Fujinon's Th16x5.5BRMU VS HTs18x4.2BRM - how good are your eyes
 

Same eye, camera, & settings.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

These "eye grabs" actually were NOT taken at the same distance from Tracy's eye. Instead, they were each taken as close as either lens could focus on a subject - without getting into macro focus. Oddly, even though the 16x zooms to 88mm, it could not focus on Tracy as close as the 18x could. For the record, the closest you can get to a subject with the:

16x = 37 inches

18x = 24 inches

At IBC last month I tried the 18x4.2BRM. It's a nice piece of equipment, but I was turned off and surprized to see still a lot of CA while zoomed in all the way.

Less CA to be sure. But I dunno if it's $10,000 worth of improvement. I could buy a lot of drugs and alcohol with 10 grand.

For some reason I thought it'd give you a jump in sharpness. Guess not.

Absolutely obvious the 18x is better. If you have any plan to blow up the image to 1080p or further yet to 35mm then you'll enjoy the benefit of the higher detail holding better.

S.

Same profile, settings, distance, etc.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU


Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I've yet to meet anyone who has done a filmout with video. Any kind of video. I've never even heard of anyone that's done it in these forums. I've read a millon posts about "If I need a filmout which camera should I get" etc. But should filmout capability really be a criterion when evaluating a camera/lens? Filmout capability seems like something pitched to starry eyed indies who *know* with 100% certainty that their low budget Zombie movie is going to get picked up by Miramax.

A 11,000 dollar lens on a 6,000 camera seems like an awkward ratio. Nearly 2:1. Anyone know what ratios the big boys use? Or is 2:1 common?

Damn my eyes.

When I look at the first set of pix, and particularly at the boundary between the edge of the cheek and the hairline, I see MORE Chromatic Abberation in the 18x. I also note slightly better resolution along the bridge of the nose(in the 16x)... but then again, the 16x seems 'warmer' to me as well, and I'm pre-disposed towards warmer images.

I have done a filmout with the HD-100. Andrew Young has done a filmout with the HD-100 and there are others. I mention us two because we are members here. Although I know what you mean. Still the lens does make a difference.

S.

These grabs shed more light on the differences in clarity between the lenses. Both lenses were at full zoom here. Focused on the yellow bag each time - my guess is 50 yards but I'm no golfer.

I shot the scene in the full zoom range of both lenses, in 10mm increments. I'll post more grabs later.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @88mm

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM @76mm

88mm is definately NOT the sweet spot for the 16x.

You can't really tell how good a lens is until you start pushing it into the darker areas. How sharp is it wide open? How good is it at handling flare? How much distortion does it introduce? How about the contrast?

You could easily spend many times the cost of camera for a specialist lens on a stills camera.

You are right Steven. I completely agree.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @45mm


Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @45mm

Yep,

Some of my normal cameras (Digi Beta, SP etc) have lenses that far outweigh the value of the camera. Glass rules!

For example, there's 12 grands worth of glass on the front of a 4 grand SP camera. (I do swap the lenses around)!! The price difference is nearer with the digi B, but if you pay for a quality backside, you've got to pay for quality glass. If you don't you're wasting your money on the backside!

By the way, I talk UK pounds!

Lens are ultimately what create the image. The camera just records it. The same comparison can be made with stereos -- spend your money on good speakers, because that's where the sound comes from.

Actually its strange
 

every shot you've posted clearly show the 18x is a sharper lens, it could be in part due to different exposure, or that the nature of the lens leads to a different white balance. But the the detail is sharper in all the 18x pics, but I definitely agree, the price of the 18x means really only studios etc will pick it up, in Australia its almost $19,500. Thats crazy money, especially when you see the 13x now is only $11,350, the 17x is now only $3950, and the 20x is now $13,000.
One of the features of this lens if I wonder is pure marketing garbage is the following cut and paste from the features:

VFormat Correction
Achieving 4:3 aspect ratios from a 16:9 CCD is usually performed by cutting off the sides of the imager, effectively making the minimum focal length more telephoto. Fujinon's VFormat technology preserves the same picture angles by shortening the original focal length. Shots in standard 4:3 hold the same image size as if shot in 16:9.

Any substance to this?

Adam

From what I understand, this is an internal lens adjustment similar to an extender that switches the field of view. In 4:3 mode, the field of view over the entire CCD is wider than when it's in 16:9, albeit with the chance of some vignetting and/or poorer quality in the corners. When that 16:9 area of the CCD is cropped to 4:3, it matches horizontally what would've been covered with both the lens and camera in 16:9 mode.

The way I look at it, the expectations for the lens and camera are quite different.

Aside from the electronics/tape mechanism etc, the camera needs to maintain (logical) paralellism between the sensor and the lens mount, perform its beam splitting magic precisely, etc.

Given good manufacturing practices this is quite expensive, but not ridiculously so.

Compared to what is expected of the lens, the camera has the optically easy part of the job. Paying as much or more or a lot more for the glass makes excellent sense UNTIL you reach a point where the optical performance of the lens exceeds the ability of the camera to capture the improvement, at which point additional investment in the lens has zero payback.

It's like having a built in ratio converter, instead of having to place one on the front of the lens. The first sentence in that quote applies perfectly to the XL2 since it has native 16:9 chips. In 4:3 mode, the lens becomes 1.4X more telephoto.

-gb-

This is the point I was circling. What is the critical mass of these cameras in terms of lens cost versus camera cost?

thanks Earl and Greg
 

for the clarification.

Hey Eric, if we want to really hilight and compare the CA between the lenses, have them both shoot at close to full telephoto from beneath a tree which is sparse of leaves(as in lots of twigs etc), against a bright sky, and we'll soon see the comparison.

cheers

Adam

Adam, I wish my heart was protected with as much bubble wrap as that 18x was when the UPS man drove it back to our friends at TapeworksTexas this afternoon.

Although I did not shoot the scene you suggest here, trust me, I shot plenty of other troublesome conditions.

Same subject, conditions, and settings - Full zoom, 5.6, 1nd, 1/250 shtr, whites blowing out against a dark background.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @88mm bright whites/contrast

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM @76mm bright whites/contrast

Another difference between the 16x and the 18x is the servo zoom control speeds. While the 16x has only one speed, the 18x has seven - 1 (marked "S") through 6 (marked "F"), and then there was one more notch past "F" which wasn't marked. I assume that's "Superfast?"

Here's a video example of all the speeds of the 18x VS the one speed of the 16x

Fujinon 18x VS 16x servo zoom speed(s) comparison video

FYI, the last two settings on the 18x ("F" and the one after) put out a pretty aggressive gear driven growl when they drive the zoom so quick. I had the stock mic mounted just to take notes and it did not pick up the sound - but I still had the audio set on auto from my last project. I bet under some circumstances the mic (if it were mounted on the camera) could pick the noise up.

Brian, is this what you mean by "distortion?"


Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU image distortion at full wide

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM image distortion at full wide

I'd also put in some verticals, but that would be part of comparing lenses.

I have the 18x4.2 lens on an HD250. Actually, I have a brand new one that also has the 2x extender. Anyway, I've noticed that at any aperture wider than f4, it exhibits a lot of longitudinal CA, meaning that as I rack focus, out-of-focus objects shift very blue-green or very magenta. However, as long as I'm stopped down to at least f4, it is not a problem and the lens is fantastic.

I can see this being a problem for filmmakers who want shallow depth-of-field to replicate the look of 35mm because they'll need to open to at least f2.8 to get that look on zoomed-in close-ups. It's a trade-off because as soon as you open up the iris, you begin to see the fringing around bright objects and areas of high contrast.

I would say this is not a failure of the lens but an inherent drawback of shooting with 1/3-inch chip cameras.

No doubt true
 

that it's a inherant drawback of 1/3 chips, and also HD lenses, but Eric I feel your pain after such a large investment.

There was at one stage a CA filter on DVinfo, I think it's fallen off, but you could filter out the purple and green in post, of course this is not ideal, but it's better than loosing a otherwise great shot because of the CA.
Are there any plugins out there guys to reduce this, I used a free six colour correction plug-in for Vegas, to reduce the amount of CA colour shown to get rid of it, of course it then saps that out of the whole frame not just that small intended target of that colour.

Are there any good plugins out there which guys that handle this problem better??

I think was you Tim Dashwood that had the 13x lens a while back? If by chance you've read this thread can you or any other players out there give us a example of the a worst case scenario with CA as a comparison with the 18x?

Regards

Adam

I think you'll find your lens is sharp throughout it's range whereas the 16x is very limited compared to it's zoom. The versatility is the value.

I suppose the other issue about making such a large investment on purchasing the higher end lenses is how long the JVC/HDV will be around before it is superseded by a higher form of HD. It makes commercial sense buying the stock camera even if HDV will be around for a few years but loading it up with all nice add ons might not except for people who can make their money back on enough commercial shoots. At the moment it appears that the entire technology is moving forward so rapidly that in three years time the camera might start to look like my old Canon XL1.

Having said that, even the most expensive lens available for the JVC is not particularly expensive given the cost of other HD lenses.

Rob

Magnified view of the differences in the dock footage -

Clearly blurry and loads more CA


Both lenses in macro, on the same flower -

Macro focus

well thats chalk and cheese there Eric
 

thats a vast improvement over stock lens, even though you had to close the lens down to get it, I suppose also over F4 you'll start loosing resolution as well?

I'm sitting right in the middle with the 17. I actually think it's a pretty solid in the middle of these two lenses. I think I want a 20. =D

Indeed, there's still CA with the Fuji 18x (and that's to be expected). CA seems to be a lot less aggressive on the 18x though...

I remember being somewhat dissapointed with this when I had the 18x in my hand for the first time.

Still, a serious improvement over the 16x: wider angle, more crispness at longer focal lengths (I encourage people to make no shots over 50mm or so with the stock lens).
Furthermore is the 16x no real inner focus lens. Using a matte box, you'll squize the 16x too tight, getting the focus stuck.


Yep, it isn't that uncommon. Broadcast wide angle lens 2/3 inch : +/- 35k, SD camera body : 10k-25k.
Not to mension 8k for a 35mm adapter and 10k+ for a 35mm lens.

I bought the 13x from B&H when it came down in price and it's been superb. Most of our shooting was indoor on commercial premises and the wider angle made sense.

I'd question the value of the 18x as well - it really comes down to the longevity of the format. The great thing about buying a 2/3" or 1/2" piece of expensive glass was that it would outlast the back. I'm not so sure with 1/3" that we'll see too many more cameras in this format (I hope we do). It is definitely not a straight monetary equation though - in stills land you can pay ten times as much for the glass as for the body. If you need it and you can earn money off it, then it is worth it. For example - if I were shooting sport, the extra throw and clarity along with the extra wide angle might be worth it.


Of course there would be a great deal of very expensive SD glass that will slowly become obsolete regardless of the image size.

yes, 18 is much better... but too price for me. I might rent it for something big. OK. have to ask, does anyone have comparison shots with the less expensive 17?

I have the 17x lying here. It seems like a nice improvement, especially at the long end of the lens. I'll post some images if I have the time...