Video vs. Film Lens at DVinfo.net

Jason Chang · October 26th, 2003, 05:48 PM

Hi all,

I've done a test over the weekend to determine if there is any advantage in using a photo lens on the Canon XL1. I used a 28mm Nikon with an F8 iris opening. I tried to match the shot size with the Canon 16X video lens @ F8 as well. I did not do any post color or contrast enhancement on either screen grabs. I would like to get everyone's opinion on the images.

http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg

http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/film.jpg

Dylan Couper · October 27th, 2003, 12:11 AM

The one labeled video looks much better IMHO.

Brian Huey · October 27th, 2003, 03:55 AM

I seem to like the leaves in the background of the 'film' image better and the lady better in the 'video' image.

The 'video' appears to have a smoother look to it while the 'film has a bit more contrast.

Have any more stills to post?

BTW You can add [url ] before and [/url ] (withouth the space) after the address to hotlink it. So it's [url ]http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg[/url ] without the spaces inside of the brackets.

http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg

http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/film.jpg

Cheers,
Huey

Adrian Douglas · October 27th, 2003, 07:30 AM

I'm with Dylan, but the lighting is too poor to really get a good idea.

Rob Belics · October 27th, 2003, 07:32 AM

I agree. The "film" lens has much better contrast and chromaticity. I would assume the video lens is cheaper or possibly a zoom?

Don Donatello · October 27th, 2003, 03:35 PM

i didn't look at the pic's ...
but lens made for 35mm do NOT have the resolution that lens made for 16mm ( 16 mm lens must resolve more lines then 35mm) .. the larger the format then less lines of resolution - if you look at lens made for 2 1/4 camera's the lens may have around 40 lines of resolution whilte 35mm may have around 60-70 ... 16mm 100 lines .. lens made for 4x5 camera only need around 20-25 lines of resolution ...the smaller the format the MORE lines of resolution required ... so for a 1/4 or 1/3 " CCD the lens should have a higher resoloving then 35mm lens ... also 35 lens are MADE to focus on a flat object they are not designed to go thru a beam splitter and sent to 3 different CCD's ...
take a look at HD lens ( made for 2/3 " CCD's ) and you will see they have a higher resolving power then 35mm lens ...

now all that is theory as you must take price into consideration on these hand size camera's ... and THEN again the 35mm/16mm/ 2/3" video lens are probably beyond what the NTSC signal can resolve anyway ?? so maybe that makes resolving power useless when comparing these lens ? on a NTSC video camera ??

October 26th, 2003, 05:48 PM	#1
Jason Chang Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego, CA USA Posts: 163	Video vs. Film Lens Hi all, I've done a test over the weekend to determine if there is any advantage in using a photo lens on the Canon XL1. I used a 28mm Nikon with an F8 iris opening. I tried to match the shot size with the Canon 16X video lens @ F8 as well. I did not do any post color or contrast enhancement on either screen grabs. I would like to get everyone's opinion on the images. http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/film.jpg

October 27th, 2003, 12:11 AM	#2
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	The one labeled video looks much better IMHO. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

October 27th, 2003, 07:30 AM	#4
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	I'm with Dylan, but the lighting is too poor to really get a good idea. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

October 27th, 2003, 03:55 AM	#3
Brian Huey Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Seattle , WA Posts: 184	I seem to like the leaves in the background of the 'film' image better and the lady better in the 'video' image. The 'video' appears to have a smoother look to it while the 'film has a bit more contrast. Have any more stills to post? BTW You can add [url ] before and [/url ] (withouth the space) after the address to hotlink it. So it's [url ]http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg[/url ] without the spaces inside of the brackets. http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/video.jpg http://www.beinfinity.com/temp/jason/film.jpg Cheers, Huey

October 27th, 2003, 07:32 AM	#5
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	I agree. The "film" lens has much better contrast and chromaticity. I would assume the video lens is cheaper or possibly a zoom?

October 27th, 2003, 03:35 PM	#6
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	i didn't look at the pic's ... but lens made for 35mm do NOT have the resolution that lens made for 16mm ( 16 mm lens must resolve more lines then 35mm) .. the larger the format then less lines of resolution - if you look at lens made for 2 1/4 camera's the lens may have around 40 lines of resolution whilte 35mm may have around 60-70 ... 16mm 100 lines .. lens made for 4x5 camera only need around 20-25 lines of resolution ...the smaller the format the MORE lines of resolution required ... so for a 1/4 or 1/3 " CCD the lens should have a higher resoloving then 35mm lens ... also 35 lens are MADE to focus on a flat object they are not designed to go thru a beam splitter and sent to 3 different CCD's ... take a look at HD lens ( made for 2/3 " CCD's ) and you will see they have a higher resolving power then 35mm lens ... now all that is theory as you must take price into consideration on these hand size camera's ... and THEN again the 35mm/16mm/ 2/3" video lens are probably beyond what the NTSC signal can resolve anyway ?? so maybe that makes resolving power useless when comparing these lens ? on a NTSC video camera ??