HVX with panavision lenses
- Thread starter Icarus2005
- Start date
Illya Friedman
Well-known member
The Sarlacc said:
I agree with you on the Panavised Lenses, I'd even go so far as to offer up the MTF level is questionable when compared to other products (e.g. Zeiss, Fuji & Canon) that are readily available, at less cost. That being said, there a lot of good lens products out there. While I'm not a fan of what Panavision did to the F900, it's not to say that it's a bad product. Clairmont and Sim also modified their F900s. Each have their strengths ans weaknesses.
While I doubt any B4 mount HD lens will even cover a 35mm gate area, there would be no better lens to put on a 35mm adapter then a HD lens assuming it could cover an entire 35mm gate area.
But if for a second we assume it could, it would be great. From what I've been told by two different lens manufacturers, even the most expensive 35mm PL mount lenses are not producing the same amount of MTF and color accuracy as the current crop of HD B4 mount lenses.
It's important to realize that the CCDs do make a big difference, and it's foolish to say that sticking a nice piece of glass in front of a rotating ground glass and rephotographing that image is "better" than shooting an HVX in it's natural state. The only benefit of any 35mm adapter is a reduction in DoF, if you consider that a benefit. The image will not be any sharper (it will actually be softer, and noisier) nor will the image have more contrast detail than the HVX is capable of recording with it's standard lens.
Just because there's expensive glass in front of a fixed lens camera it doesn't automatically make it a "better" image. You are truly far better off spending lens adapter & lens money on a Varicam rental, and there are plenty of tests out there to prove it. If you don't know where to go to get a good "indie" deal, you can always email me off list and I'll point you in the right direction.
I.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
Illya Friedman said:
This is because people do not understand the physics in making a lens...and that the elements...especially the rear elements are designed much differently when dealing HD lenses vs Cine lenses.
Light disperses much differently to film then it does to a CCD. And the way the different lenses are built very much reflect that. Light hits a CCD in the manner of GBR and with film its BGR if I remember correctly.
Green being the most senstive to video, and blue the most senstive to film.
You are changing characteristcs when using cine lens on video. I'm not saying it looks bads...but when are sticking those S4 Cookes on a pro35 in front of your HVX...its not the exact same look the lenses will give when thrown up on a Arri435 shooting color negative.
Illya Friedman
Well-known member
Good point. I think that a lot of people really think that adding an expensive lens gives an expensive look, and it doesn't with a small camera using an adapter.The Sarlacc said:
With an HD Lens the light passes through a prism (beam splitter) before striking CCDs. That is the primary difference between PL based and B4 based imagers - besides coverage area. For those really interested in this topic I recommend giving this thread a look:
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/%5Bcml-hdtv%5D%20Cine%20lenses%20on%2023%20HD%20CCD%20cameras.htm
I.
$5,300 - I was about to say the same thing Icarus! As far as I am concerned it is always about the glass. I think some of the HD cine-style zooms are nice but still hold onto that video sharpness in my opinion.
I would always prefer to go with film glass as it has that rendered softness that makes things more filmic - especially in the way that the focus falls off. Although I will say that with the 1/3" cameras - losing any sharpness can be a compromise....Also, those Fujinon HD lenses are pretty fantastic. I just shot the new Zero7 music video in NYC with the Fujinon 7.6-105 T2 HD CineZoom on an SDX and the footage looked awesome - and the straight T2 through the zoom really helped on the massive night scene shot on Jay Street.....
I would always prefer to go with film glass as it has that rendered softness that makes things more filmic - especially in the way that the focus falls off. Although I will say that with the 1/3" cameras - losing any sharpness can be a compromise....Also, those Fujinon HD lenses are pretty fantastic. I just shot the new Zero7 music video in NYC with the Fujinon 7.6-105 T2 HD CineZoom on an SDX and the footage looked awesome - and the straight T2 through the zoom really helped on the massive night scene shot on Jay Street.....