The HPX-500 SD vs. HD Lens game :-)

Kit Hannah

Kit Hannah

Veteran
Let's play a little game.....

I have posted 10 pictures. Let's see who can figure out which ones are shot with a SD lens and which ones are shot with a HD lens.

I'm not going to tell you how many of them are HD or SD yet though... but, yes, there are both in there.

Shot indoors 720p 24n all on 500's.

Pica are ungraded jpg's

The 2 lenses used are:
Canon 15x8.5b4 krs lens (old, external focus)
Fujinon XA17X7.6BRM HD Lens


Click below to view the gallery of the 10 pics:

http://www.hannahmedia.com/hdorsd/index.html

They're not the greatest pics, but just trying to show the real world differences.

Thanks in advance for playing.

Kit
 
Hi Kit,
I like more the pictures shot from the left, I mean, 1, 2, 7 (except 9), the ohter ones, 3,4,5,6,8,10 are worst. In theory, the HD should be the first ones, but I have the HPX 500 with a FUjinon 16X9 BRM and I am very happy with it.
I will post some pictures soon.
Nice game.
 
Ill take a shot -

1,2,4,6,7 HD Glass
3,5,8,9,10 SD Glass

Can you at least name the HD glass used?
 
I'm guessing 2,6,and 8 were shot on HD glass.

This whole exercise makes me feel better about the HPX due to arrive in less than two weeks. I'll be using a Fujinon A16x9.5 BERM SD lens on it that I bought on eBay a couple of months ago (has a 12 pin connector, too).

I'm planning on using my Anton Bauer ProPac 14 batteries (gold mount). Are they okay to use with the HPX?

Thanks for your postings Kit. They've inspired me to add the HPX to my equipment list. You do a lot of the same work that I do, and I'm hoping that the SD lens will carry me through for a while (like helping to pay for the camera!).

Mark G
www.newmediadevcorp.com
 
Last edited:
I agree, imho the camera on the audience left seems to have a bit more detail.

But the difference between the two is not "thousands".

The color definately looks Panasonic to me, very similar to what I see with my DVC-200s.

Thanks for posting and I look forward to the answers.
 
I'll vote 1, 2, 7, & 9 were the HD glass. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 SD glass.

My votes are not based on sharpness, so much as 1,2,7,9 seem to have better contrast, while the others seem to be flatter, contrast-wise.

-scott
 
Please be aware though the same lens will display different properties at different focal lengths. So its not so easy to tell. I based mine on the amount of CA that showed up in the shots, something not so prevalent in high end HD glass or properly functioning CAC lenses.

Take a look at shot 9 for example. The left guy has clear CA in the inside of his jacket lapels that I havent seen on my CAC lens.
 
Not a fair test for expensive lenses...

You are videotaping a theatrical event. And it does look like they have lit the stage with blue gells on the lights... So blue would show up in the shadows and mimic CA.

CA, to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) shows up around the edges of the SD lens where the focus is soft on a bright object that is placed against a dark object..

My old betacam Cannon YJ18x9B4 KRS SX12 is sharp as a tack, but if I go outside on a sunny day I can find CA by pointing the camera down a row of white plastic pickets on a fence. The pickets that are in focus are perfect. The pickets on the edges and out of focus show CA against the dark green foliage in the background.. Along the transition edge of dark green to white picket is a nice pinkish magenta.. And that is just not natural...

So, I don't think the challenge is SD versus HD... But knowing when you should rent an HD lens so the client doesn't ask for his money back...

Considering the $2k rebate, I wish I could buy 2 more HPX500s. My first one came in under $8k (if I get the rebate) and my SD lens makes it sing..... maybe not always on key tho....
 
Nate Stephens said:
So, I don't think the challenge is SD versus HD... But knowing when you should rent an HD lens so the client doesn't ask for his money back...
Click to expand...

I think it is about knowing when to rent the $30,000 lens as many HD lenses show CA as well.

But I agree, an under lit theatrical environment is a challenge.

I don't know what to think about this SD lens business.

On one hand it shows that the HPX-500 might be lacking detail as an SD lens is right at home in front of it.

On the other hand, if the final output is really impressive, it is quite adanved technology for $8,000.

I have yet to see one in person & next to another HD camera, but I am looking forward to the day.
 
Nate youre right of course. But take a look at shot 9. Look at the left guy and look at his (from our viewing angle) left jacker lapel (inner). Significant CA unrelated to the lights. This is what I looked for in my determination.
 
After looking at Mark' Kokkoros' jpg's and some others that have been posted, my eyes see a very definite sharpness and color rendition associated with the higher end Canon and Fujinon lenses (over $18k). The SD to HD comparison seems more even with the under $9K lenses.

I'm getting anxious to try mine when it comes with the SD glass I have and then rent a high end lens for comparison (on a job of course!).

Mark G
www.newmediadevcorp.com
 
Okay, so are we ready for the answers?

SHots from the HD lens:

002
004
007
008

All of the others were with a $125 External focus Canon.

Nate was correct in saying that the Theatrical setting was a difficult one. But it is a very real world application that many shooters are posed with multiple times throughout the year, so we can't just dismiss theatrical settings.

I horizontally flipped a few of the images to throw people off becase I didn't want people to get the idea that the left side was the HD cam and the right side was the SD cam (shot 010 is a 3rd camera shot through a tinted window). If you look closely at some of the pics, you can tell that things like hankerchiefs switched sides and the guy's asymetrical suit flipped backwards. In sme shots, the yellow patch is on his left shoulder and in some on his right.

To me, this was just a test to see what people thought. I find it pretty amazing that there is not a big enough difference between the 2 lenses to justify the cost difference. One lens was $8000, the other $125. For some people, depending on the type of work that you do, it may be worth it to have that extra crispness. But when both of these lenses are playing in the video, you really cannot tell the difference, especially after a little bit of color correction.

I'm not saying and have never said "don't get an HD lens", what I am simply pointing out is that depending on your application, you may not "NEED" an HD lens with the 500. I, like most people in this business, am on a limited budget and would like my dollar to stretch as far as possible while doing my best to maintain high quality videos.

Because I went with the lenses that I did, I was able to afford twice the number of cameras as I would have been able to. Sometimes you have to make tradeoffs and I think that this one was well worth it.
 
Thanks Kit.

I think you are doing us a great service.

Being able to justify buying two bodies and using more affordable lenses is real business minded approach.

Given that a lot of people still do not have a Blu-Ray, nor will anytine soon.
 
Kit TBH, its not really a solid comparison. Now Im not debating with you on the virtues of getting a good SD lens cheap and it producing good results.

First off shot 10 I picked as SD and its little wonder as it was shot through another piece of glass.

That being the case I did pick a couple as HD that were SD but interestingly I only put one HD shot incorrectly into the SD category. Which would tell me the true HD glass shots are hard to mistake as less, whilst SD glass shots can sometimes be mistaken as HD glass (Im talking by me of course), and of course this is only one select few images in one shooting circumstance. I suspect as you shot different things those results may sway further one way or the other. And I suspect the SD lens will play an enourmous part in this.

Theres still noticable CA in some of your SD lens shots that I was able to discern and these shots I correctly picked as SD glass take shot 9 as a good example of this as I mentioned in another post.
 
Hey Noel,
As soon as I can, I will be happy to do some more tests. Next time I will do an outdoors shot with a few different lenses and really try to get the focus as spot on as possible. I still think we'll find that the SD lenses are very acceptable. I've never said that the HD lens is not better, but you have to admit that the SD is pretty damn close, close enough for most. We shall see soon.
 
Kit, I dont doubt you will be able to get some great images. This particular point I have never debated, lens characteristics vary a lot and a good SD lens will always shoot a nice image.

My major concern is over the CA in circumstances where its prevalent, it does seem to pop up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top