Wide Angle Lense = Lower Quality Recording?

[nakedfool 0]

Hi Folks,
Just curious...

I just bought an HDR-CX100 and need to get a wide angle lens.

Question: Does adding a new lens affect the video QUALITY? If I added a liquid 3 or 5 lens, would that lower the quality of the cameras recordings?

What kind of lens do you recommend?

Do I need to get an HD lens or anything?

Thanks,
Stephen

[beowulf 1]

Yes those lenses would lower the quality to less then SD quality.

Try the Raynox 5050 pro for .5 or 3030 pro for .3. They are the best quality for the dollar lenses available.

BTW If you do searches on this forum you can find most of your questions already answered and answers to questions you haven't thought of asking yet.

[frost 1]

Quote

Yes those lenses would lower the quality to less then SD quality.

Less than SD? In HD mode?? How is that possible?

While nowhere close to the quality Raynox HD lens, the HD video shot with a Royal .3 or .5 is super nice on regular TV and still looks pretty sharp (definitely much better than SD) on an HD monitor.

[beowulf 1]

Those lenses degrade the quality of any SD camera and even more so on an HD camera. It totally defeats the purpose of having an HD camera.

[dragon2 2]

Quote

Those lenses degrade the quality of any SD camera and even more so on an HD camera. It totally defeats the purpose of having an HD camera.

Agreed.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[PhreeZone 20]

The Royal/Cookie lenses resolve to less then about 350 lines of resolution in the center. Your normal SD footage has a resolution of about 480 and HD is around 1080.

DSE posted some resolution charts he had used at one time and even on a HD camera the Royal lenses were not even near sharp compared to the native footage in SD.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[frost 1]

Any regular wide angle lens will cause loss of quality. Even Raynox HD lens causes loss of quality.
HD footage shot with an SD lens will still look better compared to SD footage.

The charts are great, we know that the quality is lost. But then why do people comment on how great and sharp the HD footage looks, even with the loss of quality (especially in the corners), compared to their SD footage?

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

HD footage shot with an SD lens will still look better compared to SD footage.

I agree that resolution charts don't tell the whole story. But either way, "we" haven't minded degraded quality footage with our SD cameras, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal with HD cameras.

"It totally defeats the purpose of having an HD camera." Well, if you want top quality footage and that's why you have an HD camera, then yes. But a lot of people have HD cameras because they are tiny and cost under $600. There are a lot of people that should have tiny royal/waycool/liquid lenses on their HD cameras because otherwise they're going to have giant snag-happy HD lenses sticking 3 feet off the side of their head.

I know that a compact lens won't provide the same quality video as a good HD lens, but I'm going to agree with frost and say that it'll still beat an SD camera with the same lens.

Dave

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

HD footage shot with an SD lens will still look better compared to SD footage.

I agree that resolution charts don't tell the whole story. But either way, "we" haven't minded degraded quality footage with our SD cameras, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal with HD cameras.

"It totally defeats the purpose of having an HD camera." Well, if you want top quality footage and that's why you have an HD camera, then yes. But a lot of people have HD cameras because they are tiny and cost under $600. There are a lot of people that should have tiny royal/waycool/liquid lenses on their HD cameras because otherwise they're going to have giant snag-happy HD lenses sticking 3 feet off the side of their head.

I know that a compact lens won't provide the same quality video as a good HD lens, but I'm going to agree with frost and say that it'll still beat an SD camera with the same lens.

Dave

Cause you can buy a Century .55 for $100 it is HD and low profile. It isn't quite as good resolution wise as the raynox lenses but, it's still miles better than the liquid/cookie/roayl lens lines.

You just don't get that extra .2 in wideness. I haven't had a problem with that doing AFF or inside freefly. You just kinda learn to deal with it.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[mnskydiver688 0]

I have heard some conflicting stories about whether the Century or Raynox are better. I am currently using the Century and have been very impressed with the results. Beyond the HD the biggest selling point for me and Century was the fact that it is low profile.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[pilot-one 0]

Where can you buy the Century for 100 bux?

[mnskydiver688 0]

B&H Photo sells them for $114.95

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[billvon 2,990]

>but I'm going to agree with frost and say that it'll still beat an SD
>camera with the same lens.

It really won't. The edges will look horrible. Indeed, it may look worse; you can see all the chromatic aberration much more clearly. About the only thing that you might be able to do are better frame grab blowups if you crop out everything but the center.

Of course, if you don't care about what it looks like, and you just want a record of a jump or something, then it might be just the ticket.

[Fast 0]

Quote

I have heard some conflicting stories about whether the Century or Raynox are better. I am currently using the Century and have been very impressed with the results. Beyond the HD the biggest selling point for me and Century was the fact that it is low profile.

The raynox resolve more lines of resolution, but they are also like 3-5x the size/weight. (like you said)

Too heavy for me, my neck is messed up.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[PharmerPhil 0]

One thing the low-profile, single-element lenses give up is the ability to zoom. That's a non-starter for me for tandem work.

[billvon 2,990]

>Too heavy for me, my neck is messed up.

Do you topmount or sidemount?

[pilot-one 0]

Quote

B&H Photo sells them for $114.95

Hey thanks! I got one coming now. I hope it's better than the Royal with my CX100.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

One thing the low-profile, single-element lenses give up is the ability to zoom. That's a non-starter for me for tandem work.

I don't get this. Are you saying that zoomability is a high priority? Do you use the zoom in freefall? If not, on the ground you can just walk towards and away from your subject (fast) instead of using the camera's zoom button

[mgattini 0]

In response to: The charts are great, we know that the quality is lost. But then why do people comment on how great and sharp the HD footage looks, even with the loss of quality (especially in the corners), compared to their SD footage

They are delusional. They are trying to rationalize why having spent the money was worth it. They don’t know what they are talking about….

[frost 1]

that's exactly what i thought. who are they going to believe, charts or their lying eyes?

[PhreeZone 20]

If you are blowing SD footage up to play back on a larger HD TV the SD footage will look really bad. If you play HD footage back on the same TV it will look better no matter what because of the lack of resizing of pixels if you were doing an up convert or just more pixels being displayed in total. As Bill mentioned on HD footage the issues with chromatic shift is easier to see as are some of the distortion issues that occur outside the center of the frame. On a SD monitor with SD footage some of those issues will not be seen since the depth of the data in not enough to hold those bits of data.

I'm still shooting on a cheap piece of glass on my CX100 that only resolves to about 300 lines, I see a marked difference in footage clarity and its clarity when we play back side by side tandem DVD's vs someone that shot with the Century lens.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I don't get this. Are you saying that zoomability is a high priority? Do you use the zoom in freefall? If not, on the ground you can just walk towards and away from your subject (fast) instead of using the camera's zoom button

Yes. For me shooting tandems zoom is a very high priority. Without it, I limit all of my shots to just wide angle, and I find that very boring.

No, I don't use zoom in freefall, but I use it a lot on the ground and in the plane. Walking towards a subject to get a certain framing with a w/a lens is not the same as the image you get from a distance with a longer lens (i.e., don't confuse image size with perspective).

Besides, you can't always walk to the cockpit to get a cool close-up shot of the pilot's hand on the throttles (or whatever you call them) during take-off. You can't walk to a higher altitude to get a good shot of the tandem pair coming down under canopy when you are on the ground. You can't/shouldn't walk closer to the runway to get a great shot of the jump plane either landing or taxiing towards you.

If it was just freefall it wouldn't matter. But IMHO shooting a tandem involves getting a lot of good footage before and after the freefall portion of the skydive, and I would prefer to not be locked down to a video that only includes totally wide or nothing.

[frost 1]

man, what is this conversation about? I am telling you it's soft, but you're trying to convince me it's yellow?? I am not DSE when it comes to knowledge of lens and products, but i know what my eyes see and i've been shooting with HD cameras for 4 years. You can tell me all you want about charts and lines of resolutions... and i will agree with you. but the fact of the matter is: HD footage with SD lens looks better then SD footage with SD lens. On any monitor. Period. There is nothing to argue about.

[billvon 2,990]

>HD footage with SD lens looks better then SD footage with SD lens.

That has not been my experience. To me, it's much easier to look at SD footage with an SD lens on the big TV we have for debriefing (37") than HD footage with the same lens. For one thing, the normal SD 4:3 format gives you a "squarer" field of view, so you don't get the extreme aberration differences in the sides vs. the top and bottom. With HD 16x9, you get corners that look intentionally blurred.

But if you get good results with that setup, then great; no reason to change what you are doing. Almost every camera/lens/TV combination is different.

[icevideot 0]

Quote

Yes. For me shooting tandems zoom is a very high priority. Without it, I limit all of my shots to just wide angle, and I find that very boring....

Plus 1 on this. I find the zoom to be very usefull for the ground and landing footage.

For my sport jumps, I can do without it.

"... this ain't a Nerf world."