ISO rating, resolution for HD100

dashwood said:
Did you have the detail level turned down? What do you get when it is cranked up to max?
Click to expand...
Hey Tim, check your PM's. I'm going to send you a frame that I got from shooting that res chart. I don't think you're going to believe it... but I swear it's the very best I can get from this camera...
 
Okay, verified -- no way will Arri Bayonet lenses be easily adapted. If an adapter is going to be produced, it'll need some sort of optical element in it as well...
 
Barry_Green said:
Hey Tim, check your PM's. I'm going to send you a frame that I got from shooting that res chart. I don't think you're going to believe it... but I swear it's the very best I can get from this camera...
Click to expand...

Barry, I sent you a PM with my resolution tests. I'll let you analyze them and compare with your results.

Here's an interesting article over on Steve Mullen's site about lens sharpness in relation to the JVC HD lens.

http://www.gyhduser.com/article.php?filename=The-Truth-About-Lensmanship

Tim
 
Interesting, indeed. Did he bother to look at the pictures from the french site showing the clear center/fuzzy edges?

I have never, in my life, seen a worse lens than this. Not that I didn't expect that (to some degree), but come on... an article like that is just not defensible given the evidence.
 
Barry_Green said:
...

"From my perspective, the lens is the weakest part of the package. I'm experimenting with getting a 16mm cine replacement hack-jobbed onto it to just see whether it's worth going the next step and getting an adapter professionally engineered. With a proper lens it may begin to excel as a camera."
.
Click to expand...

Barry, just curious, are you hacking the lens on dispite the SSE (because I assume there would be warrenty/return issuess if you actually physically alter the camera body) ?

Or have you managed to minimize the SSE enough to work for the situations you are going to use the camera for? IE - is the SSE still an issue on your camera? Thanks for the knowlege....
John
 
jdv said:
I assume there would be warrenty/return issuess if you actually physically alter the camera body) ?
Click to expand...

It is a removable lens so Barry won't be doing anything to the camera body to void the warranty. He is just creating a new lens/mount.
 
But Steve Mullen compares resolutions in TVLines, which is lines per picture height. 400 lpph is very different from 530 lpph because the 530 lpph is on a 16:9 image and the 400 is on a 4:3 image. Also, I'm sure that 400 lpph refers to a 2/3" chip not a 1/3" chip.....

Graeme
 
dashwood said:
It is a removable lens so Barry won't be doing anything to the camera body to void the warranty. He is just creating a new lens/mount.
Click to expand...
Correct -- no modifying the camera at all! Just experimenting with ways to hold the lens in place to see if a resolvable image is possible at all. Once that's verified (or not), I would then have Les Bosher custom-craft a professionally-manufactured lens adapter.

However, it's fairly pointless -- neither c-mount nor Arri Bayonet lenses will work. There'd need to be an optical element made, and that's beyond the scope of what I was hoping to have accomplished. Still-camera lenses are possible, but that kind of defeats the whole point -- a 16mm cine lens would be great because it's designed for cine work, still camera lenses aren't.

So that project's D.O.A.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
But Steve Mullen compares resolutions in TVLines, which is lines per picture height. 400 lpph is very different from 530 lpph because the 530 lpph is on a 16:9 image and the 400 is on a 4:3 image. Also, I'm sure that 400 lpph refers to a 2/3" chip not a 1/3" chip.....

Graeme
Click to expand...
And even so, one only has to look at the edge-to-edge sharpness to note that the lines of resolution are extraordinarly dependent on where in the frame they occur. The center of the lens is surprisingly sharp (well, on others, not on mine!) whereas the edges are substantially blurrier. No matter how you slice it, the HD100's lens is not up to the task of performing to the level one would expect from an "HD" lens.
 
That sounds like a reasonable alternative for the stock lens. You can find PL 16mm zooms for fairly cheap on Ebay.
 
I went looking, didn't find any PL zooms on ebay at this time...

Decent 16mm zooms can be $3,000 or so. Not cheap, but way, way less than $11,995!

The thing is -- just because the mounting system is PL, doesn't mean the lens would work on the HD100. I found a lot of places offering PL conversions for Arri Bayonet lenses, but that system wouldn't work with an HD100, because the rear element of the bayonet lens still protrudes way deep into the body of the camera. Too deep. In order for a PL-mount lens to work with the HD100, it'd pretty much need to be designed such that the rear element doesn't protrude past the mounting ring any further than maybe a few mm.

I looked at the Cooke series of 16mm lenses, and I think they protrude too far as well:
http://zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb...a6c667b80646d44885256f9b0074f083?OpenDocument

The determining factor isn't really what mount the lens uses, but the flange focal distance from the rear element to the CCDs. The 16mm lenses I have need there to be a very shallow depth, and the HD100's depth from the front of the camera to the CCDs is way too deep to allow the 16mm lenses to work. So if the lenses (like those Cookes) are designed such that the rear element protrudes very far past the mount, then they won't work with the HD100.
 
It seems more complicated than it looks. But the stills done with the Switar look great. If there could be a way, I think the results would be top notch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top