I can't find a definition. Is "long" anything longer tham a 1 or 2 frame GOP? Is "long" 12-15 frames?

I cnider 6 frames "short" not "long" but I could be wrong since all the folks (like Apple) never define LONG?

The MTF definition of what is an HD lens is based upon 1920x1080 resolution. This is defined as 800 TVLines. Turns-out, 720p definition is at 530 TVLines. So, when we say a lens is HD we must qualify which system we will be using. A true 1920x10 lens may be very expense -- a 1280x720 HD lens could be dramatically cheaper!

An SD lens is only 400 TVLines -- so it really doesn't take much more quality to make an 720HD lens!

This gave me a good chuckle!

The glass is the first thing the light sees - if the bottleneck in your system is here, none of the rest of the stuff Chris mentioned: format, workflow, etc., would matter in the slightest :)

EDIT: By the way, I just looked over Graeme's posts. His math looks good to me. Worth reading.

-Steve

This gave me a good chuckle!

The glass is the first thing the light sees - if the bottleneck in your system is here, none of the rest of the stuff Chris mentioned: format, workflow, etc., would matter in the slightest :)


Steve, you may be right if all things are equal, but I think you're taking Chris's point out of context a bit.

He said:
Choose your format first... trying to compare the glass between these two cams is a completely backward way of researching a major purchase decision.

And that is something I would completely agree with.

The JVC shoots HDV, the Panasonic will shoot DVCProHD.
People don't go out and pick a camera based on the lens, they choose generally based on the format they want...then from there they choose which camera specifically fits their needs.

An HDV camera and a DVCProHD camera are completely different animals.

If we were to take a camera based solely on the best lens first then I suppose that the JVC would win out, seeing as it's the lowest priced HD camera with a removable lens...meaning you could get the best lens on it.
Of course, then you're left with MPG2 compression, no 1080 HD, no 720P60, compressed audio, and a 4:2:0 colorspace.

My point is just that obviously you are right, the lens does matter, but you can't just disregard the rest of the camera, much like you are saying that the lens can't be completely disregarded.

Also, I would add that I do think it is a moot point to compare the glass between these two cameras seeing as no one can get hands on with either of these cameras/lenses and do any side by side comparisons until the end of the year.

I didn't taking his post out of context at all - I read the whole thing. My amusement, and hence laughter, came entirely from reading the sentence independently... and as you can plainly see with it quoted on its own - it's a bloody hilarious way to look at the world.

The notion of starting at any one point in the camera and saying it's "backwards" place to begin struck me as very odd. Obviously you have to examine the whole package. But DVCPRO-HD coming out of a pinhole wouldn't garner much excitement now, would it?

In perfect context, I challenge both yourself to write the following essay:
"Garbage in, garbage out: Why is starting with the input is a backwards approach."

:: grins, winks, etc ::

-Steve

My amusement, and hence laughter, came entirely from reading the sentence independently... and as you can plainly see with it quoted on its own - it's a bloody hilarious way to look at the world.

Yes, by itself it is funny.
My point was that in the context of the conversation I think it's an apt point to make. These cameras are very different, with very different strengths and weaknesses. There are larger differences between them than the differences between the lenses (the lenses which we haven't been able to test yet).

The notion of starting at any one point in the camera and saying it's "backwards" place to begin struck me as very odd. Obviously you have to examine the whole package. But DVCPRO-HD coming out of a pinhole wouldn't garner much excitement now, would it?

Of course not, but I also don't think the differences between these two lenses will be great enough to ignore differences between the formats, recording times, etc.

I think we're on the same page here.... we both agree that you have to examine the whole package. In this case though, considering the lens on the HVX hasn't even been seen, and the lens on the JVC hasn't really been tested...and neither camera has been released, I would agree with Chris that comparing the lenses seems a bit 'backwards.'

Then again, comparing anything on these cams right now seems a bit ridiculous to me.
:)

I would be careful on this one. You should specify that whatever marketing firm the McDonalds Corporation has hired to promote themselves does a good job.

McDonalds themselves strong arms third world countries for a lower price on beef. I know that's quite off topic, but a corporation is what it is, a money mongering machine. All any of us get to see is their carefully controlled marketing.

Hi Steve,

I can definitely see how you'd find it amusing. I can see the humor in it, too, and you're right, it all starts with the lens. However, for new folks who are making the transition from SD to HD, I stand behind what I said: it's far more important to choose your format first. Then it becomes a much easier prospect to upgrade a camera or any other component in the chain if you've established which format you're going to be working in. Any actual difference there may be in the quality of the glass for camcorders in this price range is relatively minimal. What format, what kind of workflow is going to have a far greater impact on a person's productivity then which lens they're using. When people ask me for advice on purchase decisions, I ask them to look at productivity factors such as choice of format, editing platform and applications, choice of workflow, etc. The camera itself comes further down that list. I know that's where the image begins but what's much more important is where the image *ends* and that's why I ask folks to consider that aspect first. May seem backward, but if you think about it, it's really the right way to look at it, in terms of a broader perspective about productivity. Hope this helps,

It all comes back to "what's the best camera?" - answer "The best camera is the one with the best camera person and lighting person behind it", eh, Chris?

You're not taking into account sensor dimensions Steve.

Graeme

The difficulties of optically transmitting an image onto a 1/3 area, and have it be even just good, let alone be great is a tough hill to clime. A lot of people I know don't understand how optics and the photo elements play such a role with one another and that to get the right balance to achieve a certain level of optical performance is challenging.

Hell, if I were a lens company, ( joking ) I would promote the use of 1/2 to 1'' inch ccd/cmos technology only. I would do PR that said " Big CCD's Big CCD's- Bigger is better , smaller is bad" Something like that. It would make life so much better for the optical guys. One thing is true, the 1/3 R&D pushes the envelope of optical lens technology which we all benefit from in the long run.



You know, I miss 65mm cinematography.

Graeme

Did you ever meet Don Earl?

Don Earl was the first person to introduce me to 65mm technology when I was like 15 years old back in the mid 80's.

It was a curse, I tell ya. It's like eating a $100 burger, and then having to eat McDonalds most of the time after that. I guess I can settle for In & Out though....... I still have my earl slate from back then.. I just love 65mm.

Viper x 2 , and we will have 65mm like quality again. yum yum yum.......


Michael Pappas

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/a_frie...r_for_everyone

I didn't - but sounds like a great bloke.

What I've been advocating is a move away from 3chips to 1 chip, but 1 bigger chip. Bigger chips, with bigger pixels should help noise levels, and put much less stress on the optics. Recording raw Bayer pattern (if that's what it uses) takes 1/3 the space of recording the same rez sensor at RGB (as if it were the data from a 3CCD set) and then you can do lots of funky post processing, and de-bayering algorithms are getting very good these days. I can smell the definition just thinking about it...

Graeme

Graeme,

I am with you 1 billion percent. I have been asking for one CCD or Cmos for some time. Yes! Canon. A single large Cmos or CCD on your XL3...Pleaseeeeeeeee


What is a Bloke?

A bloke is a chap is a male person. Interesting that my british accent comes through in my typing too.

Graeme

Don was the top man of the 65mm Panavision at Panavision.

He is also known for The classic Don Earl 'Hollywood' clapper---I learned at 15yrs old the beauty of 65mm and showscan. I hated my ntsc video cameras after that.

Although I like big chips as much as the next guy, I think one of the reasons the video world has stuck to small chips (2/3" and less) is because the smaller target area allows the lens manufacturer to make smaller, faster, high zoom ratio lenses. If the lens had to image for a large target area like a 35mm frame, it would be next to impossible to make a 16X f/1.9 zoom that wasn't the size of a bazooka and cost just about as much. Of course, digital cineamatographers probably could care less about high zoom ratio lenses, but those guys are a small market compared to all the ENG/EFP, event, industrial and broadcast folks who do care.

Excellent points, Tim!

People often forget, in this game, small equals affordable.

Bazooka cam, now your talking. HVX-Howitzer

Hi Tim, yes I can see your point.

Tim - good point, and thanks for the info - another piece of the lens / CCD puzzle comes together.

Graeme

Now this is a Bazooka cam

http://www.prohd.co.uk/files/page1_1.jpg

Here is an option that is sure to come down the river for the HD100U- Sweet!

http://www.pstechnik.de/datasheets/p.../d_pro35_l.jpg

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they already showed a mini35 on the JVC at NAB.

Also, Bill Turner of Century Precision Optics weighed in about the quality vs. price debate, and he said something interesting -- he said that the physical size of the lens is a big factor in how expensive it is. The bigger the glass, the higher the price. And as he said that, I thought back to how tiny the JVC stock lens was... and thought maybe, maybe that's a good sign? If it's so much less expensive to make a small lens, then maybe the low price isn't directly a reflection of low quality, but perhaps is just saying that the lens is fine, and the cost is a reflection of its small size?

That's true Barry! Good point.

Is that picture I posted, the same design that was at NAB on the JVC? This one looks like bit smaller too. It could just be the picture though. This one is a B4 mount version posted I believe....

Good point Barry.

Admittedly I'm no optical engineer either, but looking at our counterparts in the digital still photography world, I don't understand what the hang-up is with producing lenses that can resolve HD images for small sensors. For example, the Canon S1 IS has a 10X optical zoom lens and resolves images for a 1/2.7" sensor (just slightly larger than a 1/3") at a max resolution of 2048 x 1536. Sure, it's not as fast as an f/1.9 lens but that's why the Fujinon has to be bigger. Other than that, I don't see why it should be a major problem to properly resolve an image at the JVC's resolution. Thoughts anyone?

Tim, that is an excellent point. Very good!

Just talking about the actual glass and not the mechanical differences.

The primary reason for building a large lens is to gather more light. One of the downsides though, is that those outer rays have to be "bent" significantly further than their on-axis counterparts. More bending = more optical path length, and this in turn means that all the "thin lens approximations" you know so well from high-school fall apart. The only lens that's really easy to manufacture is a spherical lens. The more aspherical the lenses get, the more difficult it is to manufacture them, and the more components are required to counteract the aberrations associated with the major components.

When you look at a still camera you have a significantly smaller aperture. The more expensive (i.e., larger) still camera lenses also cost a fortune.

-Steve

Hey Graeme,

I've been on location shooting for a few days and haven't been able to get the time to contribute to this thread. I think we're all in the same boat in seeking answers to our tech questions - in this case questions on the 16x lens for the HD100, and more broadly, questions about possible resolutions from 1/3' CCD camcorders. In looking for answers I've begun a more constructive track than before. Here's my progress:

Sony HDW F900 2/3" CCDs

I use the F900, so this data was easy to get.

The actual image size (active area) = 9.58mm (H) x 5.39mm (V) with the image diagonal = 11mm.

H Size of individual pixel = H Size of CCD/ Number of Active Image H Pixels =
9.58mm/1920 = 0.005mm = 5 microns

V Size of individual pixel = V Size of CCD/ Number of Active Image Pixels =
5.39mm/1080 = 0.005mm = 5 microns

Your memory was correct (5x5 microns).

JVC HD100 1/3" CCD

I've been totally milking every possible source to see if that data is obtainable. So far, no luck. I found a group in England (www.prohd.co.uk) that ahs a working prototype of the HD100 in their hands. I asked them to measure the CCDs and create an MTF chart for the 16x lens. They said they will at some point in the future. I'm assuming an NDA blocks that for a little while longer. I'll keep looking. Once we have that data it will be pretty straighforward in analyzing the potential of the camera/lens combination.

1/2" SD lenses on the HD100

I've placed inquiries directly to Fujinon and Canon to get the MTF charts for any of the 1/2" SD lenses listed on the JVC System Chart as being usable on the HD100 ( Link: http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/...d100/sys.html). There are three Fujinon lenses listed: S20x6.4B12U, S17x6.6BRM, S14x7.3B12U. There are two Canon lenses listed: YH19x6.7K12U, YH16x7K12U. I own two of these lenses, the Fujinon 20x and 14x. I hold no illusions that the 14x could resolve adequately on the HD100. The 20x is a much better lens though. For some bizarre reason Canon, Fujinon, Nikon, and other lens manufacturers routinely publish MTF charts for their still photography lenses in print and on the Internet - and yet they steadfastly refuse to publish MTF charts for their motion media lenses! I don't hold out much hope for getting MTF charts on the five 1/2" SD lenses. I do have one workaround. I recently had my 20x lens serviced at Focus Optics in L.A. It's possible that they did an MTF chart for the lens while it was in their shop. I'll check. If any of these five 1/2" lenses could resolve a decent image on the HD100 the Fuji 20x or the Canon 19x would be it. It may not be a great HD image, but for some applications it may suffice. The Fujinon engineer did tell me that the 20x has good glass, with some properties similar to the new 16x lens.

If smaller glass elements cost less, and with advances in lens coatings, and good CCD properties, perhaps this could all dance well in unison, and the HD100 could surprise everyone with it's imaging capabilities. Let's keep this thread going and get to the bottom of all this - through teamwork.

Could one of you super smart guys give me a link where I might be able to do some reading on MTF measurements, what they mean, and their relation to other lens factors?

This is all new to me...and rather fascinating.
If anyone knows a good resource, it would be really appreciated.

Thanks.

Here's one place that explains MTF:

http://www.photodo.com/art/Reso8.shtml

This site also has a large collection of MTF charts for still camera lenses.

Steve, that's excellent research. I got ever-so-slightly different figures from Panavision for the CCD dimension (by about 0.01mm different) but they lead to the same figures - 5 microns square and 100lp/mm.

You're right that specs of broadcast lenses are terribly difficult to come by, and this is making this all quite difficult to research. If you have any luck with your sources, then I'd be very happy to see the results. As I mentioned on another forum, I'd be very, very happy to learn that I'm wrong here, as that gives us all the possibility of real HD from affordable 1/3" chips and affordable lenses.

One thing that struck me though, is that lens cost is proportional to the square of the radius or something - bigger lenses cost more. But the "radius" of a lens for a 16:9 chip will be greater than that of the radius for a 4:3 chip, it being more compact, so we need to use bigger lenses on these 1/3" 16:9 HD cameras than we would on SD cameras, and this again adds to the price? Sound reasonable or am I on another planet again?

I really appreciate the constructiveness of this current discussion - I think some really good research and learning is going on now.

Graeme

Hi Steve,

That outfit is OpTex in the UK and the fellow who's most likely responding on their board is my old friend Simon Beer. That's a great bunch over there. The prototype HD100 they have on hand is what's called an MT sample, or Market Test sample. MT samples are commonly about 80 to 85 percent complete and usually are not entirely fleshed out. I guess my whole point here is that such samples are frequently subject to any variety of changes, so the prototype that Simon has on hand over there should not be considered as a finalized version by any stretch.