Give JVC and their Lens a break - It passed a tough test
 

Jan Crittenden Livingston Wrote:
<<<the SD lens that comes with the JVC>>>>>

I'm confused here. Jan, Calls the optics on the JVC SD lens quality. Barry Green refers to the quality of the live signal on CRT's at NAB as having ""the "snap" or "wow" of the live CRT footage""

Many said that the live footage was sharp and clean etc. Just simply beautiful.

If you read between the lines - The truth is visible.

You can't have it both ways. If the lens is so bad, then the way it was displayed it would have been visible.

Well, All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding.

And here is the pudding.

At NAB the HD100u was outputting 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive video. That stream, is better than DVCproHD will ever do in playback. Ever. The Uncompressed signal that was coming from the HD100u at NAB was a great setup to judge the quality of the 16x lens that Fujinon is supplying to JVC for the HD100U.

If you were going to test Optics - then having it on the highest possible viewing quality on a CRT would be the best way to analyze it outside of a Optical test bench.

So don't fear that JVC is using inferior optics, as some would like you to believe. The Fujinon 16x lens at-least survived the 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive output to CRT.

The JVC optics are good, very good.

So I must say; Why is the Panasonic rep referring to that lens as being inferior on public boards. If it was SD inferior optics then why didn't anyone see it when it was output in 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive on CRT's at NAB.

Remember on that setup. If the optics were bad, you would notice. And if you can't see it under those conditions, then most likely doesn't matter since 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive video is higher then any standard we will be broadcasting or projecting for many many years to come.

The Lens passed a very tough test. So JVC and their 16x Fujinon lens deserves a break.

If anyone refers to the Fujinon lens as SD, it only means that they didn't read the camera specs. Jen (and others), please go to:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/f...l_id=MDL101539

One of the main features of the camera package is this:
"16X Fujinon newly developed HD lens standard"

In full fairness, we won't know for sure how good the lens really is until people start shooting with the camera under various conditions. However, it will ALWAYS be better then any built-in lens, such as the one on the Panasonic HDX200. And, just to make it VERY clear: the lens is manufactured by FUJINON, not JVC. And Fujinon, together with Canon are the two top broadcast lens manufactures who have had a whole lineup of HD zooms available for years now, so it's very likely that Fujinon simply adopted their existing HD technology to the 1/3" lens. It would make absolutely no sense to put an SD lens on this camera because it would harm Fujinon's name and reputation.

Sorry, meant to write Jan.

Jiri Bakala

I am very aware of JVC and the HVX200 lens etc... Believe me...

Jiri Bakala have you read these articles:

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/do_hvx...ream_of_lenses

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_


michael pappas

I was one of the NAB posters on DV INfo Net that reported being impressed with the quality of the analog 4:2:2 720p60 to CRT output. I believe that a sub-HD quality lens would not have been able to resolve the quality of image I saw. I also posted on DV Info Net that in a direct conversation with a Fujinon engineer at the Fujinon NAB booth I was told that:

1) the 16x and 13x lenses were engineered to resolve HD quality images 2) that the 1/2" SD lenses listed on the HD100 system chart, that use the 1/2" to 1/3" step down adapter, could resolve HD-quality images when used with the HD100 3) that the quality of glass used in the better 1/2" lenses was equal to the glass used in the new T16x5.5 lens designed for the HD100.

The Fujinon S20x6.4, S17x6.6, and undoubtedly the Canon YH16x7 and YH19x6.7 lenses were "over-engineered" to resolve beyond the 1/2" SD cameras they were designed for. The images resolved by the new T16x5.5 were excellent. The images from the 1/2" lenses used on the HD100 will be comparable.

(Thanks Steve! Very well put.)

It may be inevitable, but I'd really like to avoid direct comparisons between the Panasonic HVX200 and the JVC HD100. These are two completely different formats, different kinds of workflow, completely different ergonomics, etc. etc. The only thing they have in common is their base pricing.

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

Yes I read your articles. What exactly is your point? I was in full agreement with you :-)
If you have any personal comments, please, email me off the list:
info@ascentfilms.com

Jiri,

I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to be that way Jiri. I was joking by. saying ( believe me ). Sometimes text just doesn't catch the nuances. I'm Sorry it came across that way...

michael

"At NAB the HD100u was outputting 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive video. That stream, is better than DVCproHD will ever do in playback. Ever"

To be fair, and to be clear, that stream is also better than the HD100 will ever do in playback as well. The signal was being sent out of the uncompressed outputs.

While your point on the lens is well taken, and I understand why you made it a point to mention they were showing off the uncompressed signal, I just wanted to make sure took away any erroneous conclusions from that statement.

I agree with Chris, comparisons between these two cameras, especially starting with the lenses, is a bit of apples and oranges. Choose your format, and then go from there.

Michael,

no problem, I am glad we are on the same wavelength.
These discussions get sometimes a tad emotional because we all get really excited about all those new tools coming up.
Have a great day!
:-)

Hi Luis! This is only about the lens nothing else,

My point is that Panasonic rep attacks the Fujinon lens ( by calling it a SD lens when that rep knows JVC/Fujinon said it was HD )

The lens did very well under the scrutiny of being displayed in 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive CRT settings.

If JVC wanted to hide SD inferior lens quality, they would have displayed the signal after the mpeg codec to mask optical issues and also let you view it on a 1950's black an white television.

I don't care that they were trying to show off the signal. because what they did was put their fujinon optics "butt" on the line doing so.....

But the indirect conclusions that came from this JVC exhibit of live 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive could have very well been a move that could have blown up in JVCs face because you could scrutinized the lens to the highest degree on those CRT's at NAB.

That Panasonic rep knows that, but insist on calling it a SD level lens, as to lower it to a smaller caliber of performance but says the Fixed lens will be amazing. Simple; no fixed lens is going to compete unless you use triple the money to make it so. But the camera would be triple the cost.

B4 or 1/3 mount is always the cheaper- shorter route to get very good optics on your camera, because you let powerhouse optical companies like Fujinon and Canon take the wheel since they already drive the car better.

The great thing about freedom, is I don't have to drink the Koolaid they are handing me.

I have always been honest and trustworthy. I will never tell you something that I know is wrong, and try to convince you that it's right. My reputation has always has been excellent and it's known that I won't mislead people or silence them from free speech.


Luis Please read the opening letter: Does this make you proud?

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/do_hvx...ream_of_lenses

Michael Pappas

I just read your opening letter, that you were banned, Michael. Sorry to hear that.
Hope you'll have better luck in the future.

EDIT: I don't want to attack the other websites (as I read a post by Chris Hurd he doesn't want to interfere with other websites - which I agree with ) I just wanted to tell you, Michael, keep writing articles if you wish, and I'm glad Chris Hurd hosts them.

A lens is HD or SD by it's MTF / Resolution, not what it's marketted under. I for one would like to see the MTF graph of the JVC HD100 lens, and similarly a decent broadcast SD lens, the HVX200 lens, and some high end HD lenses for comparison. I think that, and probably only that, would settle things.

As for what was, or was not seen at the NAB show. Show floors are terrible for critical viewing. That's the first issue - whether someone says something was good or bad, it's probably one of the worst environments for doing the kind of viewing we need to determine something like lens quality.

Second, is that we're talking about viewing the video on a CRT monitor, and they tend to give a rather rose tinted view of HD video, in that they smooth out imperfections and don't have the resolution/sharpness needed to judge accurately a lens.

Thirdly, I have looked at, what I think is the NAB footage JVC were using on my Decklink HD Pro, HDLink, 23" cinema display, and it looks good. It looks like the best HDV I've seen - the 24p is real, which is a nice change, and it's nice footage full stop. Is it the best looking HD I've seen - no, but it's not the worst. However, it is a little soft, and I suspect than any HD camera with a < $20k lens is going to look soft, and even still, I don't think you can make a HD lens sharp enough for a HD 1/3" camera as the imaging area is just too small. Remember, resolution of the sensor being equal, the smaller the sensor, the higher resolution the lens needs to be. The lens you use on your 2/3" HDCAM needs to be sharper than a lens you'd use on a 35mm film camera. A 1/3" HD camera makes it even harder to make that lens sharp enough to pass enough detail through to the CCDs. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think ANY HD camera with 1/3" chips is going to look totally sharp as they will all be lens limited.

Michael - I'd love it if you can get together any facts on the MTF of SD, HD and particularly the lenses in question as it would make for some very interesting reading.

Graeme

Michael:

<< My point is that Panasonic rep attacks the Fujinon lens >>

I've looked through our HVX board and our HD100 board, and I can't find any evidence of such an attack happening here. If this happened on some other site, then that's their problem, not ours. Please don't bring the politics of some other site into DV Info Net. Thanks in advance,

Graeme-

“A lens is HD or SD by it's MTF / Resolution, not what it's marketted under. I for one would like to see the MTF graph of the JVC HD100 lens, and similarly a decent broadcast SD lens, the HVX200 lens, and some high end HD lenses for comparison. I think that, and probably only that, would settle things.”

So if an engineer from Fujinon says the T16x5.5 is an HD-quality lens, and that the better quality ½” SD lenses used on the HD100 will resolve in HD quality, that holds no validity to you? I’ll look forward to an MTF/resolution side-by comparison when it is possible, but until then why discount educated opinions from experienced professionals?

”As for what was, or was not seen at the NAB show. Show floors are terrible for critical viewing. That's the first issue - whether someone says something was good or bad, it's probably one of the worst environments for doing the kind of viewing we need to determine something like lens quality.”

Second, is that we're talking about viewing the video on a CRT monitor, and they tend to give a rather rose tinted view of HD video, in that they smooth out imperfections and don't have the resolution/sharpness needed to judge accurately a lens.”

Several multiple Emmy-winning television professionals, including me, Barry Green, and others, have remarked on DV Info Net how excellent the uncompressed analog 720p60 4:2:2 output looked on the CRT monitors. After viewing enormous amounts of footage on a regular basis, in SD, HD, and DVCproHD, on CRTs, LCDs, and plasmas, we each have a real good handle on the how the various formats, resolutions, and frame rates should look as per the monitor we’re viewing it on. When highly experienced network TV pros give you an opinion on the look of footage on a monitor, trust that they know the difference between how it should look on a CRT vs. a LCD or plasma. I’m curious Graeme – did you go to NAB and view the footage, or are you judging it 2nd hand?

”I'm not sure about this, but I don't think ANY HD camera with 1/3" chips is going to look totally sharp as they will all be lens limited.”

Again, so if an engineer from Fujinon says the T16x5.5 is an HD-quality lens, and that the better quality ½” SD lenses used on the HD100 will resolve in HD quality, that holds no validity to you? I’ll look forward to an MTF/resolution side-by comparison when it is possible, but until then why discount valid opinions from experienced professionals?

Please don’t take my comments wrong. Every professional develops their own opinions based on their experience. I feel my first hand observations, and the similar first hand observations of Barry Green, and other experienced TV pros should be considered as valid for the amount of data we have available thus far. When the lenses ship, we’ll be able to do some side-by tests and put some arguments to rest…