Anyone not agree with SD lenses?

Smelni is absolutely right on this. You won't know you've screwed up until its far too late. In post with the clock running. If don't care to delve into it yourself just ask any optician if glass is just glass.

The still camera analogy is pretty silly too. I remember paying 5000.00 in the 70's for a Leica telephoto lens that had only 2 elements in it! But they were very good elements indeed.

One of the big problems in lens design is maintaining contrast over many air glass interfaces. This is a particular problem for zoom lenses as they usually contain many more more elements than primes. Every time light gets refracted you loose a little contrast. One of the reason primes are generally sharper than zooms.

It's also not cheap.

For corporate work the sd lenses may be ok but for network stuff I'd make sure the workflow didn't include something where the MTF of the lens wasn't going to come back to bite me in the ass. You don't get too many chances to screw up in this business at the higher levels.

As Bob Dylan says, "Money doesn't talk it swears".
 
Kit - I think you are missing the point that it depends on the application - if you are producing for youtube - you dont even need an HD camera.

If you might blowup your image, color correct or do anything that will need a maximum type of image - then higher MTF is your friend.

You cant justify an SD lens just because it is cheaper. It can be argued that same way that a small handheld 300 dollar camcorder has more "VALUE for PRICE" - but that camera isnt gonna cut it for any professional application.

I am not arguing that someone shouldnt get an SD lens - but they need to know what they are giving up
 
smelni said:
Kit - I think you are missing the point that it depends on the application - if you are producing for youtube - you dont even need an HD camera.
Click to expand...

It's quite the opposite - that is EXACTLY what I am saying - it depends on the application. I'm not missing anything.

But for most people, they are not doing a 2-4k blowup everyday. I would put money on 95% of HPX-500 shooters will never have to blow up their HD footage. Most are down-converting for broadcast, weddings, sports, events, documentaries, etc. Color correction has yielded nice results using our SD lenses.

I know that some people can and do everyday utilize the capabilities and needs of an HD lens. I am personally one that does not need that because the image versus price from a business standpoint does not justify me getting HD lenses. Our clients are VERY happy with the quality of our work and the look of our videos.

If you need it, and can afford it, then get it. But if you are a serious film maker and have the money to spend, why get a 500? Why not a 2000 or higher? There are limiting factors with the 500 for multiple reasons anyways, such as the native resolution and sharpness.

I would venture to say that if you really look closely and compare even a HD lens versus a SD lens on a SD bod, you'll still probably see some difference in image quality. But this really has to do with being able to get into an affordable camera package that yields great results while still being somewhat friendly on your pocketbook.

If you need an HD lens, and there are people that really do, then great, not knocking ya what-so-ever. But if you want great results from a great affordable camera and don't have an obscene amount of money to spend, a good quality used SD lens will work out nicely for most people. It does for me.
 
I used a blowup as an example. Other examples are color correction, image resizing, stabalization, effects work, greenscreen etc. These all make MTF very important.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of MTF if you think an HD lens will look better then a (good) SD lens on a SD camera. The limiting factors of the MTF graph on the SD camera means that it is possible that the SD lens will look better on the SD camera because the curve is optimized for a lower lines per height. The HD lens on an HD camera needs to curve out further and therefore MIGHT sacrifice some MTF on lower frequencies to maintain the higher frequencies.
 
smelni said:
I used a blowup as an example. Other examples are color correction, image resizing, stabalization, effects work, greenscreen etc. These all make MTF very important.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of MTF if you think an HD lens will look better then a (good) SD lens on a SD camera.
Click to expand...

Maybe I do have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of MTF, but the evdience speaks for itself. If the HD image quality is quite acceptable for me and I can save $8k per camera right now, that's what I am going to do. I have NEVER had a client come to me and say that the image isn't sharp enough, the color looks bad, the effects look unacceptable, or the key is anything short of great. What I am saying is that for most shooters utilizing the 500, an SD lens will be more than acceptable.

I have a "fundamental business understanding", the point is in most cases to turn a profit. Unless your video is constantly being asessed pixel for pixel under a magnifying glass, "Most" people using a 500 and an SD lens will be just fine. If the image quality is a huge requirement, I would definitely suggest getting something far beyond the capabilities of a 500....
 
agreed on your points. I was just arguing against the assertion that HD lens manufacturers are duping people into purchasing something that doesnt do anything. HD lenses do have far more resolving power and are therefore more expensive to make. If you dont need them then great. But there is no underhandedness going on with their production and promotion
 
smelni said:
agreed on your points. I was just arguing against the assertion that HD lens manufacturers are duping people into purchasing something that doesnt do anything. HD lenses do have far more resolving power and are therefore more expensive to make. If you dont need them then great. But there is no underhandedness going on with their production and promotion
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Resolution and sharpness are only one of the things to consider. Color rendition, contrast, and flare control are often times far more important than raw sharpness. I'd much rather have a silghtly softer lens that has great contrast and color rendition and 'looks pretty' than something that maxes MTF tests but just looks sterile.

You should test each lens on your camera and see how you feel about it. If you're happy and your clients are happy, you're done.
 
Hi Kit- thanks for the tests and comments on this.
Budgetwise, I guess I'm in a slightly different position, working for an institution where I have a one-off budget to spend, and am unlikely to be able to justify a better lens in fthe future. In a commercial sense, I absolutely see where you're coming from. I'm just trying to cram everything into one package!
From what I've seen here- and I've pored over the stills and downloaded footage- there's not a big difference between good SD glass and the XA17x7.6 option Panasonic have developed. I tend to agree, that the XA17x7.6 (CAC) option is hard to justify.
To my eye, however, most, if not all, of the footage/stills I've seen from BOTH are a little softish, especially in wide shot.
In contrast, what I've seen- especially mid/close shots, but wide-shots too- posted that's come from other HD ($25k+?) lenses HAS been very significantly better: sharper, cleaner, better details, better contrast etc. What that says to me is that the camera, for all its interpolated pixels, is CAPABLE of a very good crisp HD image. That's the image I WANT, ho hum, but can't afford.
(It also may indicate that because it's agreed the viewfinder isn't great, the camera is blimin' hard to focus in "real-life" low/varied light situations!)
IMHO there are other, cheaper cameras that will get a similar HD picture to the HPX500 with a less than stellar lens. For me- because I can't anticipate getting the great glass- that means the biggest benefit of the HPX is shooting great DVCPro50 SD pictures.
And since I've got a good SD setup now, that takes some of the excitement out of the equation.
I'm getting an HPX500 to test- with an XA lens- from the rep here fairly soon. I'll try my lenses on it and try to shoot a variety of tests in conditions I know I'll be shooting in. And I'll probably buy one.
Maybe it's just the human condition, to always want more, to yearn for the moon!
 
I agree.

This softness/SD lens/full raster debate is a sign that the industry is still in transition.

Basically, there are tradeoffs at the lower pricepoints right now, they just are not as apparent because HD has been the rising tide that lifts all boats.

I have come to the realization that the images I want, I can not afford right now.

After all my research, the HPX-500 (probably with an SD lens) seems like the best compromise.

The EX-1 is next on my list, but can not deal with the strobe issue.

What bothers me the most about a lot of the under $30,000 lenses is the CA.

This seems like a huge step back as SD cameras never showed this.

But it is just another factor that makes the great equipment cost that much more.
 
Well personally I think the cheaper CAC function lenses perform very well, especially considering the price. This is the tradeoff for me - not a $30k lens, but a HD CAC lens. Its perfect for many applications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top