Lens shadow (while zooming in close)

[Nathan Petersen]

Using: HF10 camcorder

Not sure what to call this, but I noticed it yesterday when I was doing a few close ups on some trees. I had a pure blue sky and when I zoomed in (all the way on optical), I noticed very faint darker areas in the picture. It looked like the outline of the lens (half moon on both sides). So I thought it might be the adapter ring I am using and some. However It was not, anyone else notice this? I can't tell on ordinary shots, but on plain solid backgrounds while I'm zoomed in as far as she'll go I can see it faintly. It only happens when I'm extremely close. I posted some screens below from Premiere. It is very very faint, but I was still wondering if anyone could see it, or am I looking to hard? On my HD tv I can see it, but not so much on these pictures.

I've uploaded yet another picture of a video of the HF10 at full zoom that I found on youtube. I can see the very faint "halo" as well. So it appears, this maybe be a small flaw on Canons part. It's nothing to shake a stick at. I just thought I would see if anyone else could notice it.

[Nathan Petersen]

Could anyone help confirm this? Thanks

[Chris Soucy]

You're totally anal.

There isn't anything to be seen by the casual observer in those shots (even to this more than casual observer, any artifacts are miniscule - who are you trying to impress - Natiional Geographic?) .

You're also obviosly stateless, a tragic situation. What country were you ejected from, why, and where are you living now?

CS

[Stuart Robinson]

Nathan, that is lens vignetting. See the following for a primer: Vignetting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could put the camera in manual and try adjusting the aperture whenever you encounter a scenario that exhibits vignetting, or try not to worry about it. Many photographers actually add the effect, either deliberately in the lens or in post, so anyone who does spot it in your shots might assume it was an artistic choice. I actually quite like the blue sky with the fall-off at the edges.

[Nathan Petersen]

Originally Posted by Chris Soucy

You're totally anal.

There isn't anything to be seen by the casual observer in those shots (even to this more than casual observer, any artifacts are miniscule - who are you trying to impress - Natiional Geographic?) .

You're also obviosly stateless, a tragic situation. What country were you ejected from, why, and where are you living now?

CS

Chris, settle down. Why do you take such great offense to a simple question? I live in America, What country do you live in? You went to the super extreme. Not trying to impress anyone, I simply wanted to know what it was. I was testing out the camera. It was very obvious on my HD TV (probably the way I have the brightness and contrast). But I noticed it and was curious what it was. Why take it personally? Again, it isn't that big a deal, but I was curious about why it was happening, is that wrong? Geez. As a film maker Chris, you notice things. Like I said, it isn't as apparent in those pictures ( they have a brightness & contrast tweak/ color balance tweak), but more on my HDTV when viewing the video. If it were just pictures I wouldn't of cared so much, but the screens I posted are from the video I shot.

Thanks Stuart for the information. I was wondering what is was called. I'll have to try putting it in manual and adjusting the aperture like you said.
But as Chris has so clearly pointed out, its not a big deal. And he's right to some extent, its just the way he projected himself.

[Chris Soucy]

If I appeared to come across a bit strong, but really, I've blown those shots up to doomsday and I can't see any evidence of anything that I'd pin to anything other than random variations, and vignetting to my mind is more associated with wide angle than narrow, but I'll bow to Stuart if he's really that sure.

There's almost always drop off towards the corner extremes of any lens system, this is NOT vignetting, just keeping the lens system economically viable for the size of imager in use (lenses are round, imagers are not).

The reason I get a bit hot on this subject is this.

That video camera of yours/ ours takes 24/ 25/ 30 frames of pictures a second.

Blown up on a big screen, each frame, if held stationary in HD detail, would take the average human a good couple of minute to analyse in any great detail.

It isn't, so we can't. Every second, another 23/ 24 or 29 turn up in it's place and if it's actually a moving picture, ie: either the camera or the subject is moving, every single one is different.

At best the human eye/ brain can only follow the gross differences between the frames and try to make sense of the story being told.

It (the eye/ brain system) is NOT watching for fall off at the extreme corners or any other flaw in the actual picture itself, but trying to make sense of the story - hence the tales about Coke bottles and Voltswagen Beetles and Gawd knows what else being visible in the chariot race scenes from Ben Hur (probably all nonsense as I've never managed to spot them, but then again........).

This explains why a 1900's black and white print of so many of the oldies is still eminately watchable - it's the story, not the camera.

You're shooting with a cinematographers dream of 25 years ago at 1/500th of the price (if that) of what it would have cost then.

Forget the camera, think STORY.


CS

PS: According to DVinfo, you are, indeed, stateless, even countryless. You can fix that by clicking on the "Contact Us" button at the bottom of every page and updating your details.

I, on the other hand am not - every one of my posts bears my country, town and suburb of transmission for everyone to see. If you want to send a hit squad, well, you know where to find me.

[Nathan Petersen]

Your 100% right Chris, its about the story. So I hold nothing against you, you were also right about it not being that big of deal. Its just the way you came off to me, unnecessary. I could see the lens shadow as I zoom in/out on hf10's lcd screen so I thought it might be my camera. I didn't want it end up getting worse since it is refurbished. The pictures show nothing hardly as I said. If you saw the video you would see it. Anyway you are right though, it is about the story and not the camera.

[Mugurel Dragusin]

Nathan, I've noticed the same detail on my HF10 but I consider it within normal for this camera range and it's lenses. However, it's not something to get noticed in a bad way.

Chris, your anal remark is simply of out place.

[Chris Soucy]

Your opinion is important and has been noted, thanks for the input.

I'll try to be a bit more diplomatic in future.

IMHO however, let it go guys, it won't show, really!

Happy shooting.


CS


PS: Mugurel, you may want to check out this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/dv-info-...ml#post1467677

You may have some valuable input to that as well.

[Adam Palomer]

His English is just fine. In fact, for all we know, he could be a native English speaker living in the Philippines or a Philippines born native who grew up in an English speaking country, or studied in one. Just because someone's location is listed as "Philippines" or "USA" does not merit all kinds of speculation. I say that in the nicest of ways.


Nathan,

Based on the grabs you posted, it seems your camcorder is functioning fine. I don't see anything unusual. Some of what you're seeing is called vignetting, as others have pointed out, the rest is 'normal' compression artifacts. I'm a perfectionist myself. So, I can relate.