Fringing

Rick Bolton · June 28th, 2009, 08:57 PM

Ken - I waded in on this issue elsewhere - some thinking was along the lines that the zoom range on many of these lenses is just too high - resulting in very complex optical design that even the best fluorite and/or ED elements can not correct for.

As an example - my DSLR Canon L glass delivers stunning images - WAY WAY beyond the current HD 1920 x 1080. The zoom range though is 70mm - 200mm - 1.5x or something compared to the HD video lens at 20x......

Anna Uio · June 29th, 2009, 08:39 AM

Of all the cameras I own, my XHA1 gives by far the most CA. Basically ruins everything shot with it in my opinion. My Sony Fx1 typically has about half as much or less. My $600 Samsung HMX20 seems to have essentially no CA. Perhaps it runs some digital filter internally to automatically remove any. Some newer still camera do exactly that.

Cheers,
Anna

Brian David Melnyk · June 29th, 2009, 08:46 AM

i use a Canon 17-85 lens on a DSLR which is a little notorious for CA and wonky barrel distortion, but i think its flexibility is more important than the effect of CA at the wide end, which i really don't notice that much (plus, i LIKE wonky)...
in Adobe camera raw, there are ways of dealing with CA and barrel distortion in a still picture, and then saving a profile for the lens... not sure if there is such a thing for video.

Geoffrey Cox · July 14th, 2009, 02:43 PM

Can't help thinking this is a pretty minor problem that the vast majority of people will NEVER notice especially if the composition of the shot is good enough - something that often gets neglected with all these technical quibbles.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

June 28th, 2009, 08:57 PM	#16
Rick Bolton Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Palo Alto California Posts: 110	Ken - I waded in on this issue elsewhere - some thinking was along the lines that the zoom range on many of these lenses is just too high - resulting in very complex optical design that even the best fluorite and/or ED elements can not correct for. As an example - my DSLR Canon L glass delivers stunning images - WAY WAY beyond the current HD 1920 x 1080. The zoom range though is 70mm - 200mm - 1.5x or something compared to the HD video lens at 20x......

June 29th, 2009, 08:39 AM	#17
Anna Uio New Boot Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 17	Of all the cameras I own, my XHA1 gives by far the most CA. Basically ruins everything shot with it in my opinion. My Sony Fx1 typically has about half as much or less. My $600 Samsung HMX20 seems to have essentially no CA. Perhaps it runs some digital filter internally to automatically remove any. Some newer still camera do exactly that. Cheers, Anna

June 29th, 2009, 08:46 AM	#18
Brian David Melnyk Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg Canada Posts: 532	i use a Canon 17-85 lens on a DSLR which is a little notorious for CA and wonky barrel distortion, but i think its flexibility is more important than the effect of CA at the wide end, which i really don't notice that much (plus, i LIKE wonky)... in Adobe camera raw, there are ways of dealing with CA and barrel distortion in a still picture, and then saving a profile for the lens... not sure if there is such a thing for video.

July 14th, 2009, 02:43 PM	#19
Geoffrey Cox Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huddersfield, UK Posts: 469	Can't help thinking this is a pretty minor problem that the vast majority of people will NEVER notice especially if the composition of the shot is good enough - something that often gets neglected with all these technical quibbles.