Has anyone tested a SD lens on the HPX500?

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?
 
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)
 
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 ??
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
But I think time doesn´t matter here
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
joe 1008 said:
I still belive that 720p only needs 33-40% more lens performance than PAL.
Click to expand...

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):
 
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
 
Postmaster said:
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 $$.
Click to expand...

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.
 
joe 1008 said:
New SD lenses or 2nd hand? What fabricate, what price?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
hunter richards said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
1201125217.jpeg


f5.6 at almost full-telephoto
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:
1201125504.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top