Anyone not agree with SD lenses?

F

film842

Member
I just saw that B&H now has the Fujinon HD lens in stock that was I was originally thinking of (FUXA17X76BER - XA17x7.6BERM 17x 2/3" Panasonic P2HD Lens) and now I've got to make a decision.

I'm shooting HD for broadcast. Can I safely stay with the Fujinon A15x7.6 SD lens that I have on permanent loan or should I spend $8000 for the XA Fujinon?

There's many many posts in favor of using SD glass, but not very many of those who are against. Guess it's just not a clearcut thing.
 
Barry_Green said:
This is what Canon says about it:
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/images/pdf/white_paper_sdtv_lens_onhdtv_camera.pdf

They say never do it. Real-world experience from others here seems to say that they're happy with the SD lens performance on an HPX500. So the only real question is: would *you* be happy with it? Are you happy with what you're getting? If so, why spend more? If not, your question's already answered. :)
Click to expand...

Not to sound like a jerk, but if I could answer that question, I wouldn't be posting here.

I need opinions from those, like yourself whose opinion is backed up by broadcast work. There is a way of viewing these kinds of amorphous questions that only true professionals with experience can really weigh in on. From a pro you can get not only a strong opinion, but also the attitude that got them there.

I'm seeking their opinions in particular, because many of the posts here are from those whose work ends up mainly on the web or is corporate based and their clients don't care about the difference.

Some of these folks really want SD lenses to be accepted because they're cost effective.

Unfortunately, I'm a non-technical person, but I'm going to wade through Canon's piece and see what it tells me, although I can guess. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am shooting mainly for broadcast, I am very satisfied with the results I am getting with medium to long shots from my Canon 9x5.2 with 2x ext. Also my Fujinon 15x8 (a bit softer but sometimes I (when the light is very hard) prefer the somewhat softer look. Again; for broadcast it is fine, when shooting commercials I rent HD and/or prime lenses.
If you're planning to shoot a lot of wide-angle stuff, the hpx-500 might not be the best choice, regardless the lens. But in its pricerange there's is nothing better (and I think it still beats a lot of cameras costing double or more)

Anyway my two cents..
 
I have the Fujinon XA17x7.6BERM with the 2x on my 500. I find it to be good and sharp at medium to long shots but there is a slight softness at the wide end. I assumed it was just the lens...

So, Workstation, are you saying that even with high end glass it still has that softness on the wide end?
 
Workstation said:
I am shooting mainly for broadcast, I am very satisfied with the results I am getting with medium to long shots from my Canon 9x5.2 with 2x ext. Also my Fujinon 15x8 (a bit softer but sometimes I (when the light is very hard) prefer the somewhat softer look. Again; for broadcast it is fine, when shooting commercials I rent HD and/or prime lenses.
If you're planning to shoot a lot of wide-angle stuff, the hpx-500 might not be the best choice, regardless the lens. But in its pricerange there's is nothing better (and I think it still beats a lot of cameras costing double or more)

Anyway my two cents..
Click to expand...


Appreciate your opinion. Let me ask you this: if you were to shoot for an HD broadcast, would you use your SD lenses?
 
film842 said:
Appreciate your opinion. Let me ask you this: if you were to shoot for an HD broadcast, would you use your SD lenses?
Click to expand...

I would.

Look, you're talking about a camera that takes the pixels of basically a large SD sensor and shifts them internally. The imaging sensor is realy only something like 960 x 640, which is not bad, but it then shifts the pixels to achieve the HD resolution.

As far as SD glass goes, I use SD lenses everyday for HD broadcast. We have advertising systems displayed in 720p and it looks wonderful. All off of SD glass.

I truly believe that HD glass is just a way for lens manufacturers to make some extra money. What is it that is worth the price difference? Some sort of "special" glass? c'mon, lets be realistic. What if you had to shoot something through a window with an HD lens? Since that glass is not "HD Glass", do you think that it's not possible unless you go get a HD window?

Quality lenses are quality lenses. If you were going to get an HPX-3000, I would say yeah, get some bad ass glass. But for the HPX-500? No need.

There have been some posts comparing SD glass and HD Glass, and I too can post some comparisons, but the comparisons I have seen on here have not been very good. With my SD lenses and my buddies lHD ens shooting the same thing, you really cannot tell the difference at the same focal length and settings. I will try and post some examples of this.

Do what you wish though. If a lens that says "HD" on the side makes you sleep better at night, and you have the extra money to throw away, then by all means, go for it. The new HD lenses are nice and have some cool features that you'll probably never use. But if you want to save a bunch of money and get something that will look equally great on the 500, get a nice used SD lens.
 
Well Said kit, I could not agree more.
If I was in this situation I would let my wallet make the decision, If the budgets there, "Go for it" , if it's not, Stay with SD.
I'm very happy with my SD lens on my SPX800, All of my Broadcast clients comment on the high image quality I supply, and most of them use the SD lens also.
film 842 "Let your wallet make the decision"
Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
I use one of the CAC lenses - its a cheaper way to make HD glass, uses the CAC function which is basically a bunch of calculations based on a specific lens instead of the coating process.

The CAC function does make a difference, Ive never seen chromatic aberration. I suggest this as a consideration.

And if the budgets there on particular jobs you can always rent high end glass such as the Fujinon Super Cine primes.
 
I had my hands on a HPX500 recently with the Fujinon XA17X7.6BERM lens - what I loved most about this lens was the super-soft quickzoom feature and the focus-helper button that zooms in extremely fast and zooms back to the original position on release of the button.

I shot one interview with it and it was the first time in my life that when I zoomed in slowly during the interview, I was more than 100% happy with it.
I'd kill to work more with this lens (although I don't like the VF of the HPX, not even the 16:9 one).

Maybe your SD lens is just as good, but if I were you I'd give the Fujinon XA17X7.6BER(M) a try, and if it's only for the quickzoom!


Oh, by the way, the footage I shot looked gorgeous with the HPX, but I couldn't compare it to the HPX with an SD lens - my best comparison was footage from Sony DXC-D50/55 cameras on DVCAM with Canon SD lenses. I think the HPX500 easily excelled that in DVCPro50 with the XA17X7.6BERM lens
 
Last edited:
I don't think your viewers are going to be able to tell the difference. If you're not too picky, why not save your 8 grand and buy the HPX500 body first, fit it to your SD lens, take it for a spin and see if you like the result yourself. If not, I don't think the HD stock lens is going anywhere. Just my two pennies.
 
There are such conflicting stories on this, it's making my head spin. I'm looking at it from all angles, and I still feel I'll be taking a risk either way. A GOOD bit of 2/3" glass will last a lot longer than the camera: it'd be a long-term asset. But bottom line, I don't think I can afford one plus the body.
It's a case of which compromise is not too compromising!
 
robstowell said:
There are such conflicting stories on this, it's making my head spin. I'm looking at it from all angles, and I still feel I'll be taking a risk either way. A GOOD bit of 2/3" glass will last a lot longer than the camera: it'd be a long-term asset. But bottom line, I don't think I can afford one plus the body.
It's a case of which compromise is not too compromising!
Click to expand...

Rob,

So where is the conflict? I have not heard anyone (except for the "lens manufacturers") say that there is no way they would use a SD lens on the 500. It's quite the contrary. Lens manufacturers can say all they want, apply "special $8000 coatings" to the glass, whatever, but the evidence speaks for itself. Glass is glass when it comes to the 500.

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, you have to look at it this way. The imaging sensor is not capturing a full raster HD image. It is pixel shifting it up to full HD resolution, which in essence means that it is not coming in at HD, so what is the HD lens going to do for you? Now on a 2000, or a 3000, mayeb there will start to be some noticeable differences, but I don't know because I have not seen much with it.

I also heard someone mention this in another post that I'm not going to attempt to find right now.... Still digital cameras take images that can be 5 to 20 times larger of an image (more pixels) than the 500 can at max resolution. They come out with clean pictures and they barely have any glass on them. It is less glass, but I'm sure they're not doing anything to special to make "super duper ultra HD glass" for those. Lens manufacturers have simply found another way to justify charging you, the consumer, more money and making you believe that you need a product when in all reality you don't. To be quite honest, 95% of video people won't even need an HD camera for another 2-4 years anyways, at least not until Blu-Ray players and HD TVs become the norm in households and HD television channels outweigh SD channels 50 to 1, not the other way around like it currently is. This is how they sell products, make you believe that's what you need. So in some ways, we all got suckered right now....

Fortunately, I am able to actually use the HD capabilities of the camera right now for our digital signae network, but it's not something everyone is doing. The other 85-95% of our stuff is still going to DVD, which means a down-convert from HD. Luckily the 500 is inexensive and it's at a price point that we can afford and it would have been foolish to purchase NEW SD cameras at this point. But it's not foolish to buy SD glass. Saving money and getting pretty much the same finished product.

Give me a few minutes and I am going to try and grab footage of the same show we were shooting, one with a SD lens and one with a HD lens....

Kit
 
Hi Kit,
May I quote you--
"To be quite honest, 95% of video people won't even need an HD camera for another 2-4 years anyways,"
Absolutely correct, in the nineties I had an Early AVID system, and we were bombarded with the sales Hype to "future proof our selves".
The reality was to purchase what the project required, not more junk. All I hear from lots of sales guys these days is to shoot HD and "Future proof yourself".
What Garbage. get a Big camera shoot shoot good quality SD vision and simply up res to HD. Most guys I know that have purchased HD cams have done precious little in HD.
maybe in two years or more it might be standard , but that's highly unlikley, my SD DVCPro50Mbs vision I send to broadcasters is up rezed to HD with no problems.
Cheers
Tom K
olinevideo.com.au
 
sd lens for 4-5K

sd lens for 4-5K

Hi Kit,
I've been following your ideas re sd vs hd lenses- your thoughts/reasons make a lot of sense. I'm about to buy the hpx500 body and have allowed myself 4-5k for a good second hand lens. Can you recommend a couple that I should look for. I was going to go with the EX1, but I hired one out shot some footage of a male sprinter from a vehicle (at approx 30km/h). I thought this might be a good way to test it under motion & is about the most rigorous circumstance we would get the camera for what we do. Its on a friends computer now but for sports footage (which is a large chunk of our work) some of the problems we are beginning to see with the footage have turned me off. I'll give more detail when I've had more of a chance to look through it all.
Regards
David
 
I would be careful making assumptions about using an SD lens depending on what your project is. For many types of scenes the difference will be less pronounced. However, it is the MTF you need to worry about which means at high frequencies (which means small details) the SD lens will give you FAR less contrast then with an HD lens.

Does this matter to you? Depends. If you will be working with the image in post a lot - then it matters more because there will be less contrast and therefore less info. Same for color correction - the image will fall apart faster. Will you be blowing the image up - then the lower contrast will result in a far softer image.

You need to understand how the lower MTF of a SD lens will effect your image throughout your entire workflow. Just judging on stills or video posted online doesnt give you a real sense - unless that is where you will be distributing.
 
Kit Hannah said:
I would.


I truly believe that HD glass is just a way for lens manufacturers to make some extra money. What is it that is worth the price difference? Some sort of "special" glass? c'mon, lets be realistic. What if you had to shoot something through a window with an HD lens? Since that glass is not "HD Glass", do you think that it's not possible unless you go get a HD window?
Click to expand...

this is not accurate if you have a good understanding of MTF and how it effects your image. If you are shooting through a window - it will effect the image and will effect contrast - but if you are shooting through a window then it will look like shooting through a window. This would be an easy one to test - with and without a window and I guarantee it would make a big difference.

The MTF of HD glass MUST be much higher to give you the contrast which translates to more info (or more resolution). Otherwise you are giving up contrast.

MTF is more important then resolution in understanding why the lens is so important
 
I don't doubt that mft can affect the performance, but does it justify the multi-thousand dollar price increase? That's what we're always really talking about here. Everyone, including myself, knows that nice HD glass is typically going to be superior to SD glass. But by how much is the question. Is an SD lens "acceptable" for most acquisition? Yes. Are 99.99% of people going to know the difference? Nope. So save yourself some money. That's always been the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top