HD Lenses Produce Superior Images Than Old Hollywood!

[stan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

At least it would seem that way. These babies really kick butt. The
wonders of new technology.

http/broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_special_report_hdtv/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> At least it would seem that way. These babies really kick butt. The
> wonders of new technology.
>
> http/broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_special_report_hdtv/

More of this blather...geez!

The only thing these articles are for is to try to sell a lot of "new"
hardware to unsuspecting TV stations.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDogs.jpg

 

[curmudgeon]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> At least it would seem that way. These babies really kick butt. The
> wonders of new technology.
>
> http/broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_special_report_hdtv/
>
>
Your subject line would make more sense if "old Hollywood" shot their
product on videotape. The lenses being discussed in the article are
for video cameras - live or recorded on videotape.
Comparing videotape and film is like comparing watercolors paintings
and an Ansel Adams photograph.

 

[stan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how good
the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no amount
of upgrading will change that fact. It is even more true of films and tapes
that were not given the full Hollywood process.

A live event given the full HD treatment from origin to your home screen
will look better on your home screen than anything filmed or taped prior to
HD. A FILMED event given the full HD treatment from origin to your home
screen will look better on your home screen than anything filmed or taped
prior to HD. A TAPED event ............ well, I don't know, but I have my
suspicions.

So what???? ........ We have much material that we are going to be looking
at for decades to come. I am guessing that the contrast between pre-HD
material and the live World Series or Super Bowl is going to become a source
of surprise and some measure of disappointment to videophiles that will
always expect the sparkling purity of true high definition.

There is little that can be done about this except for the "upgrading" of
old material to an improved status. No big deal, however, we are going to
be viewing lots of quality variations.

Along these same lines, it is well to realize that much of what we receive
will be compressed to a lower video quality than what we should be receiving
so that the station can use part of its signal for standard definition
channels. In fact, many of the things that we will watch will be in
standard definition. Finally, much of what we look at will not be in
widescreen although that is not what most people envision for their home
viewing.

One of the things that has raised my concern is the message of television
salesmen that everything in the future will be gorgeous widescreen high
definition. This is not true and it will disappoint some people.


"Curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:_%xle.8977$6k7.1957@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Stan wrote:
> > At least it would seem that way. These babies really kick butt. The
> > wonders of new technology.
> >
> > http/broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_special_report_hdtv/
> >
> >
> Your subject line would make more sense if "old Hollywood" shot their
> product on videotape. The lenses being discussed in the article are
> for video cameras - live or recorded on videotape.
> Comparing videotape and film is like comparing watercolors paintings
> and an Ansel Adams photograph.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
> provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
> past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how good
> the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
> films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no amount
> of upgrading will change that fact. It is even more true of films and tapes
> that were not given the full Hollywood process.
>

The most of hollywood lenses are capable of resolving up far more than
1080 pixels across a piece of 35mm film. They have been able to do that
for more than fifty years. Why do you not believe that?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The most of hollywood lenses are capable of resolving up far more than
> 1080 pixels across a piece of 35mm film. They have been able to do that
> for more than fifty years. Why do you not believe that?

After reading the articles, the only thing "new" about these lenses is
that they have less light dropoff at the edges. This is only important
for cheap systems, because those use round lenses with the very limit of
the 16x9 area touching the edge of the lens. Better systems give more
"headroom", and you don't have to worry about the MTF as much.

Digital SLRs that use the same lenses as film SLRs automagically get this
benefit because the imager is much smaller than 35mm film (for almost all
digital SLRs, anyway). This means that the edges of the lenses are used,
so the "worst case" that is normally at the edges gets better, because it
is quite a bit farther in.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/OtherWhiteMeat.jpg

 

[curmudgeon]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Stan wrote:
>
>> The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
>> provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
>> past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits
>> how good
>> the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
>> films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no
>> amount
>> of upgrading will change that fact. It is even more true of films and
>> tapes
>> that were not given the full Hollywood process.
>>
>
> The most of hollywood lenses are capable of resolving up far more than
> 1080 pixels across a piece of 35mm film. They have been able to do that
> for more than fifty years. Why do you not believe that?
>
Thank you Martin...better said than my original reply. Film lenses have
been "high def" for a very long time. Video lenses were only as good as
they had to be for our NTSC standard. It's the video lenses/cameras now
playing "catch-up". It might be big news in the video world...but it's
pretty much old news in the film world.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife (wevsr@nabs.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> This means that the edges of the lenses are used,

Ack...what a typo. Of course I meant that the edges of the lenses are
*not* used.

--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
| the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
| in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
| famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>The most of hollywood lenses are capable of resolving up far more than
>>1080 pixels across a piece of 35mm film. They have been able to do that
>>for more than fifty years. Why do you not believe that?
>
>
> After reading the articles, the only thing "new" about these lenses is
> that they have less light dropoff at the edges.

I've pointed that out to him before. At this point I think that he is
trolling. After all, I'm sure he is checking out his nonsense carefully
before he posts it on the internet.

Matthew
--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Alan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <e62dnS6tRYg3_QrfRVn-sg@adelphia.com> "Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> writes:
>The film and the videotape are no better than the lens.

He starts with something true.


> Today's HD lens
>provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
>past.

Then wanders off into nonsense.

> It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how good
>the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
>films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no amount
>of upgrading will change that fact. It is even more true of films and tapes
>that were not given the full Hollywood process.

This is utter nonsense. A lens capable of HD resolution is pretty easily
found. Such lenses have been in use for many decades.


Alan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:e62dnS6tRYg3_QrfRVn-sg@adelphia.com...
> The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
> provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
> past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how
> good
> the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
> films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no amount
> of upgrading will change that fact.

Of course they did. I certainly consider film to be High Definition.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steven de Mena" <demenas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EbGdndpWsojzOQDfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:e62dnS6tRYg3_QrfRVn-sg@adelphia.com...
>> The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
>> provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
>> past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how
>> good
>> the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously, Hollywood
>> films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no
>> amount
>> of upgrading will change that fact.
>
> Of course they did. I certainly consider film to be High Definition.
>
> Steve
>
>

"HD Lenses" are a response to the lower quality "video" lenses that video
cameras have used for years. There is a device called the PRO 35 Adapter
that has been being used for a few years now that allows video cameras to
use higher quality prime lenses that were designed for film. This allows
them to focus on a larger ground glass plane instead of the tiny CCD thereby
allowing more control of depth of field and a higher quality image. See it
at:
http/www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/293f68eabdd7ce6985256cd200129c56?OpenDocument

 

[stan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Film of the highest quality may be at a high definition level, but the image
on that film is no better than what the lens provides. I'm fairly certain
that you would agree with that statement.


"Steven de Mena" <demenas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EbGdndpWsojzOQDfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:e62dnS6tRYg3_QrfRVn-sg@adelphia.com...
> > The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD lens
> > provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of the
> > past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how
> > good
> > the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously,
Hollywood
> > films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no
amount
> > of upgrading will change that fact.
>
> Of course they did. I certainly consider film to be High Definition.
>
> Steve
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
newsP-dnco2-5nEZgDfRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
> Film of the highest quality may be at a high definition level, but the
> image
> on that film is no better than what the lens provides. I'm fairly certain
> that you would agree with that statement.

Yes, but the point is that the lenses used for feature film making have been
at an advanced "current state of the art" quality level at all points in
history. Film makers have always used the best lenses available. Video/HD is
just now transitioning to higher quality lenses. Also, video has
traditionally been shot with a single zoom lens and high end film is
traditionally shot with individual fixed prime lenses which consist far
fewer elements and provide much higher quality while passing more light than
a multi-element zoom lens.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

 

[stan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Interesting info.


"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:mb2dnUGK8r37QwDfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Steven de Mena" <demenas@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:EbGdndpWsojzOQDfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:e62dnS6tRYg3_QrfRVn-sg@adelphia.com...
> >> The film and the videotape are no better than the lens. Today's HD
lens
> >> provides a better image to the recording media than the best lens of
the
> >> past. It all begins with the lens. The quality of the lens limits how
> >> good
> >> the quality of the displayed image can possibly be. Obviously,
Hollywood
> >> films of the past did not use high definition lenses, therefore, no
> >> amount
> >> of upgrading will change that fact.
> >
> > Of course they did. I certainly consider film to be High Definition.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
>
> "HD Lenses" are a response to the lower quality "video" lenses that video
> cameras have used for years. There is a device called the PRO 35 Adapter
> that has been being used for a few years now that allows video cameras to
> use higher quality prime lenses that were designed for film. This allows
> them to focus on a larger ground glass plane instead of the tiny CCD
thereby
> allowing more control of depth of field and a higher quality image. See it
> at:
>
http/www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/293f68eabdd7ce6985256cd200129c56?OpenDocument
>
>