Sumix 2/3" 1920x1080 CMOS - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 4th, 2007, 04:21 AM   #16
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 40
It is a true. But an unavailing picture turns out. Hard pixel pattern and a problem like "chromatic aberrations".
Svyatoslav Pylypchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2007, 05:02 AM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
The Sumix also has an option for greater sensitivity using the whole sensor at 720p. Look, we already know the HV20 is a great camera. It's been tested against more expensive and more "professional" cams and turns out to be better than many of them. I'll always think Canon didn't actually want to build such a high quality cam. I tend to think they were trying to make a good consumer camera and they did it so well that they found themselves with the best HDV cam they had made to the day.

We also know the HV20 has a great progressive mode and with the help of a 35mm adaptor, you can get an image and motion feeling quite close to film. It's in fact an option if you want to start as a filmmaker.

That being said, we're also here to discuss other possible options when you want to go a step further in moviemaking. Options that offer 12bits of color depth, square pixels, real progresive... and, in a few months, 2K resolution. Appart from the fact that this camera doesn't need a 35mm adaptor to get a shallow DOF.

By the way, what's hard pixel pattern?

Last edited by Jose A. Garcia; October 4th, 2007 at 05:47 AM.
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2007, 01:13 PM   #18
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Woodstock, Georgia
Posts: 154
I think he means bayer artifacts, which can be solved just by using a better debayer. Chromatic aberrations can fixed by using a good lens :)
Solomon Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2007, 01:15 PM   #19
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 40
At an magnification a structure of square elements is expressly visible.
I am very interested in the good quality of SUMIX, to utillize with device of motion-control in my studio.
Svyatoslav Pylypchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2007, 07:18 PM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
I always thought square pixels were better than all those strange pixel ratios you find everywhere. I mean, with a 1,0 ratio, every pixel is where it's suposed to be.

By the way, where can I find about c-mount to EF adapters?
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 05:10 AM   #21
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Erlangen, Germany
Posts: 30
Wow that seems to be a pretty cool thing. Now I need some money to get one ;)
Gottfried Hofmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 05:18 AM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West Country, UK
Posts: 141
Jose,
I had a number of Pentax P mount SLR lenses and got a cheap C-mount adapter to use them when I first got my Sumix. This is a good way to cheaply test the camera before hunting down C-mount lenses. The optical quality should be good enough (though some people debate that point), but the main drawback is that even a 28mm (wide for 35mm) is a mild telephoto for these cameras. If you like using long lenses anyway then you're done! I had a quick search through Google and got results for a couple of secondhand EF to C-mount adaptors on ebay, so obviously these are available. Also came across this article:


http://vsd.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...ICLE_ID=236708
John Wyatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 05:53 AM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
You're right John. I can't use 35mm lenses.

I've been looking at Fujinon and they've got some pretty impressive stuff at the CCTV section. They even have zooms equipped with 3 motors to control iris, zoom and focus. Too bad the control box doesn't have potentiometers, just three switches. It would be really hard to get a sharp focus while recording just using switches. Nevertheless they've got some good fixed focal 5 megapixel lenses specifically made for 2/3" sensors. Maybe three of them (16mm, 50mm and 75mm). The 50 and the 75 may be too close in lenght but they don't have anything bigger. I could use a 1" sensor 75mm though, so it works as a 100mm (more or less) or even more for 2/3" sensors.

They're not too expensive. About $300 each.
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 07:10 AM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West Country, UK
Posts: 141
The other thing I forgot to mention to be aware of when using still camera lenses for video use is that some lenses may show "breathing" when you focus. This means that there will be a slight change of image size when you focus, even though you didn't zoom. Not normally noticeable when used for still photography, but can be a problem for critical film making use. Just how much of a problem is down to particular lenses, so cant say anything useful about it except to look out for it.

$300 sounds like a good price for a new HiDef C-mount lens. Second hand "classic" C-mount lenses can be cheap, but very often you need to factor in lens servicing ("colimation") which can cost much more than the lens in order to get professional image quality. I recently bought a second hand 26mm Bausch & Lomb C-mount lens for just $40 which was very sharp. But a Taylor Hobson Cooke lens costing the same amount was all over the place and will need servicing. With second hand gear sometimes you're lucky, sometimes not.
John Wyatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 08:25 AM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
Thanks John,

I still have to ask Fujinon about that zoom. If it can be detached from the motor part or manipulated by hand even with it attached, it would still be a good purchase. It's a 10-160mm F2.5 zoom.
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2007, 08:57 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
Ok. The guy at Fujinon says the zoom wasn't made to hold more than 600-700 lines of vertical resolution. He also says if the motor part is detached, the rings would be too loose. Too bad.

I asked him which lens would make a good fast varifocal c-mount for HD and 2K resolutions. If the answer's not too clear I'll buy 3 different fixed ones.

Are there any other companies offering high quality sharp c-mount zooms?

I got a reply from Sumix. Not all answers but they say the camera's been designed modular, so all they have to do is put the 2K sensor instead of the HD one. They'll do it in a few months.

By the way, the hardware lossless compression is about 1:1,7. Not too much but it still sounds good.
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2007, 02:06 AM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Amsterdam The Netherlands
Posts: 200
I am also interested in buying one of these 1" HD lenses from Fujinon. But I can't figure out what a normal lens would be.

For 16mm cameras they say that a normal lens is twice the diagonal of the film negative. But this is for a 4:3 image I guess. How is this for a 2.40:1 image (non anamorphic in this case).

A 2.40:1 image on my 1" sensor would be 14.2 mm x 5.9 mm, diagonal 15.4 mm. So that would be a 30 mm lens, or should I get closer to the diagonal because a widescreen image is supposed to be shown wide, maybe a 15mm lens.
__________________
VOSGAMES, http://www.vosgames.nl/
developer of Boom Recorder and Mirage Recorder
Take Vos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2007, 08:20 AM   #28
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West Country, UK
Posts: 141
For me the exciting potential of an affordable HD camera like the Sumix is the learning opportunities it provides. Generally people learn by doing, but it used to be too expensive to get the experience. A long time ago I used to shoot short 16mm projects but even the laboratory costs were untenable. Similarly, in 35mm stills photography it took quite a while to get a "thousand frame experience" with a camera (curbed by cost rather than enthusiasm), but its now possible to shoot over a thousand frames in one weekend with a DSLR if the event inspires you enough. Of course keep reading books and internet articles, but being able to shoot regularly increases the feedback you need not only to personally find out what works, but also make unique discoveries that no one else has found.

To do all this the cost of filming and making a film needs to come down. Which it has! And if your film already costs nothing, then the cost of the cinema camera (and consumables) is the only thing left that can be price cut. At the moment I think Sumix will get closer to meeting that need than anyone else we know. This makes me hopeful; it is good for morale. The days of people re-mortgaging their house to pay for a film, possibly risking a debt that will follow them around for the rest of their lives, should be over. No one should have to do that to make a speculative independent film; its ridiculous.

I dont pretend that its likely you can make a film for next to nothing that will set Hollywood on fire -- though you should aim for that! What I do like about these latest developments and price points is that independent filmmakers might get almost the same freedom as stills photographers to find their voice: to be able to walk away financially from a film project that doesnt connect with a buyer (and just go on to the next one). Keep making films, keep learning, and if you do manage to craft a marketable product, at least the camera format wont hold you back. Usually sales reps and distributors want to know: "Whos in it, how much was the budget, what was it shot on?" Well, having one out of three is a start. HDV may be better than it has a right to be, but shooting closer to cinema standards (now that we may be able to afford it) sends the right message about our professional awareness and commitment to the work. Ironically, this differential may become more important to exhibitors the better "every day" consumer cameras get.

After that, its all about the story, which is a harder problem to solve without money unless you have talent (coupled with experience) which can make all the difference. With affordable HD cameras coming along, there are no more excuses -- its down to us now. If we can stop worrying about the technical quality of the pictures (because we dont need to worry about them anymore), maybe well get back to worrying about how good our writing is and the other creative decisions we would prefer to be judged on.

All the best,
John.
John Wyatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2007, 12:56 PM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sevilla (Spain)
Posts: 439
We're living exciting times John!

By the way, Take, Fujinon has different lenses designed for different sensor sizes. You don't have to calculate everything because it's already been done for you. If you have a 1" sensor and want to shoot with a focal lenght very close to human eye, just choose a 50mm 1" prime. Sometimes the inches are there to specify non standard C-Mounts but with Fujinon, they're there to match the sensor size. So when you see " 2/3" 50mm F2.5 " that's a F2.5 50mm lens designed for a 2/3" sensor.
Jose A. Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2007, 04:29 AM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Amsterdam The Netherlands
Posts: 200
Jose,

I hope they are not converting focus length based on sensor size. 50 mm would be way to narrow for a 1" sensor, even more so for a 2/3" sensor.

They do specify angle of view:
a 12.5 mm has a angle of view of 54 degrees on a 1" sensor.
a 16 mm has a angle of view of 43 degrees on a 1" sensor.
a 25 mm has a angle of view of 28 degrees on a 1" sensor.
a 35 mm has a angle of view of 20 degrees on a 1" sensor.
a 50 mm has a angle of view of 14 degrees on a 1" sensor.
a 75 mm has a angle of view of 9 degrees on a 1" sensor.

This is from a wikipedia article:
Ultra wide-angle lenses, also known as fisheye lenses, cover up to 180
Wide-angle lenses generally cover between 100 and 60
Normal, or Standard lenses generally cover between 50 and 25
Telephoto lenses generally cover between 15 and 10
Super Telephoto lenses generally cover between 8 through less than 1

So my real question is actually what is the normal angle of view for a 2.40:1 movie. I couldn't really find anything on the internet except something about 50 degrees, which means the 12.5mm would be a normal lens.
__________________
VOSGAMES, http://www.vosgames.nl/
developer of Boom Recorder and Mirage Recorder
Take Vos is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network