I went to Scott Billups' website www.pixelmonger.com and downloaded the full rez captures of the DSC charts he's done with the Varicam and Panny 400, I put them side by side with the chart Shannon shot.

I noticed that the black and gamma levels on the H1 had to be brought down significantly to match them to the other cameras. This is probably because of the way Scott set up his cameras and it shouldn't be an issue to set up the H1 in this way.

Although this chart isn't the way to determine this, the H1 hinted that it has slightly less dynamic range.

However, the most significant find is that it looks like the camera/chips are very good performers but the lens fails miserably. The chromatic abberations severely hinder the performance the camera seems to be capable of.

We knew (and if not, it is obvious now) that producing a lens for a high def 1/3" imager is a significant challenge. I wonder if Canon is considering producing a higher quality (and cost) lens for the camera or if all the lenses will be this severely compromised. Aside from the 35mm lens adapters, does anyone have ideas regarding lens options for this camera? For example, could the Fujinon 13x lens for the JVC 100 be adapted to mount on the H1?

I would not take it too seriously. The guy also has Sony F900 chart:
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hd_assets/chrt_f900.jpg
With this camera Star Wars and other films were made and the resolution on this chart is about 550Hx400V. After compensation for wrong frame size it comes to about 700Hx500V, which is a lot less than on the Varicam, which is nonsense. I would not trust the "no chromatic aberation at all" on the Varicam. See the chromatic aberation on the Sony. All prism/lens combinations used on these cameras cause some chromatic aberation.

Yes, the shot from the F900 is trash, however, there's no visible chromatic abberations (where different frequencies of the color spectrum don't line up, most noticably in the corners.) in that still, it looks like it might be a field capture of a (blured) moving image (look at the aliasing and blur pattern). I can testify to the F900's imager's resolving power being superior to the Varicam's. However the charts from the other cameras seem to have been properly shot.

A high quality, well engineered lens would show no discernable chromatic abberations at most stops. The Digiprimes I've MTF tested have virtually no visible chromatic abberation and resolve pretty evenly from center to corner at just about any stop. Of course it's much easier to do when you have a 2/3" target size. Given it's geometry, the optical block prisim would introduce diffraction (chromatic abberations) throughout the whole image, not just the corners.

How can I not trust the stills from the Panasonic charts? There is no way to undo these lens defects in post, if the charts looked awful I wouldn't trust them (as with the F900 chart) but the Varicam and 400 charts look accurate based on my experience with the Varicam.

Of course, there's no science in how we're comparing here but the lens build differences aren't subtle either. I'd like to know what focal length and stop Shannon captured the chart at.

What lens was on the Varicam? It is not fair at all IMHO to expect the same from a $9K cam as a $125K+ cam... I am sure they COULD make a better 1/3" CCD Lens but at what cost? $15,000+?



ash =o)

From the behind the scenes photos looks like a HD Fuji Zoom (maybe $25K). The Varicam can be had for under $50K. The HDX400 for $26K.

Don't get me wrong, I'm blown away by the H1's camera section performance, it's much better than I expected. However, I haven't seen chromatic abberation this bad in any lens I've ever used (be it on film, stills or video), not even in cheap russian film lenses. I'm sure that it's mostly due to the optical compromises when engineering for a 1/3" target size.

However, it almost makes me want to use one of my Schneider or Angenieux lenses from one of my Beaulieu Super 8 cameras on it, they are great lenses and are engineered for a small target as well. From an HD telecine of Kodak 7201 (50 ISO) S8 stock they easily resolve close to 800 tvl without such a significant optical compromise.

I honestly have to say that I would and have paid more for a lens than the camera it's on. For as long as I can remember the cost of a great zoom lens has been close to or greater than the camera itself. A complete set of primes can easily cost way more than a motion picture camera.

There is no #400 Panasonic HD camera in the charts that you're referring to, plus that camera costs a lot more than $26K and Varicam costs a lot more than under $50K, unless the pricing recently changed drastically. The DVCPROHD camera that is on the site is an old discontinued 1080i camera with 1080i chips. That is the reason for the high resolution. The new #400 HD camera has Varicam's 720p chips, which it's using for 720p, 1080i, and in Europe also for 1080p.

Sorry, I didn't clarify that the HDX400 chart didn't come from Scott Billup's site although the HDC20 chart is also a good comparison candidate.

If you check Panasonic's site at: http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelList?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&catGroupId=14616

There you'll see that list price for the HDX400 is $32,000 and $65,900 for the Varicam bodies. When you go through a dealer you can get 20%-30% discount on list prices. Plus right now Panasonic is offering up to $5,200 cash back on packages. A dealer quoted us under $50K for the Varicam early last year. So it can be had for under $50K.

However, the post is about options to the stock lens on the H1 which has severe defects (whether it's compared or not to the other cameras/lenses). I'd like to know if anyone has any practical ideas other than waiting for Canon to release a better lens.

The CA of the Canon lens will not be visible on normal moving color images. Have you seen the CA on some of the early HD zooms that cost tens of thousands of dollars? Have you seen the CA on the JVC HD-100 lens? Now, that is a serious problem. Canon H1 with the standard zoom lens is the best low end HD filmmaker's tool there is.

Panasonic does not have any resolution charts on their site so I wonder, where did you see the Panasonic Model 400 HD chart. I'd like to see it.

Normally you'd never be able to get more than 15% discount on this type of equipment.

The eye resolves luma (B/W) a lot better than chroma (color). The resolution is highest in the center of vision, so when you project normal motion footage from the Canon H1 on a theater screen, the CA will not really matter at all; the high resolution is so much more important. It works a little differently with smaller or less resolving screens but again the CA of the H1 lens will not be an issue in real life situations.

The lateral chromatic aberration for this lens appears to be about one or perhaps 2 pixels (uprezzed to 1920 x 1080) at the edges of the picture. Is this sufficient to "severely hinder" the performance of the camera? It is less than the color resolution in HDV mode certainly and is about at the level of color resolution in 4:2:2 SDI mode. Just for comparison a 35mm Nikkor (35 mm still camera with 35 mm focal length) shows every bit as much. Thus this lens (the Canon) is as good (in this one quicky test) as a prime intended for 35mm film (though this is not one of Nikons latest effots) WRT CA and is, thus, plenty good enough for me. Is anyone troubled by visible fringing attributable to CA with the XL-H1?

One further note: Lateral CA is correctable to some extent in post though it is probably too much of a PITA to consider practically. The video is mapped back to RGB and the red and blue images are radially scaled according to a mapping polynomial obtained via calibration of the lens. The scaled images are then transformed back to Y'CbCr.

[Edit] Thinking about this while driving in to work it occured to me that perhaps the 35 mm prime is NOT good enough for use with a 1/3" sensor. It cannot be stopped down much beyond f/8 before we start to run into the diffraction limit. Then it also occured to me that diffraction is wavelength dependent i.e. the point spread function for red light is about twice the size of the PSF for blue. OTOH you can't really make these lenses better without violating laws of physics. So the real question is "Are people actually troubled by CA with the XL-H1?" If so it's probably a condemnation of the 1/3" sensor rather than this particular lens.

Please tell me where you can get a new Varicam for under $50K... Also, the XLH/HVX come ready to use, no need to buy monitors, eyepieces, lenses, etc. etc. etc. A normal Varicam set-up with a decent lens is over $100K.....



ash =o)

I would like to know what f-stop the lens is at when the sample images are being produced. Could it simply be a case of the lens being stopped down too far, would extra ND's help?

The fact that you can clearly see the CA is telling me that yes, in the instances I have seen the lens is limiting the quality of the final image, don't know how anyone can suggest otherwise, but lets be realistic, a 20x zoom with image stabilisation at this price has to have had some corners cut.

The tests I did were at about f/2.8 (both the Nikkor and 20X). In neither case are we near the diffraction limit but the larger aperture puts more demand on the lens in terms of CA performance. ND filters would require still more aperture and potentially, therefore, more CA.

I for one cannot clearly see the CA degradation - that's why I have to look at the R, G and B images separately to detect it and that's why I am interested to know whether other users are seeing it clearly in their images. Remember that CA amounts to 2 pixels at the edge of the picture, 1 pixel about half way out and less than a pixel in the center part.

I, too, was troubled by the appearance of CA in my bench tests with this lens. I was being extremely critical and looking for it, and found it. I then went back and evaluated the footage that I've been shooting with both the 20X and the 16X manual. In real-world shooting the problem pretty much goes away, especially with the gain at -3 (not necessariy related, but it does help). One scene with a woman in a red sweater against the beach showed noticable fringing, but not much worse than some (very expensive) lenses I've used on 16mm cameras.

I would imagine that when shooting something like green screen (which I never do in my work) it could be an issue, but in normal shooting it's not something an audience would ever notice... Zoom lenses are always a design compromise, with some focal lengths performing better than others at certain aperatures... The lens isn't great, but it's better than okay in my experience...

The CA of the Canon lens will not be visible on normal moving color images. Have you seen the CA on some of the early HD zooms... ...the JVC HD-100 lens?

Send it out to your HD monitor and check it out, looks almost like a bad convergence issue on the monitor. Early zooms? Back with Sony's HDVS tube cameras this wasn't as much of an issue, with the tubes you could adjust their individual geometry to compensate for most visible CA. Yes, I can see occasional Chromatic Abberations on HD broadcasts all the time and while in my opinion the H1 is the best low cost HD camera out there, I simply can't consider it without a better lens than that and am willing to invest in it. In my opinion the stock lens simply doesn't do justice to the sensors. The stock JVC HD-100 lens is not good either, the Fuji 13x seems to be a bit better.

...where did you see the Panasonic Model 400 HD chart.
It came from a Television engineer in Chile that was testing cameras for their network, I have the raw file, it's about 6MB, I'll be happy to ftp it if someone tells me where.

Normally you'd never be able to get more than 15% discount on this type of equipment.
I guess, if normally means going to a dealer you don't have a relationship with and paid what they asked you for it.

The eye resolves luma (B/W) a lot better than chroma (color). ...the CA of the H1 lens will not be an issue in real life situations.
Chroma vs. Luma detail is true only when the luma signal retains the detail and the chroma signal does not, but because this is not a recording format but the RG&B capture that produces the luma detail itself, it's noticable. Also, the Chromatic Abberations aren't alone, they cause other issues as well. Look at the charts and you'll notice that there's a severe drop in resolving power and contrast outside the center, this would affect the lens' MTF curve pretty drastically. Again, send it to an HD monitor and judge it for yourself.

Is this sufficient to "severely hinder" the performance of the camera? It is less than the color resolution in HDV mode certainly and is about at the level of color resolution in 4:2:2 SDI mode. Just for comparison a 35mm Nikkor (35 mm still camera with 35 mm focal length) shows every bit as much.

Again, the Chromatic abberation not only affects chroma resolution, it drops resolving power, contrast and the MTF curve. I have personally never used a prime that had comparable defects, so I can't comment on that.

One further note: Lateral CA is correctable to some extent in post ... The video is mapped back to RGB and the red and blue images are radially scaled according to a mapping polynomial obtained via calibration of the lens. The scaled images are then transformed back to Y'CbCr.)

Good theory, similar to adjusting tube cameras to compensate for these issues only that you'll never get the contrast and detail that was lost back. You would only correct fringing. And yes, this is the issue with smaller sensors, they place a great demand on the lens.

Please tell me where you can get a new Varicam for under $50K... Also, the XLH/HVX come ready to use, no need to buy monitors, eyepieces, lenses, etc. etc. etc. A normal Varicam set-up with a decent lens is over $100K..... ash =o)

Well, yes, in this industry when you mention the price of a camera the only thing you're relating to is the head as everyone is going to need different accesories that can vary the price significantly. If I remember correctly the lowest Varicam price was quoted to us by mitmomo in Japan, www.mitomo.co.jp It was within the context of a large package and the head was itemized at under $50K early last year when converted from Yen. The full package with viewfinder, batteries and EFP lens was about $22K more.

I would like to know what f-stop the lens is at when the sample images are being produced. Could it simply be a case of the lens being stopped down too far, would extra ND's help?

The fact that you can clearly see the CA is telling me that yes, in the instances I have seen the lens is limiting the quality of the final image, don't know how anyone can suggest otherwise, but lets be realistic, a 20x zoom with image stabilisation at this price has to have had some corners cut.

Of course that a cheap lens has to cut corners, that's why I started this thread, all I want to know what options may be available to not use a cheap lens.

I want to know what stop and focal length it was shot at too, if this is F2 I guess it's OK but if it's F8-11 that lens has serious issues that would only get worse at other stops. If you do find the stop with the least defects it is possible to use NDs to always use that stop in bright situations, the problem is that you have enough light to always shoot at it, the best stop is probably 8 or 11. This leaves you no DOF choices though.

I for one cannot clearly see the CA degradation...

Look at the resolution wedges on the sides of the charts, compare it to another chart such as the ones previously mentioned... you can't miss it. Not only does the fringing stand out but there's just a blur on the wedge and the contrast is really low between the black lines and the white BG. This isn't the camera, which I think is great, it's the lens.

I, too, was troubled by the appearance of CA in my bench tests with this lens... One scene with a woman in a red sweater against the beach showed noticable fringing, but not much worse than some (very expensive) lenses I've used on 16mm cameras.

What stops showed the least fringing? And what 16mm lenses are you comparing the fringing to? I just haven't experienced any really bad issues in 16mm but I've always used good lenses. Please note that as I mentioned before I'm not just dissapointed in the fringing but that the abberations affect sharpness, contrast and the MTF overall.

Ok, here's an image of the H1 split with the HDC20 (a discontinued panasonic 2.2 Mpixel 1080i camera).

This is by no means a scientific comparison, it's just a reference. Both images originated at 1920x1080 but the lens defects are clear even though they are zoomed in jpegs.

Of course this isn't a comparison of image quality, but with the other image as a comparison the lens issues should become apparent to those who haven't detected them.

The image, http://www.darrenromeo.com/assets/index.htm

Here is a basic grading pass done to the H1 part to see how close it can be made to match that other camera. BTW, was that not taken from the Nick and Shannon test. If so that was not a good test. Angle was off and etc. We need to do a much better test. Had there been the 16x manual this test would look better I believe. The german mag that reviewed the H1 said 800 lines. I'm not going to dispute the Germans. Just to get a license to drive is hellish in Germany. So there very accurate. Funny though, Shannons and Nicks test had the same results. Hmm the odds, I guess it is 800 lines+.

Link to basic grading pass to match the H1 up

http://imagecloset.com/8/thumbs/t_01130609CA-zoom.jpg (http://imagecloset.com/8/01130609-CA-zoom.jpg)


Ok, here's an image of the H1 split with the HDC20 (a discontinued panasonic 2.2 Mpixel 1080i camera).

This is by no means a scientific comparison, it's just a reference. Both images originated at 1920x1080 but the lens defects are clear even though they are zoomed in jpegs.

Of course this isn't a comparison of image quality, but with the other image as a comparison the lens issues should become apparent to those who haven't detected them.

The image, http://www.darrenromeo.com/assets/index.htm

Thanks Michael, Yes, that was from the Nick and Shannon test, I'd love to see other tests being done specifically with other lenses, I too have a feeling that the 16x Manual lens wil render better images than the H1's 20x zoom. As I said I'm really pleased with what I'm seeing with the camera section and really dissapointed with the lens, do you have any ideas?

Do you own the camera? If so:
You need to try another 20x.. When I buy SLR lenses, I always try two or three of the same model. Batch to batch can vary. The same goes for the 20x. More so now that the XL series is HD.

If your just asking about options, than I would say 14x manual or 16x manual. I am waiting for head only versions to hit the market if I go with the the H1.....

pappas

Thanks Michael, Yes, that was from the Nick and Shannon test, I'd love to see other tests being done specifically with other lenses, I too have a feeling that the 16x Manual lens wil render better images than the H1's 20x zoom. As I said I'm really pleased with what I'm seeing with the camera section and really dissapointed with the lens, do you have any ideas?

I assume the one on the left is the H1? It shows about 1 pixel's CA whereas the one on the right shows about 10.

I assume the one on the left is the H1? It shows about 1 pixel's CA whereas the one on the right shows about 10.

The one on the right is... From Shannon's test. It's zoomed in so you won't be able to judge how many pixels the abberation covers. It's pretty bad but we don't really know what stop it was shot at and Michael also says it wasn't properly shot. If that's with the iris wide open I think I'd be fine with that but if it's stopped down a bit I need another lens.

Do you own the camera? If so:
You need to try another 20x.. When I buy SLR lenses, I always try two or three of the same model. Batch to batch can vary. The same goes for the 20x. More so now that the XL series is HD.

If your just asking about options, than I would say 14x manual or 16x manual. I am waiting for head only versions to hit the market if I go with the the H1.....

pappas

I don't own it yet, I'm waiting for it to be available without the 20x lens since I have no use for it. I have no need for it until April, hopefully by then it will be an option to just get the body, I also rather wait till it's no longer at list price since they will most likely drop the price once all the early adopters buy.

I'm seriously considering the manual lenses as well for many reasons but I'd like to see some tests before I commit to them. I'd have no problem investing on a good (expensive) general purpose lens for the H1 if that were an option.

After all this staring at images I figured I'd try actually measuring the lateral CA of the stock H1 lens which I did using one of the edges on an ISO 12233 chart (printed on the office printer I grant you) which filled the image out at about 1 meter (accurate framing isn't important here I'm just using the edge). The point spread functions for red and blue were separated by 0.67 pixel and the edge was about 872 pixels out from the center (near the edge of the frame). This yields a CA of approximately 0.08% which is right on the border line between "Low. Not visible unless you look for it" and "Moderate. Somewhat visible at high print magnification" (according to Imatest, an outfit that makes software for measuring CA. Note: I did not use their software.)

So, with the usual caveats that this is an anecdotal result and my chart wasn't too good and I didn't do gamma correction and I didn't follow 12233 and etc it looks at first blush as if this lens really isn't so bad after all.

That means very low CA. You will have CA on every camera with pixel shift.

But at what stop? The CA observations are pointless unless you specify what aperture and focal length it was calculated at. Keep in mind that it can go from horrid at wide open iris to invisible at a higher stop. I'd like to see some charts shot at different apertures.

That means very low CA. You will have CA on every camera with pixel shift.
Once again, it's not the color fringing that bothers me the most from the lens abberations, it's the loss of resolving power, contrast in the lens. That's not caused by pixel shifting, in fact, pixel shifting doesn't cause visible fringing either, just a slight shadowing around pixels at most.

it's not the color fringing that bothers me the most from the lens abberations, it's the loss of resolving power, contrast in the lens.

The lens resolves over 800 lines and has excellent contrast. Why are you so down on this Canon camera? You have provided misleading information from the very first post.

I love the camera, I hate the lens, if you remember, my initial question was "what options are there to the lens?".

I can't see why anyone would say it's a "great" lens, I mean, how realistic is that?

I haven't provided any real information, just observations that I clearly stated were not scientific in nature. I simply looked at images shot with the camera and the first thing I saw was fuzzy borders, low corner contrast and fringing.

I'm not putting the camera down, I just want a better lens. Now I ask you, what's the point of trying to convince everyone that this is a "great" lens when every real world example says otherwise. I mean, anyone with an eye and a basic understanding of optics can see through that statement right away.

Why can't anyone answer what fstop the images are at? I've said before that if the issues only show up at extreme ends of the scale I don't mind it.

I don't want hype, just real world information. For a camera that has interchangeable lens I want to pick a lens that works for me. That's it, is it too much to ask?

This test was done at f/2 with the camera a meter from an 8x10 chart. Clearly I'd like to do CA and MTF comparisons between the 3x, 16x, stock and some Nikon lenses at 30f and 60i and though I don't personally use 24f in that mode as well. And it should be done at all apertures and focal lengths. Clearly this would mean defining a new career for myself so it's going to have to be a sampling for the time being at least. I want to polish this software some before going into "production" but also want to get bits out to people. The reports of good pictures keep coming in and the measured data seems to support the notion that the lens is pretty good - at least thus far. There may well be some disappointments ahead but we'll talk about those when we hit them.

I don't want to say too much about MTF until I get a good test chart but I will say that the crude chart shows about 20% response at 350 cy/ph (roughly equivalent to 700 lpph). Four hundred cy (800lines) would be a bit of a stretch as the response is lower still.

Great, now you're talking! Pick a medium focal length and expose the MTF chart at every stop. I'd go with 60i just because it's the native format. This would give finally give good data on the lens.

Simple solution,

Buy the manual lens. If I get the H1, I'm getting the manual lens. You have two options 16x and a 14x. The 16x is a current product and is a very good piece of glass. All tests have shown that the 16x is better than the 20x. Ok now that obstacle is out of your way...

I love the camera, I hate the lens, if you remember, my initial question was "what options are there to the lens?".

I can't se?

I'm sorry this was turned into a war between fanatics and investigators but I want real world results, not hype. Yes, the manual lens shots I've seen look better and along with the 3x, it's my current option. Just have to wait for the camera head to sell alone.

I am hoping for something better than a $1300 lens at some point though. When you get to consider the physics of optics some serious engineering needs to be put into a proper lens for a 1/3" HD sensor. Fujinon's 13x is probable closer to the idea of a properly engineered HD lens, if there only was a way to test it with the H1. The pinnacle is just not going to be a lens originally designed for an SD camera, or maybe it will, guess we've got to wait on Canon.

Look at it this way. The camera resolves about the same as the Varicam and the Varicam has $30,000 lens, in addition to the 65,000 body. If you're so unhappy with the Canon performance and you will be waiting for Canon to sell you the camera, instead for $9,000, for $8,000 without a lens, do so, but quit badmouthing the Canon, telling BS fairy tales how dealers give 20-30% discount on Varicam, telling us about the Panasonic $32K model 400 performance, and when you get caught that it is not true, then telling us about some guy from South America that has a resolution chart. You started with BS and your BS does not stop. What do you really want besides doing everything you can to discredit the Canon?

thanks Matthew- don't you just love it when minds are inquiring. I don't think you'd be this seriously investigating if this was a bash. But lenses are always different & they're mass produced within certain technically specs. Some turnout better than others. I own 2 canon digitals and even the L lenses vary. I returned my first 17-40L and the second was much improved. Probably , like the 5d , we're reaching the current edge of lens technology/cost benefits. Kurth

The camera resolves about the same as the Varicam and the Varicam has $30,000 lens, in addition to the 65,000 body.

This isn't about what the camera "resolves", I'm sure you agree that image quality is hardly all about resolution. Furthermore lenses are mainly rated by their MTF performance, a balance of contrast to resolving power but also by more factors than I have time to write about such as center to corner sharpness, and CA... Any engineer will tell you that the critical point in an HD camera's performance is the lens. This is so much truer with a smaller chip, a lens for a 1/3" chip needs to be many times more accurate than one for a 2/3" imager. This means that a lens for a 1/3" chip that is truly "great" needs to outperform threefold a $25,000 lens from the same manufacturer.

I was not comparing it directly to the Varicam, and never expected it to perform as well. I used the chart from the Varicam to pinpoint lens characteristics that people claimed they were'nt seeing. You need a reference benchmark anytime you compare something, it let's you really have an idea of performance. When miniDV came out people could only compare it to Betacam camcorders and Hi-8 camcorders, this is no different, it let's you know where the product falls in terms of performance.

...but quit badmouthing the Canon...What do you really want besides doing everything you can to discredit the Canon?
I haven't "badmouthed the Canon", I've just made observations on the lens, I am impressed with the camera and will buy it. The camera is not tied to that lens.

...telling BS fairy tales how dealers give 20-30% discount on Varicam, telling us about the Panasonic $32K model 400 performance, and when you get caught that it is not true, then telling us about some guy from South America that has a resolution chart. You started with BS and your BS does not stop.

You should of done some research on me before saying that, could of started by following the link in my profile, reading a little and googling the rest. I'll tell you, but verify the facts before launching another attack. The heads of my organization, which I'm technical director and media producer for are Siegfried & Roy the two most sucessful people in the history of live entertainment, we produce several theatrical, broadcast and film productions a year in various continents. We traditionally only shoot film, including IMAX but were one of the first adopters of Sony CineAlta equipment (yeah, with Canon lenses) We spend millions of dollars from our capX budget on equipment each year so maybe we do get the luxury of 20% off list price when we make a purchase from a company that wants our business, I didn't suggest that Joe Schmoe could get a Varicam head from Abel Cine for $50K today, we have a team with great business relationships around the world and that's the benefit we get from that. I'm sure that with the US economy as low as it is it might cost a little more now though. When it comes to the "South America BS", again, do your research, my father worked for Kodak and not only was I born in Chile and lived in 22 countries, some south american, before filmschool I worked for a few years in South America at two of the leading post houses, the defunct Finishouse/FCT in Brazil and Chilefilms in Chile www.chilefilms.cl which rivals even Peter Jackson's Parkhouse Post. So yeah, I have plenty of engineering contacts in Chilean post houses and networks.

So please, I haven't nor would I attack you personally, I'm just not going to state that a lens is great when it's really adequate at best, I can't say that the edges on the resolution wedge are as razor sharp as the sensor should let them be when they're not. Since I am not paid by Canon to pitch the lens I am making real observations about what I see, and I also said that I don't mind paying for a better lens for the H1. I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens anyways, so I guess they might even agree that the 20x zoom isn't the greatest lens for this camera.

Peace. If you can get me a new Varicam for $50K, I'll throw in a couple thousand $ tip. I happen to know someone who was looking for one.

I want you know that I really had no intentions to take anything we might disagree upon further than just an argument about pieces of glass and plastic. I respect your opinions, you're entitled to them but we don't have to settle for each other's opinions either.

I'm afraid our corporation doesn't offer brokering services :o) but I gave you the company's name if you're serious about giving it a shot, remember this was within the context of a larger package and not just for the head, however our economy was better a year ago so don't beat me up for that.

Have you seen this clip? http://www.hd-channel.com/videos/mountain-top_reasons.wmv It compares Super16, F900, SD video and Varicam. It's self explanatory even if you don't speak the language. They zoom in on the image at certain points for a closer look. I have a clear favorite but I won't bias your observation. Can you guess?

"...I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens..."

I wonder if that lens is going to be a 16X, 20X, or 3X? - And how long before that lens actually hits the shelves...months or years?

"...I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens..."

I wonder if that lens is going to be a 16X, 20X, or 3X? - And how long before that lens actually hits the shelves...months or years?

According to the camera's manual, there will be a 3x wide angle zoom lens (3.4-10.2mm) and a manual zoom lens 16x (5.4-86.4)

"...I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens..."

I wonder if that lens is going to be a 16X, 20X, or 3X? - And how long before that lens actually hits the shelves...months or years?

I wouldn't know... all I was oficially told is that Canon is currently in the process of acessing the market demographics of H1 buyers and preparing to release several lenses for the H1 some maybe as early as April.

According to the camera's manual, there will be a 3x wide angle zoom lens (3.4-10.2mm) and a manual zoom lens 16x (5.4-86.4)
Are you sure they're not just refering to the current 3x and manual SD lenses for the XL1/XL2?

No, I don't think so because Canon is claiming everywhere that HD needs specifics lenses. That's why they've designed the new 20x and encourage us to buy new ones...

Page 149 of the manual shows the 16x as a option for the H1. If I go the H1 , it will be head only and I will get the 16x....

No, I don't think so because Canon is claiming everywhere that HD needs specifics lenses. That's why they've designed the new 20x and encourage us to buy new ones...

We all want great glass at affordable pricing, but I don't see that
happening . . . yet. Anyone who knows, knows that Canon, who makes
great PRO HD lens, cannot possibly put one of those on the HD1 and sell
a kit for under $10K . . . or at the very least they won't.

I am going to be shooting wildlife docs and *need* long
telephoto lens. I plan on using 35MM EF/EOS adapter for it's 7.2 mag factor.
If that proves to do a good enough job it is an inexpensive solution.

If anyone wants great glass and super sharp images @ 1:1, one
might want to wait for Kinetta, RED or some other offering
that as a 35mm chip set and real lens mount. In anycase, the
price point will be over $10K including that great glass.

Completely agreed, I don't think anyone expects great glass to go for cheap, but it's nice to have the option for those that do value and can afford a good lens.

With some trepidation I have posted horizontal MTF curves for 1 set of conditions (60i,f/2.8, 1/60th short focal length) for the 20X stock, 16X manual and 3X wide angle lenses. The three are pretty darn close but the stock lens is the worst - if not by much. This makes me a little suspicious of the results but I have done it twice this time with a proper test chart (the results were very similar with the test chart from the office printer).The curves are at http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/54766171 and the previous image is the reconstructed edge (for the 16X lens) from which the MTF curves are calculated. The reason this is of interest is because it clearly shows that the camera is shapening the edge. I've debated as to whether I should disable this sharpening or not but decided that as it is the default state of the camera to have it active I had better leave it active. The edge picture also has a description of the process I used to calculate these MTFs.

The one thing these tell me for sure is that I've got to do more tests in the real world with the 3x and 16x. I have always thought of the 3x as a soft lens (or at least I did when I used it with the XL2).

<<<I have always thought of the 3x as a soft lens>>>

Agreed.

Thinking about the 3X a bit I realized that the lens usually gave me soft results when it was used for what I bought it for i.e. as a wide angle. In the MTF test I was at the maximum focal lenght and up pretty close and it was plain during focusing that I was acheiving focus. In typical wide angle use you are at the minimum focal length and everything is this effectively at "infinity". Under these conditions I have never felt that I was really in focus but that just a smidgeon more CCW rotation of the ring would do it but that the lens wouldn't accept that wee bit more (this sort of thing was discussed extensively in the XL2 forum). So it's clear what I should do tonight: try to get an MTF curve at minimum focal length.

Yes, this seems to be the case. I ran MTF at 3.4mm focal length for the 3x and indeed it shows that the sharpness is dramatically reduced at the short focal length and, as I don't really feel it's ever focused at this minimum setting, suppose that this is the cause. Thus, on the XL-H1, the 3x is a soft lens at 3.4 mm but a sharp one at 10.4! The new curve is posted at http://www.pbase.com/image/54796410

To put these curves into perspective with respect to the image charts we've all been looking at let's define the "resolution" of the lens as the frequency at which the MTF is down to 40%. Using the approximation that "lines" are roughly twice "cycles" the resolution of the XL-1H with the 3X lens at its widest would be about 640 lines, with the stock lens at 18 mm about 720 lines, with the 16X manual at 18mm about 740 lines and with the 3x at 10.4mm about 750 lines. All at f2.8 60i.

Thanks delange for this very detailed testing. Your manual lens the 16x is sure nice. If I go the H1 I want to get it head only then buy the 16x.

What did you use to mount the Nikor lens ( Nikkor35f2p8_60i.jpg)?



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com

The Optex adapter (from ZGC).

I don't know that the 3x lens is necessarily soft but it's so wide and with a zoom ratio of 3x it's kind of difficult to zoom in and check focus. I can sit there at full wide and spin the focus ring and see very little change. If canon is going to release and HD wide lens it would be nice if it were more like 10x and pretty pretty please manual focus.

I dont get it... you want a bigger engine for your Yugo? If a project needs GREAT glass, use a Varicam... I personally am not really interested in attaching a $20k lens to a $6k camera with 1/3" CCDs. I think the Canon glass is very good in general but no, it does not compare to lenses that cost 3X the price of the camera alone.

Why not just buy/rent a Varicam?


ash =o)