|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 4th, 2006, 02:09 AM | #1 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
|
HD SD lens comparison
This is something much discussed and much debated so I took the opportunity on a shoot over the weekend to do a rough lens comparison between my Canon 19x6.7 half inch SD lens and a new canon HD 2/3 inch lens (Canon HJ11ex4.7 HD lens I think). Well the results were kind of as I suspected. There is very little to no difference that I can see. If anything I think the half inch SD lens is sharper! I have put a couple of frame grabs on my server for you to see for yourselves. Look in particular at the detail in the grass and the flight sim ride in the background.
http://www.ingenioustv.co.uk/clips/canonhd.zip http://www.ingenioustv.co.uk/clips/canonsd.zip Both are TIFF grabs from raw 35Mb MXF's. It's a bit of a rough test, but it is a "real world" situation as opposed to a test chart.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com |
September 4th, 2006, 05:04 AM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
There's CA in both. But the HD lens is showing much nicer, cleaner lines. CHeck out the outline of the top of the jet airliner, and the top of its engines, and where the navy blue of the underside meets the white halfway up the fuselage on the SD version compared to the HD one. The SD one looks horrible. In fact the SD one looks like its had the digital enhancement pushed up.
Although the lighting is different on both. So it may be that you had the detail level pushed up way too high anyway. There be some horrible black outlines on many parts of the picture, especially on the SD one where the sun has come out. |
September 4th, 2006, 05:33 AM | #3 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
|
It looks to me also that the SD shot had it's detail cranked up. But if it didn't, then I'm curious as to why it looks it.
While one would be wise to get good glass on this camera, I'm with Alister though. The difference between the two is nowhere as bad as you would be led to believe by some (by "some" I mean sales people). All that said, SD glass seems to round off any resolution advantage this cameras has over, say, an XL-H1. Not a great thing.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net |
September 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM | #4 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
I think if the detail enhancement was turned off on both cameras a truer impression of the resolving ability of the lenses would be shown. Edge enhancement gives a really false impression of the picture, and it is hard to seperate what is being done by the lens and what is being introduced artifically (although in the extremes of the picture the big black and white outlines give it away). |
|
September 4th, 2006, 08:39 AM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
|
OK here is another still from the SD lens, from the same clip just a couple of seconds later where the sun on the plane (an old BAC 111) is not so strong.
http://www.ingenioustv.co.uk/clips/canonsd2.zip The rather horrid edge enhancement is much reduced on this example. This shows that edge enhancement is most noticable on areas of very high contrast as from the almost clipped aircraft to sky or white aircraft body to dark aircraft engine on the previous SD lens grab. This is not so much a function of the lens as the F350's electronics and I have not played with the knee aperture to see if perhaps this can be reduced. Look at the picture of the pilot painted on the side of the simulator ride, look at the ME109 aircraft (the one with the black cross) in particular the propellor and antenna, also look at the two aircraft in the clouds above. To my eye the SD lens looks to be clearer. I like to use this part of the image as it is mid range, not overly high contrast and does not appear too enhanced by aperture correction. Also look at the leaves on the tree on the far right of the frame. All the camera settings were the same, the lens was simply swapped and the the two shots taken. The point I am making is that the difference between half inch SD glass and 2/3 inch HD glass is minimal, probably due to the fact that 2/3 inch lenses are designed for the much larger photosites on 2/3 inch CCD's. I know and have seen the difference between SD and HD 2/3 inch lenses on 2/3 inch cameras, but even then it really depends on the quality of the 2/3 inch SD lens as there is huge variation between lenses and I have yet to see any HD lens/CCD combo that dosn't have CA issues. I really, really want to see a direct comparison between a good SD and HD half inch lens, there should be more of a difference as both will be designed for the same size CCD's, but I'm not convinced and won't be until I see proof. One question this test does ask is just how soft must a SD 2/3 inch lens look on a F350? For me there is no point in spending over £20k for the marginal (I think the 2/3HD is softer) improvement that a 2/3 inch HD lens may give over a good £2k SD half inch lens. I need to see a half inch HD comparison. BTW the detail was set a little high from a previous shoot and did get turned back down, but I didn't have time to do another lens comparison.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com |
September 4th, 2006, 09:45 AM | #6 | |||
Wrangler
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
[edit: I want to clarify: I don't mean to say that there's no difference between an SD and an HD lens, because there are MTF charts, etc that will tell you otherwise. I'm saying more along the lines that I think lens manus oversimplify the issue. "You need an HD lens because you have an HD camera. If you have this camera, then you should spend at least X amount, or you're wasting your money"] Quote:
http://homepage.mac.com/nweaver/.Pub...T00002.tif.zip I'm in the process now of testing a Canon H9x3.8 1/2" lens I found. I'll let everybody know how it turns out.
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net Last edited by Nate Weaver; September 4th, 2006 at 11:32 AM. |
|||
September 4th, 2006, 09:54 AM | #7 | |||
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
As for the sharpness, you may be right to a degree. I'd still like to see it with the detail off to get a truer picture (as well as knowledge that the back focus had been set precisely beforehand. I know you would have done, but for a scientific test...), as well as knowning that the lens itself was focussed very precisely. It could be that the HD lens was just ever so slightly out compared to the SD one. So we really need things to be set up properly to make sure anomolies like this aren't introduced. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|