the TV zoom lenses out there, and this is the one I kept until now - clearly one of the better ones IMHO. This lens is overall in very good condition. It shows minimal external signs of use but the glass is clear and clean. Zoom and distance rings are nice and smooth, the aperture ring is maybe a little bit loose but it clicks and works fine. Zoom works smoothly with a short (3/4") lever that I somehow haven't captured in the pictures. Like on most other c-mount lenses that go wider than 25mm it does show some vignetting on the wide end on the m4/3 format, but in the 1:1 EZ format on my GH1 this is fully useable and the IQ is nice, turning it into a 56-336mm (35mm equivalent) at a fixed F1.6 - great for videos on that camera format. The size is also nice, it is approx 2" wide and 5" long, very compact for that focal length. Perfect for the m4/3 cameras IMHO. As an added bonus, it also works in the macro range which makes it a really versatile lens. I have used mostly prime lenses, so I am offering the zoom here but I can live with it if it doesn't sell...


    Highlights:

    - 14-84mm (28-168mm FF35 equivalent)
    - fixed f1.6 throughout (!)
    - 2 x 5" (small)

    Panasonic, make one like this, please.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Cinematography/Lighting Mod Ryan Patrick O'Hara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    5,936
    Default
    Forgive my ignorance, but just today am I learning what the heck 4/3" chips are. I had never heard of them before this camera was announced just awhile ago.

    What is the 4/3" chip size compared to S35mm? I can't find any numbers. What would, say a set of S35 lenses that cover a 30mm diagonal area look like on a 4/3" chip?

    If cinematography wasn't infinite, I'm sure I would have found the end by now.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Default
    It's almost the same size as 35mm cinema film. S35 lenses cover the full frame of 4/3. There is a slight crop factor; if using 35mm cinema as the standard, the Cinema Crop Factor of an AF100 would be about 1.18.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •