Is the lens HD?

I'm going to guess that it is a HD lens. The question is how good of an HD lens is it? Obviously the fujinon on the HD100 has great resolving power but apparently has Chromatic abberatiion problems at telephoto settings. Panasonic won't disappoint but it remains to be seen how much resolving power it needs.

If they do it right it will be "just enough" to meet the CCD's requirements. If they do indeed use a lower pixel count and use pixel shift to achieve the higher res 4:2:2 would that then allow them to save on the lens? What I mean is they could make a good lens that resolves just enough for their specific needs and that could allow them to save money and "not" necesarily have to sacrifice chromatic issues for the sake of resolution. Does this make sense? Maybe I am using the CCD analogy of efficiency and applying it to the lens and that may not work. Anyone?
 
Pixelshift doesn't allow you to save on the lens. You still need a lens capable of resolving the full resolution that the pixelshift is set to attain.

Pixelshift should give you lower noise and better dynamic range though.

Graeme
 
I'm very curious about this too, especially after seeing some material from the Z1 on the big screen and realizing Sony Lenses are NOT HD.
 
The question is, "what is an HD lens?" What resolving power is needed for instance? What levels of distortion, breathing, chromatic aberation are to be tolerated? What is the MTF curve like?

For 1080p at 1/3", you need 200lp/mm which is quite high indeed.

Graeme
 
taubkin said:
I'm very curious about this too, especially after seeing some material from the Z1 on the big screen and realizing Sony Lenses are NOT HD.
Click to expand...

The Z1-lens is defenately HD... never let you tell otherwise. Lots of speculation on the internet, but just speculation. You don't even need that much background to realise it can't be anything but HD.

the Fujinon on the JVC is also HD, and the one on the HVX will be too (would be rather stupid otherwise).
 
Both the question and the response are rather academic as both are subjective. Keep in mind that the "H" in HD is "High".

So how "High" is "High"?

There are no accepted standards defining the minimum resolution of HD device, all that is necessary is that it be format compliant, not necessarily good or bad. Certainly, the resolution necessary to support a 1080 format with 1/3" CCDs is near the limits of what is possible, but based upon what I have seen of the HVX it is very acceptable for its price point.

I myself am much more interested in the 720p and the variable frame rate capability of the HVX as a B camera for Varicam projects than anything else, and from what I saw at resfest (1080i) I am fairly confident that the HVX will do the job admirably.
 
Do you really need better glas than the CCDs if you use pixelshift.

Even if they are not aligned it shouldnt stop the light from hitting the CCD sensors. They are still as big as if they were perfectly aligned. The lens resolving resolution will not be pixelated.

If you look at the DVX mod it clearly shows that you can get higher res picture with SD lens on the DVX.
 
MovieSwede said:
Do you really need better glas than the CCDs if you use pixelshift.

Even if they are not aligned it shouldnt stop the light from hitting the CCD sensors. They are still as big as if they were perfectly aligned. The lens resolving resolution will not be pixelated.

If you look at the DVX mod it clearly shows that you can get higher res picture with SD lens on the DVX.
Click to expand...

The fact that you use or do not use pixel shift places no additional burden on the resolution necessary from the optics. The physical size of each CCD element is the same regardless of how you post process their signal.
 
That's not quite right. The result of pixel shift is to give a physical and real increase in the effective resolution. If the lens is incapable of resolving the effective resolution attained by pixel shift, then the lens becomes the limiting factor in terms of output resolution.

To get the most out of a given CCD block the lens must either be matched to or have greater resolution than the CCDs.

Likewise, if the codec has higher resolution than the effective resolution of the image, the effective resolution will be the limiting factor. For example, if your codec is 1440x1080, but your effective resolution is 1100x700, the extra resolution in the codec will not be exploited. Alternatively, if you resolve 2800x1440 - the codec becomes the limiting factor.

-Spiff
 
Yes but with pixelshift the lens would still have the same resolving power as the CCDs. Because that the ccd sensor would still be the same in size.
 
I really don't follow these arguments. CCD and pixel shift has absolutely nothing to do with the lens. They are completely independent.

1. The lens must focus onto the 1/3" area of the CCD... period. The lens will have it's own resolving power in line pairs per millimeter.

2. The CCDs will have their physical resolution, and effective resolution due to pixel shift and sampling.

3. The codec / image processor will have it's sampling resolution and ability to meet that accurately thanks to the compression algorithm.

Which ever one of these 3 is the lowest resolution will dominate the response of the camera. The combination of all 3 will result in the final output.

-Spiff
 
If the resolving power of the lens is adequate to meet the physical requirements of the CCDs (can resolve to a single "pixel" spot) any further increase in resolving power will not have an impact on the resultant analog signal from the sensor. All that follows the CCD (quantizer, DSP, codec, ect) is irrelevant to this issue.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
They're all HD, just bad HD.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant. I saw the results, and the Z1 is really soft on the big screen. I made a transfer from Z1 footage, and it was obvious the lens did not have enough resolving power, everything looked a bit on the soft side. Even though the format resolution worked great in the movie theather. I'm telling you, the Z1 lens did not impress me at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top