Jump to content

Steve Phillipps

Basic Member
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Phillipps

  1. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - you are aware that the HPX300 and the new 370 are 1920x1080 full raster 2.2million pixels no up-rezizng? Steve
  2. These aberrations are lens-related for sure. You'll almost certainly find the same effects on different cameras with the same lenses. A lot of the modern cameras now are incorporating chromatic aberration correction systems which work on an individual basis with each lens (the lens has to be compatible, with its data input into the camera so it knows what to do to correct that particular lens). This seems definitely to be in response to the "cheap" lenses coming onto the market now, to go with the "cheap" cameras. I think the manufacturers realised when releasing the likes of the Sony EX3 and Panasonic HPX300 and 500 that the body was to be around £4-5000 and the lenses available for them at the time would be much more than double the price of the camera! Steve
  3. Whether or not that's theoretically correct I don't know, but it's pedantic for sure. We all accept 1080/25P or 30P as full HD. I take your point about downscaling 1080 to 720 though, I know engineers would point out that theoretically it's not ideal - they will always point to the best 720 being from dedicated 720 chips. Like David says though, I don't think there has been much if any complaint about 720 from the EX cams. I'd still go for the JVC though due to the lack of CMOS issues (I shoot wildlife). Steve
  4. Just came across this thread. This statement is simply not true - the EX3 does not letterbox in 720 mode, it downconverts from the full 1/2" chip. If it letterboxed then the effective magnification of the lenses would change and they don't. Steve
  5. Just out of interest, why was it recommended over a 750? Steve
  6. Much more than full hd! But it's a whole different beast, and way beyond your stated budget - even just the body which is only a small part of the kit. I'd also go EX1 without any question, unless there's a lot of fast movement involved in which case I'd be concerned about rolling shutter problems. Steve
  7. I found my brief time with the HPX500 very disappointing, quite soft pictures, nowhere near the Varicam. One of the best cams I've used for low light was the Sony PDW700, very noise-free. Steve
  8. Sony PDW700 is very good in low light, ultra quiet image. Steve
  9. What do think to the Miros Mitch? I used one (see some shots here http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/nature/sites/sp...ed_kites.shtml) and didn't think it looked that great, very pixelated, colours not great. Maybe I was doing something wrong. Good effect at 600fps though! Steve
  10. A lot of them won't mount as the rear element would hit the prism. Also because they're designed for a single plane rather than a 3 CCD prism they likely won't be as good as you might think. Steve
  11. Imagine you have a print 6x4" of a bird filling about 1/4 of the frame, if you then cut 2" from each side and 1" from top and bottom the bird would fill the frame, that's what's happening when you use a smaller sensor, it's cropping the image. Steve
  12. Just do a search for the Letus etc I mentioned, either on this site eg http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...02&hl=letus or Google or other forums - dvinfo, dvxuser, dvdoctor. You'll get loads and loads of info and opinions. Steve
  13. Yes it does mean it'll be the equivalent of 350mm, that's why these adapters have been well-liked by wildlife cameramen wanting long telephoto reach. If you want your 50mm to behave like a 50mm you'll need one of the relay adapters that use a ground glass - search for Letus, Brevis, pro35 etc. Pricey options though. Steve
  14. Without a doubt, you'll get the best quality from 2/3" HD lenses on that camera, that's what they were designed for. Don't forget that S16 and Nikon lenses are designed for a single plane (ie film) rather than the 3 CCDs on the HDX900 and that causes issues, meaning that a lens that looks great on S16 won't neccessarily look good on video. Steve
  15. Old thread I know, but for anyone who's interested I just tried a Fuji HA18x7.6 with the CAC function on my HPX2700 and the difference was minute re CA, virtually imperceptible, and it does exhibit a fair bit of it. Steve
  16. It's now out there and getting pretty favourable comments. No variable frame rates, but now has 50/60i and 25P, scheduled to have 720 50/60P firmware update in October. The disc workflow I think is excellent. BBC and Discovery give it full acceptance. Steve
  17. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all - the HPX2000 is exactly the same camera as the HDX900 except P2 vs tape. More craziness from the broadcasters!
  18. Les will make them too. www.lesbosher.co.uk
  19. Thanks Mike, I have lenses already which I've used for years on S16 and Digibeta, including Canon 300 f2.8, 150-600 f5.6 and 800 f5.6. They've always been great on the other formats and I don't see why they should be any different on HD - after all they're used on digital SLRs with a resolution a hell of a lot higher than HD. I'll be shooting a lot over the next 12 months on a Sony 750 and will be using an HJ22 together with the stills lenses so will report my findings. I know I used a J33 on Digibeta and found that it was hellish soft compared to my 150-600, but also know that the HJ40 has a lot good things said about it. Just seems to me that making an optic go all the way from wide angle to long tele then with a 2x is just pushing what's sensible otically. We'll see Steve
  20. Has anyone done a lot of shooting with long lenses like Canon 300mm, 150-600mm etc. on HDCam (Sony 750 etc) or Varicam? I did tests on an F900 a few years back but not enough to really make a firm judgement. I tested a Canon 300, 150-600 and a Leica 105-280 against an Optex/Canon HDEC lens, something like a 16x I think it was. The results from the stills lenses were all pretty good, but the HD lens was definitely marginally better - though it was saturation and colour depth rather than resolution where it won out. But I thought at the time that the other lenses were more than acceptable. Anybody got more experience, particularly in real-world situations, especially with wildlife shooting? Cheers.
  21. This lens is the 10:1 T3. It's the 10:1 T2 that has a MkI and MkII version. The T2 converts to Super 16 as a 12-120mm, while the T3 converts as an 11.5-115mm. Be careful though as the T3 version has a question mark as to its performance in Super 16. Optex would not convert them as they said they weren't upto the job I think. I think for Super 16 shooting the T2 is far superior, and best of all the purpoise-built 11-110mm T2 Super 16 lens, but these are rarer and expensive. Hope this helps.
  22. As far as I know it'll got to 54fps with 12V, it's only when going to 72fps that it needs 16V. My 16V batteries often read 17+ volts on my XTR Plus display.
  23. I'd go with an Aaton, they're so cheap these days, even from dealers. Seen them from 2000-4000 GBPounds on www.bblist.co.uk for Super 16 camera with mags and batteries. Wonderful cameras, different planet to Bolexes, it's a crying shame how they've been so de-valued. Especially as I've got one!
  24. There's never been a better time to buy into 16mm film, prices are so cheap. Lovely Aaton Super 16 packages going for $7000 etc. However, it's not very popular in broadcast at present, word from the BBC is that it's pretty much HD or nothing, at least that's what I've been told. Even for wildlife (my work) it's Varicam all the way (although how they're going to get away without 150fps I don't know). Some of the latest high-end wildlife progs I've seen shot on HD have looked like cheap DV, horrible!
  25. Try P+S Technik in Germany or Arri GB, both will do an A1 job. Good luck selling the camera, the market is slooooowwwwwwww these days! Try www.bblist.co.uk or www.mandy.com or www.filmcamerakit.com if you get stuck trying to shift it, they might be help.
×
×
  • Create New...