For the Varicam that I've been renting (a lot) lately from a local shooter I have the option to choose between a HD (wides) lens or long SD lens (same price). I also tried standard length HD lenses. After trying them both I opted for the SD lens, it's a top quality SD lens. Doing a lot of interviews I found the SD lens to be more face friendly, it makes people look better, it's of course still very sharp and the details looks to be the same (non scientific test), only I don't see those little skin pores standing out like ugly little dots. I also tried to place a soft filter in front of a HD lens but it looks like a soft filter. The question is, for people photography is a SD lens better on HD cameras than a HD lens?
HD vs SD lenses on Varicam
- Thread starter Nino
- Start date
TimG
Well-known member
Back when I was an AC I was working on a feature with this DP that never used filters. I asked him about it one day and he said; "Now why would I want to put a $100 piece of glass in front of this beautiful $30,000 example of optic perfection?
I'd avoid putting an SD lens on an HD camera if you can help it. I'd suggest dialing down the detail level in-camera before going to an inferior piece of glass.
A few years back I went to an engineer in LA who specializes in lenses. He put my Canon SD 8x14 lens and my Fuginon HD 5x10 lens on this projector that threw a huge test pattern on a 10' x 15' foot wall. It's very cool to be able to walk up to and scrutinize an image your lens makes. The SD lens' focus fell off noticeably on the edges of the pattern. Hell it was soft out there and when you threw on the doubler and zoomed all the way in . . . . well, it was pretty bad. The HD lens was in another universe. It was tack sharp in every square inch of that pattern - even zoomed in with the doubler. That day made me a believer.
One HD show I shoot for asked last month if I'd discount my rate if I shot with an SD wide angle. I dropped my rate $100 but kept using the HD lens.
If you're asking this for a personal project my opinion doesn't really apply but the point I'm trying to make is that, in my mind, this whole HD thing is all about resolution and sharpness. Sure, as photographers we know better and we can see the drawbacks of revealing every flaw in a person's face but viewers and most producers (especially those that have to answer directly to the EP at the Network) want their images to be tack sharp and they want to see all the detail - that's why they pay us a 90% premium to shoot in HD. If your images are softer than the other guys, if there's less detail in your shots - even if it is for the right reason like an interview . . . . . well that might bite you in the ass when they think of hiring you on the next one. I'd let them tweak the diffusion level in post.
FWIW . . .
Tim
I'd avoid putting an SD lens on an HD camera if you can help it. I'd suggest dialing down the detail level in-camera before going to an inferior piece of glass.
A few years back I went to an engineer in LA who specializes in lenses. He put my Canon SD 8x14 lens and my Fuginon HD 5x10 lens on this projector that threw a huge test pattern on a 10' x 15' foot wall. It's very cool to be able to walk up to and scrutinize an image your lens makes. The SD lens' focus fell off noticeably on the edges of the pattern. Hell it was soft out there and when you threw on the doubler and zoomed all the way in . . . . well, it was pretty bad. The HD lens was in another universe. It was tack sharp in every square inch of that pattern - even zoomed in with the doubler. That day made me a believer.
One HD show I shoot for asked last month if I'd discount my rate if I shot with an SD wide angle. I dropped my rate $100 but kept using the HD lens.
If you're asking this for a personal project my opinion doesn't really apply but the point I'm trying to make is that, in my mind, this whole HD thing is all about resolution and sharpness. Sure, as photographers we know better and we can see the drawbacks of revealing every flaw in a person's face but viewers and most producers (especially those that have to answer directly to the EP at the Network) want their images to be tack sharp and they want to see all the detail - that's why they pay us a 90% premium to shoot in HD. If your images are softer than the other guys, if there's less detail in your shots - even if it is for the right reason like an interview . . . . . well that might bite you in the ass when they think of hiring you on the next one. I'd let them tweak the diffusion level in post.
FWIW . . .
Tim
This is probably the most un-scientific test ever conducted, but I have right now two cameras, the 600 and the Varicam pointed to the same object, a colorful decorative plate, both lenses wide open. Both cameras are plugged into a Panasonic 17” HD monitor and I can’t see any color or sharpness problems on the fringe of the image, this is where any chromatic aberrations should be more evident. Actually I’m getting a very slight soft edge with the 600. Keep in mind that I’m talking mostly about interviews, and b roll stuff. All the shows that I’ve done and seen on TV until now all look great, there’s no evidence of any problems and none were brought to my attention by the clients. For more critical work I would definitely go with an HD lens.
My comparison is not intended to save money on the cost of the lenses, but really to see what it does on faces as it looks like most of my HD work has been interviews, and I really dislike the look of HD on people. In the old photography days for large format cameras we had commercial lenses and portrait lenses. The portrait lenses were actually more expensive but gave us a more pleasant look, not necessarily softer or less sharp like when using filters. I also feel that there's a difference when creating a softer look optically rather than electronically, of course this is my opinion.
I have an HD wide angle on my VariCam and like Tim, I don't like soft filters. It detracts from HD. I know people that use SD lenses on VariCams and you can probably get away with it. I've personally done tests(simple observational tests on a monitor, nothing scientific) with an F-900 and SD and HD glass, and you can tell a big difference on a 1080 system(chromatic abberations are very apparent with SD lenses). When I watch HD, I want to see a sharp image, not necesarily harsh, but sharp. If the camera is set-up right, it won't be harsh.
Cinematographers who shoot with the F900 frequently use a Black Frost filter on closeups to give a more flattering look. I personally have found that the most pleasing look from either digital still photography or shooting video is to use the sharpest lens possible and the least amount of electronic edge enhancement,detail level,etc... These circuits draw white lines on sharp edges to increase the sharpness. Which doesn't look natural to me.
Excessive Edge enhancement is what makes skin flaws pop out on TV, IMHO.
Also try using a small dose of skin detail, where you select the skin and lower the detail level just on the skin. Then the eyes, hair, and clothes keep that HD sharpness.
Excessive Edge enhancement is what makes skin flaws pop out on TV, IMHO.
Also try using a small dose of skin detail, where you select the skin and lower the detail level just on the skin. Then the eyes, hair, and clothes keep that HD sharpness.
Stoney
Well-known member
I've used SD glass and HD glass with my HDX900. Now, for practical purposes, the SD lens is fine. There is a limit to it's effectiveness, and choosy clients can find the limitations in post. I notice the biggest difference with chromatic abberations in one specific instance: very bright against dark. For instance, a reflection off a shiny object, or edges of a bright window from inside, will produce a blue-ish halo against a dark background. It is minor, but it is there. I know it is there, so I plan around it.
I think if the image is looking good to you in the field, during an interview, your gut feeling is right to use the SD glass. It is effectively the same as a filter. Most people hire us for sense of aesthetic as well as camera operation. So, if it looks good, do it. If questionable, double-check with producers about the decision. 99.9% of field producers will let us make the call.
My HD lens is a mid-length, about 7.6. I don't like it. It's the one that Panasonic sold as a package deal with the HDX900. The depth of field is difficult when running and gunning. And, the MOD is a pain in the butt... I find myself focusing a lot with the macro... which is obviously problematic. I love the wide lens for day-day shoots and am thinking about selling off my two SD lenses (one wide, one 6.5) to procure one good HD wide lens. I am sure it would be the lens I use most.
I wish I didn't have a mortgage and looming tax bill!
I think if the image is looking good to you in the field, during an interview, your gut feeling is right to use the SD glass. It is effectively the same as a filter. Most people hire us for sense of aesthetic as well as camera operation. So, if it looks good, do it. If questionable, double-check with producers about the decision. 99.9% of field producers will let us make the call.
My HD lens is a mid-length, about 7.6. I don't like it. It's the one that Panasonic sold as a package deal with the HDX900. The depth of field is difficult when running and gunning. And, the MOD is a pain in the butt... I find myself focusing a lot with the macro... which is obviously problematic. I love the wide lens for day-day shoots and am thinking about selling off my two SD lenses (one wide, one 6.5) to procure one good HD wide lens. I am sure it would be the lens I use most.
I wish I didn't have a mortgage and looming tax bill!
I've used the Varicam with Zeiss prime lenses that still showed CA in certain high contrast areas. Good glass is good glass whether it is a SD lens or the newer HD lenses.
If it definitely going to be finished in HD or shown on a big screen it would be best to do all you can to eliminate the CA artifacts.
If it definitely going to be finished in HD or shown on a big screen it would be best to do all you can to eliminate the CA artifacts.
Max Girth
Well-known member
Nino,
In my experience, it depends on which HD camera you're talking about.
The Varicam, as good of a camera as it is, is not particularly high-resolution. It captures 1280x720 at the chips, and squeezes that down to 960x720 on tape. Compare that to 1920x1080 for a F900 which gets squeezed to 1440x1080. If you saw these frame sizes graphically represented (which you already may have), or on monitors that show all the res, it's a big difference.
That said, my experience is also that SOME sd lenses are up to the task. I've used recent model Canon J-series 11x4.5 on XDCAM HD, and it's been fine. Knowing the res difference between an F350 and a Varicam, I wouldn't hesitate to put the same Canon SD lens on a Varicam for a second.
I think you just have to put each potential SD lens on a chart to see if it's good enough for you...in my opinion a few are, but most are not.
In my experience, it depends on which HD camera you're talking about.
The Varicam, as good of a camera as it is, is not particularly high-resolution. It captures 1280x720 at the chips, and squeezes that down to 960x720 on tape. Compare that to 1920x1080 for a F900 which gets squeezed to 1440x1080. If you saw these frame sizes graphically represented (which you already may have), or on monitors that show all the res, it's a big difference.
That said, my experience is also that SOME sd lenses are up to the task. I've used recent model Canon J-series 11x4.5 on XDCAM HD, and it's been fine. Knowing the res difference between an F350 and a Varicam, I wouldn't hesitate to put the same Canon SD lens on a Varicam for a second.
I think you just have to put each potential SD lens on a chart to see if it's good enough for you...in my opinion a few are, but most are not.
Canonman
Well-known member
BTW, chromatic aberration, from a designer's perspective, is more difficult to control on HD lenses than SD lenses.
@Stoney, I've seen the same blue halo effect you speak of in some of my stuff. I've seen it on PGA Tour broadcasts when the golfer wears a white hat or shirt and the dark background creates the high contrast. It tends to be a problem with the long end of the lens and where the key light (sun) is at a high angle (like the broadcast window for golf). You'll notice it always appears on the right hand side of the object. I'm told it's not so much an optics thing as it is a sensor overload.
I've had an SD lens on my F-350 for a brief time and the color saturation was nice, but I could see the loss of sharpness.
cm
@Stoney, I've seen the same blue halo effect you speak of in some of my stuff. I've seen it on PGA Tour broadcasts when the golfer wears a white hat or shirt and the dark background creates the high contrast. It tends to be a problem with the long end of the lens and where the key light (sun) is at a high angle (like the broadcast window for golf). You'll notice it always appears on the right hand side of the object. I'm told it's not so much an optics thing as it is a sensor overload.
I've had an SD lens on my F-350 for a brief time and the color saturation was nice, but I could see the loss of sharpness.
cm
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
This is a great thread. It's helping me a lot.
I rented an HDX900 a couple of weeks ago. I absolutely loved the camera. It was obvious to me that it created a noisy image in the blacks. But the color rendition was fantastic. And on the whole the camera was light weight, mobile and easy to use.
I own a 17x7.7 Canon lens. I used that lens for most of the shoot. And, truthfully, I never really looked at the picture discerningly to gauge what affect the lens had on the image. But there were a few situations where I was forced to use my SD wide angle lens. I have a Canon 5.2 WA. I will be the first to admit that I am not the most picky photographer in the world. I am interested in content, framing and lighting most of all. I notice the big problems in a picture. Sometimes I am oblivious to the smaller artifacts -- like the HDX900's noise. I was slow to recognize that.
When I used my SD wide angle lens, I noticed no appreciable degredation of image quality. I was using a Panasonic HD 17" monitor. And I was really looking at the picture because I liked the camera so much. But I saw no obvious drop off in quality.
That said -- in the long term, I would NOT proceed without HD lenses. All you need is that one time for a client to see something you didn't and you'll live for a long time kicking yourself that you cut corners. Still, HD lenses are very expensive and owning an HD camera isn't like owning a Betacam. It will be a long time before you recoup your money and make a profit on every shoot. I am absolutely convinced that finding used equipment is the way to go. It takes more time and you have to be more creative with your financing. But you will save yourself thousands of dollars. The Canon lens I bought was pristine. I paid $12.5K for it over a year ago. Even now I see it going for $15.5K. The savings buys you the HD monitor.
I rented an HDX900 a couple of weeks ago. I absolutely loved the camera. It was obvious to me that it created a noisy image in the blacks. But the color rendition was fantastic. And on the whole the camera was light weight, mobile and easy to use.
I own a 17x7.7 Canon lens. I used that lens for most of the shoot. And, truthfully, I never really looked at the picture discerningly to gauge what affect the lens had on the image. But there were a few situations where I was forced to use my SD wide angle lens. I have a Canon 5.2 WA. I will be the first to admit that I am not the most picky photographer in the world. I am interested in content, framing and lighting most of all. I notice the big problems in a picture. Sometimes I am oblivious to the smaller artifacts -- like the HDX900's noise. I was slow to recognize that.
When I used my SD wide angle lens, I noticed no appreciable degredation of image quality. I was using a Panasonic HD 17" monitor. And I was really looking at the picture because I liked the camera so much. But I saw no obvious drop off in quality.
That said -- in the long term, I would NOT proceed without HD lenses. All you need is that one time for a client to see something you didn't and you'll live for a long time kicking yourself that you cut corners. Still, HD lenses are very expensive and owning an HD camera isn't like owning a Betacam. It will be a long time before you recoup your money and make a profit on every shoot. I am absolutely convinced that finding used equipment is the way to go. It takes more time and you have to be more creative with your financing. But you will save yourself thousands of dollars. The Canon lens I bought was pristine. I paid $12.5K for it over a year ago. Even now I see it going for $15.5K. The savings buys you the HD monitor.
You can always go grey... I bought my Fuji HD wide angle from Big 10 Media out of FL and saved over $7G's over what my regular dealer wanted. In fact it was as cheap or cheaper than the SD versions price from my dealer. I asked one of my dealers why the US prices are SO high compared to overseas for the exact same item and I was told the US side of the companies actually buy the lenses from the factories in Japan and mark them up that much more to the US dealers and US market.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
But I wonder if that is still true today since the dollar is so weak.
Lots of good comments here. My .02 is that a W/A lens is a lot harder to get really sharp, hence the very high price. So for HD, an HD W/A is a very good idea but perhaps a very good quality SD standard lens, when not pushed to extremes will work OK.
Having said that, I have a History channel client that will accept a SD W/A as long as I don't try to bill HD lens rental rates. Evidently some have tried that.
Just used the 4.5 Fuji HD. Wow is that wide! Fun lens to use. Shows dirt on the front element very easy!
Having said that, I have a History channel client that will accept a SD W/A as long as I don't try to bill HD lens rental rates. Evidently some have tried that.
Just used the 4.5 Fuji HD. Wow is that wide! Fun lens to use. Shows dirt on the front element very easy!
I got two quotes a few months ago, one from a grey market dealer and one from another big, US mainstream dealer and there was about $7G's difference in price again, this time for a long lens(22x7.8), instead of the 13x4.5 I got almost two years ago. But here's a little secret, if your dealer is good, they'll put the screws to Fuji who will try to match the grey market price if you have a verifiable quote(just found that out after telling my dealer about the price difference. Won't work for Canon, though. They have policies against grey market goods and apparently Fuji doesn't).
Last edited:
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
Let me bend this thread a bit. Canon or Fujinon? Do you think there are any appreciable differences between the two? Particularly when it comes to HD lenses? I have heard some people argue one brand over another. But here we are talking SD vs. HD. And I am wondering if, at the HD level, people think one is better than the other. For me, the more factual information, the better.
Personal preferance will probably come into play here just like when debating their SD counterparts. When it comes to W/A's on the Vari, I see more Fuji 13x4.5's than anything else. On the remote HD side I see more Canon(long and wide). When we were doing Sports Century HD, we shot with Fuji. I personally have a Fuji W/A and am purchasing a Fuji long HD lens. Canon has a menu system on their lenses to customize settings(zoom speed curve, shot preset, etc.) and Fuji has actual buttons/dials to acomplish these things, which is more practical in the field(although most of these things are never used in the field). Personaly, I think you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference in the images between two similar lenses(Canon w/a vs. Fuji w/a; Canon long vs. Fuji long), if you could at all.
Cameradude
Well-known member
If I owned an HD camera and owned HD lenses I would try to convince every assignment editor that the HD lenses are the only way to go and to only hire crews with HD lenses.
Price has been used in this business for years to separate the wheat from the chaff. Folks will remember it was used to elevate the D600 to where it was "the only camera to use" in the 90's. Is it fair or accurate? Heck no, but for those who do not know any better it works!!
I have talked to a couple of shooters that have Varicams and own HD and SD lens. They said the only reason they have HD lenses is because they rent them out with the camera package and people want to rent an HD lens. One was an "A list" Chicago shooter and the other was from Dallas, and both shoot for the much talked about HD clients folks here speak of.
Honestly, I don't think Fujinon and Canon just all of sudden "made a sharper lens" one day. Come on, think about it. Do you not think they would have done that sooner had they been able?
I also don't believe that you can see a difference. Who cares what the scopes show, what you see is important. If I was making a motion picture and shooting on an F900 I can see using the more expensive lenses. If I was doing a shoot alongside other cameras that had similar lenses and we were matching the cameras I could understand it.
The biggest deciding factor is that if you are making money hand over fist shooting HD and are facing sending the money to the IRS or spending it on a lens, then I would spend it on the lens!
Price has been used in this business for years to separate the wheat from the chaff. Folks will remember it was used to elevate the D600 to where it was "the only camera to use" in the 90's. Is it fair or accurate? Heck no, but for those who do not know any better it works!!
I have talked to a couple of shooters that have Varicams and own HD and SD lens. They said the only reason they have HD lenses is because they rent them out with the camera package and people want to rent an HD lens. One was an "A list" Chicago shooter and the other was from Dallas, and both shoot for the much talked about HD clients folks here speak of.
Honestly, I don't think Fujinon and Canon just all of sudden "made a sharper lens" one day. Come on, think about it. Do you not think they would have done that sooner had they been able?
I also don't believe that you can see a difference. Who cares what the scopes show, what you see is important. If I was making a motion picture and shooting on an F900 I can see using the more expensive lenses. If I was doing a shoot alongside other cameras that had similar lenses and we were matching the cameras I could understand it.
The biggest deciding factor is that if you are making money hand over fist shooting HD and are facing sending the money to the IRS or spending it on a lens, then I would spend it on the lens!
Canonman
Well-known member
The MTF curve for an HD lens is different than that of the SD lens. Good HD lenses are harder to manufacture because chromatic aberration becomes more difficult to control as resolving power goes up.
If you put two identically set up cameras next to each other, shooting the same scene, you'll see a difference between the HD and SD lens, especially in the outer areas of the image. Resolution charts will also point out the difference because it really is there.
That's not to say that an SD lens can't look aesthetically pleasing on an HD camera, but SD lenses are designed for an optimal response to contrast in the range of frequencies that are predominant in SD television images.
I've posted links in that past here on b-roll that illustrate what I'm saying.
cm