HD lens Question

[chuckakers 425]

I'm thinking of getting a CX100 or whatever is the next great thing in HD. I will of course be adding a wide angle conversion lens. Can someone explain what the difference is between a standard vs HD lens?

I've heard that without an HD lens, the video won't be HD quality.

I thought glass was glass.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I thought glass was glass.

Try looking at things through a beer bottle and see how they look.

[jimmytavino 16]

Quote

Quote

I thought glass was glass.

Try looking at things through a beer bottle and see how they look.

well,,,, things look fuzzy...
but not nearly as fuzzy as when looking at things through a whiskey bottle...

jt

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

I thought glass was glass.

Try looking at things through a beer bottle and see how they look.

For the sake of clarity, I thought a camcorder conversion lens was a camcorder conversion lens.

Just wondering what could be different for HD cams.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Wharewaka 0]

To watch HD you need. HD camera, HD lense, HD tv screen.

I'm sure DSE has a better answer.

Basically just to make the lense wide is not good enough anymore. There need to be some better glass and some better engineering in the lense.

Lenses designed for HD will have different quality glass in them too, depending on how much you pay.

[nakedfool 0]

i started a thread similar to this one a few weeks back:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3592039;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

nobody ever got into the specifics as to WHY image quality is lost when a conversion lens is added.

One thing I have noticed is that the conversion lens that do NOT retain the HD quality have a MUCH lower profile (Liquid) than the recommended HD lenses such as the Raynox or Century....

Here is a GREAT reference page for a lot of the topics that have been discussed about the CX-100, lenses, hardware, and recommended settings for both free flying and RW here on these forums...

[/url]http://www.gethypoxic.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/61-cx100.html[url]


-NakedFool

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I thought a camcorder conversion lens was a camcorder conversion lens.

Sorry to be a smart ass earlier, but there is definitely a difference. First off, there is a difference in how clear the glass is. Rather than beer bottles, think of cheap magnifying glasses, or those plastic cereal prizes that offered "super magnification." Or those cheap one-piece goggles that most tandem students wear. Or, at the other end of the scale, remember how the hubble telescope was built and launched at a cost of billions or dollars, and then they found that the exact geometry of the lens elements didn't give NASA the resolution they had planned on.

More importantly, most lenses aren't just a single piece of glass, but multiple pieces (elements) that work in conjunction to counter each other's short-comings and aberrations. Remember all those science experiments in high school where light through a prism of glass diffracted the different bands of light in different directions? Any time you send light through glass, you get an imperfect transmission. How well the pieces of glass work together, and what coatings they use, all work in conjunction (hopefully) to work as one well-oiled, or well-engineered machine.

[nakedfool 0]

thanks for that info.

i noticed that there are definitely more "elements" involved in the HD lens as opposed to the cheaper (although more expensive) Liquid lens that you can get at Chutingstar. Im guessing liquid lens will fit on other cameras that are not HD....so it could benefit those not recording in HD...and it's low profile is obviously a selling point for skydivers....

[DSE 5]

Quote

To watch HD you need. HD camera, HD lense, HD tv screen.

I'm sure DSE has a better answer.

Basically just to make the lense wide is not good enough anymore. There need to be some better glass and some better engineering in the lense.

Lenses designed for HD will have different quality glass in them too, depending on how much you pay.

There are more "technical" answers, but there is not a "better" answer than what you've posted.
It's all in the quality of the glass, the polishing, pitch, and math.
Ya get what ya pay for.

[antonija 0]

The reason lenses are constructed from many elements is the inherited design flaws in each piece of glass. These are not shortcomings of the designer/manufacturer but more the property of the material these elements are made from. In other words: Whatever material you pick it will never have ideal properties and will start causing problems in many fields if you shoot for very wide/tele range. Be it focus blur on edges, colour spectra split, etc.

Do keep in mind all these things are addressed when lens is being constructed. Then you have to add the little things like glass purity, allowed tolerances in manufacturing process, etc.

In the end most manufacturers decide to give to the public the shittiest product that still meets all criteria they assigned to it at the beginning (which makes sense because no one wants to throw away money on overkilled and redundant thingies nowadays). This in turn led to conversion lenses that were good enough so SD cameras did not notice how bad they suck (they did their job just fine).

When HD sensors came out (with higher resolution) the current conversion lenses showed their true craftsmanship and lenses from olden days (celluloid film has kickass resolution so lenses back then were generally better constructed within technological limits) ruled the world again.

Some time passed and manufacturers decided that they will provide public with new products: HD conversion lenses!!
rant
I liked better when people did their best to construct all-you-can-be type of products. Like old photo lenses that still kick ass out of todays high end lenses. Lucky for us manufacturers of skydiving rigs and canopies didn't start this new economic approach yet...
/rant

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[raceface 0]

the main difference is that even lens have their resolution (don't know how exactly it works, just for having some idea about it). lens with low resolution are SD, with high resolution are HD (again, no idea what is critical number to be considered as HD). and note that resolution is in centre of lens and it is significantly lower on the edges. as far as i know only raynox is publishing resolution of their lens what makes them look as a very serious company for me (also with sample pictures and comparative videos on their website).

my pictures

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

To watch HD you need. HD camera, HD lense, HD tv screen.

I'm sure DSE has a better answer.

Basically just to make the lense wide is not good enough anymore. There need to be some better glass and some better engineering in the lense.

Lenses designed for HD will have different quality glass in them too, depending on how much you pay.

There are more "technical" answers, but there is not a "better" answer than what you've posted.
It's all in the quality of the glass, the polishing, pitch, and math.
Ya get what ya pay for.

Thanks for all the info guys. Now that begs the question: which HD lens is best?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[raceface 0]

i think raynox 3032, it is top quality, not so big and heavy as babydeath and you can zoom (with babydeath you cannot). i suggest 0,3 lens becouse in my opinion cx 100 field of view is quite narrow.

my pictures

[nakedfool 0]

dude...read this article. it explains pros/cons, which lenes have what features and where to buy them.

http://www.gethypoxic.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/61-cx100.html

[Blink 1]

Quote

i think raynox 3032, it is top quality, not so big and heavy as babydeath and you can zoom (with babydeath you cannot). i suggest 0,3 lens becouse in my opinion cx 100 field of view is quite narrow.

I wouldn't say that. The Century/Opteka is much smaller lengthwise, but larger in diameter, while the Raynox is smaller in diameter, but much longer. As far a weigh goes, I'm not sure.

[DangerDoug 0]

I bought the Raynox 5050 for my cx100 setup and love the quality of the shots and the amazing ability to focus quickly. I use it for Tandem and student videos. I will likely be purchasing the 3030 for free flying, but currently happy with the 5050 for this as well.

my $0.02

Danger Doug
www.dangerdoug.com