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…

Hello Graeme.

At JVC, I have made contact with a very nice gentlemen named Ken Freed. Ken has been answering questions when I need them. I called him today. The MTF for the Fujinon lens is in the HD MTF specs.

I have worked with 60fps material 15 years ago. At Showscan, a 65mm 60fps format, if you don't have it right, it will be obvious very quickly at 60P.

The NAB display of 4:2:2 uncompressed at 60P on CRT was the best to see if a lens is going to fail. The next step would be on an optical bench.

That's my point, this lens achieves well beyond what it critics say.

The bi-product of JVC's NAB display of their new HD camera was the lens was getting it's butt put on the line with regards to going out to the CRT's like that. It recieved amazing feedback about the live image on CRT. That says a lot about the removable lens.

michael pappas

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

I'm with you 100% on that Michael, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I only wanted to clarify your point on the signal...I thought some people might read your original post and take away from it that the HD100 could record 4:2:2 uncompressed to tape. Just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

I think you're right, the best way to show off the lens is to use the best and cleanest signal possible.

My question is.....why are "reps" here anyhow? and why are they hellbent on dissin'g other competitors to make their stuff look good??

Moreover, howcome Sony's official "Rep" or Canon's official "Rep" ain't here???

Whycome they don't send someone from their marketing departments on down here to the dungeons of the internet to pump up their upcoming 8-month away stuff??

Or

Hmmmm

(scracthing my head)

(rubbing my chin)

Is the reason they don't send anyone because their actions speak louder then words?

*smile*

It's kinda like a McDonald's commercial... Have you ever noticed that McDonald's never diss's Burger King? All they ever do is tell you how good the Big Mac is and how great their stuff is, but they never disrespect their competitors. however, Burger King is CONSTANTLY dissin'g Mickey Dee's every chance they get. Spending millions of dollars and sending their "Reps" to the "hood" to try and show people how they are better then Ronald McD. and always hating on them. But still in all.....McDonald's, in all their humilty and respect for their competitors.....through all the bashing and disrespect they receive....they remain #1

1. Kinda like Honda. Have you noticed Honda has never had a "REBATE" on any of their TV commercials. All their commercials simply show you how good a Honda automobile is and why you should buy a nice inexpensive reliable Honda. However Toyota, Nissan and all the rest have Incentives and Deals and always dissin' Honda and trying to prove t the people how they are better then Honda every chance they get. But through the mist of the hater clouds....Honda remains #1.

Getting my point??
Noticing anything similar here??

lol
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A bit of advice to all the young 20-something future business owners out there:

NEVER do business with someone who openly bad mouths past people they've done business with. If someone needs to talk bad about someone or bad-mouth their competition to try and prove how good they are ..... then 9 times out of 10, THEY were the true problem in that prior business relationship and/or their competitor is actually better then they are.
You can always tell your future with someone by the way they talk about their past with others. Steer clear of businesspeople who disrespect others, rather then speaking highly of themselves only.

Trust me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- Shannon W. Rawls

"My question is.....why are "reps" here anyhow?"

We are lucky to have representative from a lot of different companies here.
They give us great information and insight. In a forum format, where rumors can fly rampant about new and existing products, it is a luxury to have someone who can give a clear and concise answer who is speaking from a position of authority on their own product line.

As far as a representatives opinion on a competitors product is concerned, I think it's fair to expect that they would point out what they view as shortcomings on a competing product.

As with anything that you read, see, or hear...consider the source, do your own research, and make up your own mind.

All in all we are lucky to have the variety of opinions, experience, and knowledge that we have here and elsewhere.

Hey Shannon,

I've always strongly encouraged all variety of official manufacturer's representatives to come in and post here, because I'd like for this place to be (among other things) a conduit between the manufacturer and their customers. Having that sort of interaction benefits everybody, and the ability to get info "straight from the maker" cuts the B.S. factor way down. It's definitely a good thing.

Woah -- that has NOT happened here! And most likely never will happen here. What you've read from Michael Pappas is something he's pulled from some other site. I feel like I've already said this five times today, but what the heck -- I guess I'll say it again! What happens at other sites does not concern us here at DV Info Net. It's strictly their problem, not ours. My response to Michael was (a little higher up in this thread):

"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,

CH"

Michael just got a little confused as to what happened where, but allow me to repeat... no rep has attacked any other rep at DV Info Net! That did not happen here. That incident should be discussed at whatever site it happened at, but I don't want DV Info Net used for that purpose (that's not what we're about).


Well, actually Dennis Adams from Sony Media Software is here. Canon Inc. unfortunately has a strict corporate policy which expressly forbids anyone from the video division posting in online message boards (however, on the professional photo side, Chuck Westfall of Canon USA is very active on the net). I've told them numerous times that this policy is a serious mistake which does them more harm than good, so hey, at least I tried to make a difference there. They lurk but they do not post, which is unfortunate for everyone.

Actually the ones you see on our boards are from their marketing departments. Hope this helps!

ok, ok.

But...I have heard, read, seen, felt.....these "reps" basically bad-mouthing other cameras, technology and companies. Even here on this site Chris my man. I don't feel like doing a serious search, but I have seen it here. I personally don't think it's cool coming from a manufacturer. It's ok coming from end-user trash talkers who just be funnin' around like me and barry and a few others, but not from someone who represents a commercial product that they wish me to buy.

If you are a rep...then rep. I'm not interested in your 'personal' opinion because I don't look at you that way. I look at you as a walking talking brochure...nothing else. if you want to give a personal opinion, then take your company name out of your signature and profile and denounce your representation of them, and then announce your representation of yourself!

If you represent a company, I don't think should go saying "Well in my opinion" or "what I think is".....(shakin' my head) nah man. it's ain't your opinion anymore. AFAIC, it's your COMPANY'S opinion now, not yours. And if you say something wrong, then that reflects on your company.

I personally like the way Honda & McDonalds handles their business. But that's just me. I trust companys like that. I beleive in people who beleive in themselves and their products and do not have to resort to showing me how their competitor is inferior to them just to get me to buy their stuff.

Ken Freed from JVC is a classic example. I have watched him talk on MANY different topics in this web forum and others, and EVERYTIME....I mean 100% of the time I seen him talk, he does it in a classy mature and professional manner. He only promotes JVC. He never disses SONY or PANASONIC or CANON or IKEGAMI or SHARP or anybody. He only talks about JVC and how wonderful they are, that's it. He never gets in arguments with other forum users, or condencends them or belittles them. He never ridicules anybody or makes them feel 'dumb' cause they didn't know something and he never bashes their opinion. This is what I have experienced from Ken Freed...

And because of that, I like Ken Freed and I like JVC.

However, there are others "Reps" on here who don't handle themselves this way, and I think it reflects bad on THEM as a person and ESPECIALLY the company they claim to represent.

Check this out....

My man Neshra told me something. He owns a Z1 and we frequently talk about features and matteboxes. He went to NAB this year and he said First of all I want to express my feelings with Panasonic Saleswoman. I have never heard such an obnoxious comment any sales person to make about their competition. No one even asked her about the Sony and JVC but she just turn and look at 5-6 people surrounding the AG-HVX200 and said "let me tell you, the Sony and JVC picture looks like a crap".
He said I was so annoyed that I had to walk away in order not to insult her.

Man, that ain't cool. And maybe Michael got his web forums mixed up, but I kinda understand where he is coming from. I understand you when you say it's good to have reps around to clear thigs up answer questions and make 'official' statements...but leave it at that. No need for the disrespect to get my dollar.

I digress.

- Shannon W. Rawls

Thanks Luis!

Graeme,

You said CRTs are not good for monitoring. What did you mean? Since 1987, and trough th 90's HD CRT's have always been how I judge the best of HD etc. Now we have Plasma-LCD. I still go with CRT in grading stage. What have you used that you like better? Is that the Apple 23" you mention? Curious...

Thanks Luis!

Graeme,

You said CRTs give a rose tinted view of HD etc for monitoring. What did you mean? Since 1987, and trough th 90's HD CRT's have always been how I judge the best of HD etc. Now we have Plasma-LCD. I still go with CRT in grading stage. What have you used that you like better? Is that the Apple 23" you mention? Curious...

You should see him in person! Ken was looking all classy and professional in a sharp pinstripe suit and tie on Tuesday at NAB. I only hope I'm half as stylish as that guy when I reach his age, heh.

Perfectly said Shannon!

Chris, it is true these negative posts were not made here, but they have been spread here and to other sites. I think Shannon has properly moved the issue from rumors of lens quality -- to the correct issue. The claims of one salesperson who works for a company that has nothing to sell into the low-end HD market.

These claims involve lens defects, the supposed poor quality of long GOP MPEG-2 -- when they know the JVC uses a short GOP -- and the totally unproven claim that their $6000 prosumer camcorder is somehow going to deliver better quality from 1/3-in. chips -- for which they fail to provide any spec -- than their competitors. In fact, they couldn't even do what Sony did at NAB 2003 -- show a working model.

This is the same BS we got when 1080i HDV was claimed to be the only real HD format. Companies who make these kinds of claims need to be called -- and called hard -- on them immediately because they count on their BS spreading faster than the truth. So IMHO, every web site needs to call a spade a spade.

Steve do you have any info on your site about short GOP and also on mpeg/HDV

Thanks, Steve -- I have always enjoyed your perspective on things!

The various marketing tactics are very interesting to say the least,

This is what I'm using: http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_decklink.html

My story with HD goes back to 2001 when I was doing an R&D project for Panavision with their new Primo Digital lenses, working with their lens metadata. I was writing software and producing 3d animations from that lens metadata to show what was possible, to be demonstrated on the Sony booth at NAB 2001.

Back then, rendering 1080p with very extensive shallow DOF effects at high quality was very time consuming, so we decided to use a less then 1080p resolution for the renders so that they'd get done in time. I scaled up the renders in After Effects and matted them into the greenscreen footage that Panavision had shot for me.

In AE, on the old cinema display I had back then, it was plainly obvious what I'd done, but it was all we could do with the deadline looming. I put the end result on a DVD-RAM (or two) to go back to Panavision to get put onto HDCAM for the show.

At NAB, I saw the footage on the HDCAM for the first time on a CineAlta CRT display, and for the life of me, I could not tell that I'd used lower resolution CG, and I could not see a lot of the keying artifacts due to the HDCAM's low chroma resolution.

That's why, when I started to get into R&D with HD video, specifically high quality scaling algorithms, I could not use a CRT, no matter what the quality or cost, because they just gloss over that kind of fine detail that I need to see, and they will gloss over the kind of details that we're talking about here too.

Here's another take on why CRT is not the best for HD monitoring purposes: http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/products.htm

CRTs really have one current advantage over LCD technology - good blacks. They are meant to have better colour, but after speaking to the BMD guys at NAB, they told me about a high end colourist visiting their Singapore facility and calibrating a LCD with their HDLink against a CRT until he was totally happy to colour correct on the LCD, so with a good eye and calibration tools, it can be done. Currently the HDlink doesn't do a smooth job with interlaced video, but that should be a newly added feature in the next release of the firmware, and from the beta I have, it should be very good indeed.

Graeme

Graeme, Thank you for the reponse.

Well, "HD quality lens" is a marketing term, not a scientific one, and is essentially meaningless. When physics says you need a sharper lens for HD on a 2/3" chip than you do for 35mm film, and that you will therefore need a sharper lens still for a 1/3" chip HD camera (going to 720p will help a little here) I severely doubt any SD lens (yes, I know, an essentially meaningless term, but you get my meaning) will be of any use on a 1/3" HD camera.

Yes, I did go to NAB, did see the footage, and have indeed, which I suspect nobody here has, viewed the footage in their own system (http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_decklink.html), and indeed did so before NAB, this thread and associated articles / comments.

I find your words quite hurtful that you seem to invalidate my opinion while bolstering your own by appealing to the awards you and others have wone and their industry status. AFAIK, you don't get tested on your eyesight and ability to determine picture quality to SMPTE standards before they allow you to win and Emmy or hold a job in Network television.

No, it doesn't hold much validity at all, because physics says different. And as you quote me saying "I'm not sure about this, but..." I must add that I have enough knowledge about the physics of optics to know that for a given CCD resolution, the smaller the CCD, the higher the resolution of the lens needs to be. That is why I comment that it might not even be possible (or at least economically possible) to make an HD lens sharp enough for a 1/3" chip CCD camera, and even if it were, I doubt it would sell for what the stock HD100 lens sells for. I discount the opinion of someone who has seen the camera footage on show floor conditions on an CRT, when I have the footage, have looked at it closely on a higher resolution display. And indeed, my opinion is that it still looks like the best HDV footage I've seen, but that it's softer than Varicam footage I have, and is most likely, for the phyical reasons I give above, lens limited.

I'm trying hard not to take your comments wrong, but I'm fairly well known, and also fairly well know for having very balanced, reasoned opionions, that might not always be the "party line", but at least have a lot of logic and reason behind them. I did not shoot off a post saying that everyone was wrong, but that because I have had the benefit of viewing the footage under controlled conditions (ie better access to available evidence), and to do some comparitive analysis, at least of the footage, I'd be listened to a bit more respectfully.

I think my key point is that making an affordable HD lens for 1/3" cameras is going to be very, very hard indeed. And picture quality-wise, you may be much further ahead with a 2/3" HD camera with a cheap lens, than a 1/3" HD camera with an expensive one, and I'm going to be very interested to see how a 2/3" SD camera (with decent lens) compares with any 1/3" camera in terms of real, actual, measureable detail / definition, as I suspect they might be much closer than many people think.

Graeme

Michael, would it be possible for your contact to be able to publish the lens specifications for us, so that we can see them here? All I'm going off is actual HD100 footage on my system, (and my visit to the JVC exhibit at NAB, which I don't think is the best environment for judging something like this).

What would help us all is to get some real measurements of what resolution a lens needs to be, taking into account the size of a CCD. All I know is that the smaller the CCD for a given resolution, the higher the resolution needs to be. So, indeed, the lens MTF could be "HD", but that might not take into account the extra sharpness needed for the smaller CCD. I don't know, but that's why I'm asking for information.

As far as I understand, making a good 35mm lens is hard, making one for a 2/3" CCD HD camera is very hard, and doing so for a 1/3"CCD HD camera is very, very hard indeed, and not a problem I expect to see solved for such a cheap camera / lens package as the HD100.

To add to this, I also doubt that Panasonic can make their HVX200 lens sharp enough also, and we could be very well in a similar "lens limiting" situation there, especially if they try to get 1080p out using pixel shift, which if I understand the maths behind it correctly, requires a high enough resolution getting through to the CCD that they alias, and I just don't think this is going to happen. Look at the Z1, it's also lens limited. They try to pixelshift, but it doesn't work as the lens won't pass enough detail to get the CCD to alias. All 1/3" HD cameras are in the same boat here - lens limited due to too small CCD.

I guess we'd all better start saving.....

Graeme

Graeme,

"Well, "HD quality lens" is a marketing term, not a scientific one, and is essentially meaningless. When physics says you need a sharper lens for HD on a 2/3" chip than you do for 35mm film, and that you will therefore need a sharper lens still for a 1/3" chip HD camera (going to 720p will help a little here) I severely doubt any SD lens (yes, I know, an essentially meaningless term, but you get my meaning) will be of any use on a 1/3" HD camera."

You still didn't address the issue I quoted. Fujinon is one of the most reputable lens manufacturers in the business. They got that way by creating quality products that satisfy the needs of the production industry, as did Canon, Zeiss, etc. They didn't get to that position by lying to industry users questioning them about their products. I use lenses from several manufacturers. What I get from your posts, including your quote above, is that you feel Fujinon is lying to the production industry about the "HD" quality of the new T16x5.5 lens, and that JVC is lying about their position that the three Fujinon 1/2' SD lenses and two Canon 1/2" SD lenses on the HD100 System Chart will adequately resolve HD images from the HD100. Would a company with the reputation of Fujinon risk their good reputation by creating a substandard lens for the HD100 - a lens that would not resolve HD images when they claim it will? I don't think so. As JVC is trying to carve out a market position in the indie and TV market with the HD100, can they afford to claim a new lens for the HD100, and existing 1'2" SD lenses shown on their System Chart will resolve HD images, if that isn't the case? Is Graeme right and Fujinon/JVC wrong?

"Yes, I did go to NAB, did see the footage, and have indeed, which I suspect nobody here has, viewed the footage in their own system (http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_decklink.html), and indeed did so before NAB, this thread and associated articles / comments.

I find your words quite hurtful that you seem to invalidate my opinion while bolstering your own by appealing to the awards you and others have wone and their industry status. AFAIK, you don't get tested on your eyesight and ability to determine picture quality to SMPTE standards before they allow you to win and Emmy or hold a job in Network television."

Wait a minute! You are the one who sought to invalidate the HD100 uncompressed output opinions of other prior posters on this thread (5/2 @ 1:41pm) by essentially trying to "school" us on the difference in how footage looks on CRTs vs. LCDs. The essence of what you posted was that we really didn't know what we were looking at and how it should look on various monitors. Before you go saying something like that you better know the background of who you are accusing of not knowing how HD footage should look on monitors. My quoting of my background and others backgrounds was simply a refutation of your position, and to let you know that YES we do know what we're looking at because we've done a lot of looking for a lot of years! Your recent statement about eyesight testing before someone wins an Emmy or works for a networks is simply ludicrous. If someone spends several decades producing, directing, editing, and shooting network programming, and winning scores of national awards at it, they don't how to judge the quality of footage or a live output to a monitor? What kind of a ridiculous position is that? I'm online right now. on your web site. I've looked through every page for a biography on you - an indication of a background in network television or indication of having won any television production awards. I also don't see an optical engineer background for you listed on your web site. What gave you the credentials to start this whole exchange by telling prior posters on this thread that we don't know how to judge footage? What I do see on your web site is lots of pictures of Panasonic HVX200 cameras and Final Cut Pro plugins and articles. Where's the HD100 pictures on your web site? Based on the info on your own web site it sure appears that your business is based around Panasonic cameras and Final Cut Pro. Do you have an agenda in debunking the lens resolution capabilities of the JVC HD100 on this forum?

"No, it doesn't hold much validity at all, because physics says different. And as you quote me saying "I'm not sure about this, but..." I must add that I have enough knowledge about the physics of optics to know that for a given CCD resolution, the smaller the CCD, the higher the resolution of the lens needs to be. That is why I comment that it might not even be possible (or at least economically possible) to make an HD lens sharp enough for a 1/3" chip CCD camera, and even if it were, I doubt it would sell for what the stock HD100 lens sells for. I discount the opinion of someone who has seen the camera footage on show floor conditions on an CRT, when I have the footage, have looked at it closely on a higher resolution display. And indeed, my opinion is that it still looks like the best HDV footage I've seen, but that it's softer than Varicam footage I have, and is most likely, for the phyical reasons I give above, lens limited."

Lets analyze this: You're not an optical engineer, and yet you don't believe the claims of a Fujinon optical engineer? Fujinon and JVC have both claimed that the T16x5.5 lens was custom engineered for the HD100 and will resolve HD images - but you claim they are both wrong or are lying? Fujinon and JVC have both claimed that the better 1/2" SD lenses, when used on the HD100, will resolve HD images - but you claim they are wrong or lying? You claim you have some original footage from the HD100 at full resolution, and have tested it, which totally sidesteps the original issue brought up on this thread - that the 16x lens resolved excellent HD images on the uncompressed 720p60 output at the NAB booth, and that if it wasn't an "HD quality" lens, it wouldn't have been able to resolve those images. Your strategy has been to attack the capability of others who viewed the footage as being unqualified to judge the CRT output, and to try to establish LCDs as better than CRTs. If you have the "footage", hasn't that footage been subject to MPEG2TS compression, with it's inherent compression artifacts? How can that footage then be judged as demonstrating the top-performance of the 16x lens? Isn't the live uncompressed output we all witnessed a better indication of the resolving capabilities of the lens than your compressed footage? None of the rest of us have seen the footage you say you have - but many of us have seen the uncompressed output and it looked exceptional. Again you mention a Panasonic product (Varicam). FYI - I love the Varicam and use it regularly. It's an exceptional tool for acquiring great images. I also love the DVX100a and use it regularly. But I also love the JVC DV500 and DV5100, and use them regularly. For that matter, I also love the Sony F900, and use it regularly. That said, I find it interesting that you have the HVX pictures on your web site, no HDV camera pictures, and now refer to an $85K (with lens) Panasonic product to debunk the quality of a $6k JVC product. Doesn't you're using the Varicam in the same sentence as footage from the HD100, and only saying that the HD100 footage is "softer", tell us readers that the HD100 must be remarkable, and the 16x lens very capable, if you're not making a more harsh judgement of the difference?

"I'm trying hard not to take your comments wrong, but I'm fairly well known, and also fairly well know for having very balanced, reasoned opionions, that might not always be the "party line", but at least have a lot of logic and reason behind them. I did not shoot off a post saying that everyone was wrong, but that because I have had the benefit of viewing the footage under controlled conditions (ie better access to available evidence), and to do some comparitive analysis, at least of the footage, I'd be listened to a bit more respectfully.

I think my key point is that making an affordable HD lens for 1/3" cameras is going to be very, very hard indeed. And picture quality-wise, you may be much further ahead with a 2/3" HD camera with a cheap lens, than a 1/3" HD camera with an expensive one, and I'm going to be very interested to see how a 2/3" SD camera (with decent lens) compares with any 1/3" camera in terms of real, actual, measureable detail / definition, as I suspect they might be much closer than many people think."


Again, if you've viewed "footage", how does that equate to us viewing live uncompressed output on good monitors? Isn't the live uncompressed output a better indication of the quality of the 16x lens than "footage" you have that has been subjected to MPEG2TS compression artifacts? When the HD100 and 16x lens ships and can be tested at length, in multiple scenarios, isn't that a better way to judge the lenses ability to resolve HD images? So why debunk the capabilities of the lens, call Fujinon and JVC liars before the facts are in and can be analyzed? It was your post of 5/2 @ 1:41p that triggered this whole exchange.

Graeme, this has been an interesting exchange of ideas and positions. FYI - I have used, and do regularly use products from almost all manufacturers: Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Ikagami, Apple, Fujinon, Canon, Media 100, Avid, and on and on. Among other editing applications, I use Final Cut Pro. I simply match the paintbrush to what I'm going to paint.

I'm not interested in clogging this thread by continuing this tennis match online. If you want to debate the issues futher, simply e-mail me at steve@cut4.tv and we can continue offline.

Whether someone claims that a lens is HD, and whether it actually is HD, is something that can be determined by simple testing. Sony refers to the Zeiss T* lens on the Z1 as an HD lens, but look on the FX1/Z1 board here for a thread running right now that pretty much acknowledges the lens is demonstrating chromatic aberrations.

I thought the live footage at the booth looked great. But, let's be fair, it was on small CRTs that were overhead. It's not like we were critically analyzing a 42" display, we saw small CRTs that were six or eight feet away, right?

I was quite impressed with what I saw, on the CRTs. I thought what was on the plasma was disappointing, but the CRTs looked good. But that's a first impression, at a trade show. Before declaring that the lens and image system are good enough, I would want to test it thoroughly. I think anyone would.

Graeme knows more about images than I think any of us here ever will. Images are his business. He may not be an optical engineer, or a television producer, but he's freaking brilliant and he knows what he's talking about.

Attempts to discredit someone publicly are poor form, as is bashing a product that's not even on the market yet. The simple fact of the matter is: the JVC lens will either hold up under testing, or it won't, regardless of what JVC's engineers or Fujinon's engineers or Graeme or Steve or I say about it. It either will or it won't. And that's a determination that cannot be made until we get our hands on it and put it through some testing.

As far as I can tell (looking back through my R&D notes from working with Panavision) the 2/3" CCD on the HDCAM F900 (I think it was that at the time) has pixels of 5x5 microns, and a corresponding resolution of 100lp/mm. Does anyone have the CCD dimensions of the JVC HD100 1/3" camera? I took a guess based upon the above dimensions of a 2/3" 16:9 sensor and figured out that the pixels on the JVC are going to be around 3.7 microns square. That equates to a resolution of 133lp/mm.

Now, Fujinon don't have any MTF specs for the lenses, and I don't see any on the JVC site, but I did see the specs for the Zeiss DigiPrimes:

rated at 100lp/mm, but with a 90%mtf at 56lpmm. Usually, for the rated resolution they take the 5% mtf point, so I'm guessing that it has no resolution beyond 100lpmm.

So, for a 1/3" 720p camera, we need a lens rated at 133lp/mm, which to me means that..... Well, I've said my piece already, but I think anyone with a little mathematics can draw their own connclusions, but simply put, there's going to be quite a few figures after the $ sign.

For what it's worth, again at a rough guess, the Z1 CCD is about 100lp/mm horizontal but 200lp/mm vertical (again if anyone has exact CCD measurements, I can refine these figures).

Given this, I don't hold much hope of any 1/3" CCD camera not being lens limited for the forseable future, no matter whether it's Sony, Panasonic, or JVC, and whether it's lens comes from Zeiss, Fuginon or Leica.

Graeme

Barry-

After reading your last post I find I agree with most of what you said. If you really analyze it we've circumlocuted around to the original bottom line: without an actual hands-on test of the HD100 with a T16x5.5 lens attached, everything anyone says is conjecture. That said, the only thing experienced professionals in the TV/video industry can use to draw preliminary conclusions is the camera and lens manufacturer tech sheets and what we've actually seen first-person thus far. My purpose in even bothering to post on this board, or any other, is to share impressions and information with other interested parties, in essence, to network. I'm not on a mission to convert anyone to my line of thinking. I'm also not interested in being told that something didn't look as good as my eyes observed it. When the camera and lens are released, and thoroughly tested, we'll have definitive answers. Until then, everything is merely opinion. And opinions are like noses - every one has one.

As for someone having more knowledge on images than me, I don't think you are in a position to make that judgement. After contributing as a producer, director, editor, and cameraman to over 700 national television programs, SD and HD, that aired on 12 different networks, I have a pretty good handle on technology and images...

Graeme, that was English right? ;) My head hurts now...Where can I go to learn something so I can, at least superficially, understand what you just said?

Aaron

Steve, Graeme, Barry,
I don't think anyone of you mean to be escalating a heated discourse, but it's somewhat starting to sound that way.
But as you've each pointed out one way or another, it's ALL conjecture for everyone at this point, until you've got the glass and body in hand, and can make comments on what you *are* seeing, not what you've read, what you saw, think you saw, or might have seen at a tradeshow in less than ideal, or perceptually the most ideal situation.
It seems like this discussion can't really go anywhere else for a few months, right?

Hey Spot-

Well said. I agree and voiced the same in my last post. It's kicking a dead horse right now- nothing will be solved.

Let's move on...

Hi Steve, Can I have a try at this.

It's actually like kicking an unborn horse.

Since, it's still in the creation stage.....

An expert on lighting design I am not, but it doesn't take a genious to notice the way these sets are lit at NAB: None of them had any blacks and everything was lit to textbook perfection and limited to within a couple of stops dynamic range. Every camera looked good at NAB.

These companies hire serious Set and Lighting Designers to make the cameras shine. Just an observation from a middle class film worker..

Brian