Pre-digital Era Lenses

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

A few weeks ago, several of us discussed the quality produced by high
definition cameras versus pre-digital era Hollywood movie cameras. I have
stumbled across an article that discusses high definition lenses and their
development in producing a higher quality product.

Although the discussion concerns television camera lenses and not movie
camera lenses, I think it is safe to say that the writer might very well
support the position that the high definition lens of today represents a
substantial improvement over the lens of the days of pre-high definition.
You can decide for yourself.

The article includes a sentence that suggests that lenses have been improved
in order to achieve better pictures than were previously achieved.

"To fully exploit that tremendous increase in picture information, the lens
must be capable of imaging and delivering sufficient spatial detail to the
HDTV camera in order to satisfy its formidable digital information
capacity."

Hollywood has started to use the new lenses, cameras and production
equipment presumably to achieve even better results than they have had in
the past.

If the folks that were interested in this subject before are still
interested, they might want to read the following:
http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] ns_design/
http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] enses_mtf/

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce985b7cfcf1f7b989d2a@news.nabs.net...
> Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> The article includes a sentence that suggests that lenses have been
>> improved
>> in order to achieve better pictures than were previously achieved.
>
> This is only true based on price/performance. Inexpensive lenses *are*
> getting better. But, the $100K lenses used in filming motion pictures
> are still far better than the $5K "HDTV" lenses.

I think the problem is that general motion picture optical quality has been
slipping since the golden era of wide-screen big pictures. It's not that the
top end has moved down, but that the more work is done nearer the bottom.

I find the quality of my HD home theater to exceed that of most "shopping
mall" cineplexes in both sound and image.

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

Many people will tell you that film is higher resolution than HDTV, so if
that is the case it doesn't make any sense that better lenses would be
needed.

I still think that HDTV that is produced fromt the start with HD cameras
looks MUCH better than scanned film.

--Dan


"Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:YI-dnZmKE8kDKOLfRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
>A few weeks ago, several of us discussed the quality produced by high
> definition cameras versus pre-digital era Hollywood movie cameras. I have
> stumbled across an article that discusses high definition lenses and their
> development in producing a higher quality product.
>
> Although the discussion concerns television camera lenses and not movie
> camera lenses, I think it is safe to say that the writer might very well
> support the position that the high definition lens of today represents a
> substantial improvement over the lens of the days of pre-high definition.
> You can decide for yourself.
>
> The article includes a sentence that suggests that lenses have been
> improved
> in order to achieve better pictures than were previously achieved.
>
> "To fully exploit that tremendous increase in picture information, the
> lens
> must be capable of imaging and delivering sufficient spatial detail to the
> HDTV camera in order to satisfy its formidable digital information
> capacity."
>
> Hollywood has started to use the new lenses, cameras and production
> equipment presumably to achieve even better results than they have had in
> the past.
>
> If the folks that were interested in this subject before are still
> interested, they might want to read the following:
> http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] ns_design/
> http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] enses_mtf/
>
>
>
>

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:39:52 +0000, dg wrote:

> Many people will tell you that film is higher resolution than HDTV, so if
> that is the case it doesn't make any sense that better lenses would be
> needed.
>
> I still think that HDTV that is produced fromt the start with HD cameras
> looks MUCH better than scanned film.
>

Don't let people tell you how much you are mistaken as most people feel
the same way. Film conversions are one of the biggest disappointments of
HDTV.

I do not understand why people here keep saying that soft and flickering
pictures with all that film grain noise looks better than real HD video.
It's like the people that still like vinyl records.

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

And people who prefer videotape over film are the same ones who think the
six oclock local news looks better than Dr. Zhivago. WOW...nothing like
that "live" videotape look!



> I do not understand why people here keep saying that soft and flickering
> pictures with all that film grain noise looks better than real HD video.
> It's like the people that still like vinyl records.

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

As you can see in these two articles, major improvements have occurred with
HDTV lenses. Is there any real reason that we should not believe the
author? It defies reason to think that lenses could not have been improved
from the pre-digital era.

http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] ns_design/
http://broadcastengineering.com/ma [...] enses_mtf/


Beyond that, I am trying to stick with lenses in order not to confuse the
discussion with differences of opinion (if any) between recording images via
high quality film stock or video tape / hard drive. That seems to me to be
a separate issue and worthy of its own discussion. Wouldn't you agree?


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:1184ercgvfdvhf8@corp.supernews.com...
> Stan wrote:
> > Curmudgeon, I am not refering to what is used to record image be it film
or
> > otherwise. Nor am I refering to increased detail outside the camera
that is
> > being imaged by the lens. Why would anyone do that? I would merely
suggest
> > that today's lenses have better eyesight than before what are rather
recent
> > developments.
> >
>
> As has been said several times, the very best of lenses were developed
> for Hollywood 40 years ago. These lenses were used on cameras with very
> large negative sizes, up to 70mm. The image captured on 70mm film has 16
> to 32 times as many pixel equivalents as 1080i.
>
> The lenses on HDTV cameras may or may not be any better than the lenses
> on NTSC or PAL cameras (I suspect there is very little difference), but
> the image sensor certainly is.
>
> Why are you fixated on the lens quality? There has been very little new
> science in lenses in a very long time. AFAIK, the most recent
> innovations were aspherical lenses and improved coatings and both of
> those technologies are well over 20 years old.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?

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

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:3snge.19333$yq3.8283@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> And people who prefer videotape over film are the same ones who think the
> six oclock local news looks better than Dr. Zhivago. WOW...nothing like
> that "live" videotape look!

I can see individual flakes of snow on the ground in HD eye candy video but
can't see that detail in the film version of Dr. Zhivago.

But then again, Dr. Zhivago has a story.

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

You should point out that the article is talking about VIDEO cameras
and not FILM cameras. Film cameras have not changed since the first
was ever made. Same idea in all of them. The difference is in the
"extras" a camera has in order for the camera assistant or director of
photography to do their jobs easier.

The video camera is where the technology lies. It all depends on the
chip system and not the lens. ALL lenses used today by professional
video cameras or film cameras are interchageable. It all depends on
the mount of the lens, ie; BNC, PL, C, BAYO, FUJI, SONY.

An example is the type of lens I use as an assistant cameraman in
feature films, music videos, commercials. Many of the shoots im on
use Cooke S4 lens, Zeiss Ultraprimes. These lenses are used on video
cameras with a ARRI PL adaptor. Panavision has its own set of lenses
called PRIMO. With the correct adaptor, you can use and lens on video
cameras but not the other way around.

If you want to know the difference in Film cameras and their lenses,
read up on thiese sites.

http://www.arri.de/entry/products.htm

http://www.arri.de/entry/products.htm

http://www.cameraservice.com

http://www.panavision.com


Film by its nature is already set up for High Definition. It all
depends in the Ground Galss used in the camera so its shot in the
correct aspect ratio. 99% of anything shot professionaly with film
cameras is shot using a "combo" ground glass. HDTV is always one of
those markings and the rest depends on how the material will be used,
ie; TV movie, theatrical release, commercial, documentary.

You can view what ground glasses are here

http://www.cameraservice.com/tech/format.htm


Anyway, its all int he camera (video), not the lens.

On Mon, 9 May 2005 15:10:16 -0400, "Stan" <ssum9160@adelphia.net>
wrote:

>A few weeks ago, several of us discussed the quality produced by high
>definition cameras versus pre-digital era Hollywood movie cameras. I have
>stumbled across an article that discusses high definition lenses and their
>development in producing a higher quality product.
>
>Although the discussion concerns television camera lenses and not movie
>camera lenses, I think it is safe to say that the writer might very well
>support the position that the high definition lens of today represents a
>substantial improvement over the lens of the days of pre-high definition.
>You can decide for yourself.
>
>The article includes a sentence that suggests that lenses have been improved
>in order to achieve better pictures than were previously achieved.
>
>"To fully exploit that tremendous increase in picture information, the lens
>must be capable of imaging and delivering sufficient spatial detail to the
>HDTV camera in order to satisfy its formidable digital information
>capacity."
>
>Hollywood has started to use the new lenses, cameras and production
>equipment presumably to achieve even better results than they have had in
>the past.
>
>If the folks that were interested in this subject before are still
>interested, they might want to read the following:
>http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lens_design/
>http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lenses_mtf/
>
>
>

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

I am not lloking to come off as some know it all cavse im not. Jvst
throwing in my 2 cents into a very good discvssion.

I was only talking abovt lenses. Someone had said that NEW lenses
were being made for HGIH DEF which is not trve. Professional lenses,
which rvn in the tens of thovsands each, are made with svch
preciseness and clarity that they are ready for HIGH DEF. Lenses are
not made for a specific format vnless its they scope lenses. FILM
cameras by their natvre and the natvre of film is already set for HIGH
DEF. Video cameras need to be made to handle HIGH DEF. That is all I
was saying.

Star Wars and War of the Worlds were shot with HIGH DEF cameras. I
worked 2 days on War of the Worlds. I worked on the days when it was
shot in Bayonne, NJ. That was the first time I worked with HIGH DEF
Video cameras. They are awesome. Bvt, I like film cameras better
cavse I enjoy the challenge of making svre it is all set correctly to
have a perfect image. Video cameras are point and shoot.

Also, I wish I was a Pro cameraman. They make 4 times as mvch as I do
on a 10 hovr day with this cvrrent local 600 vnion rate schedvle.

it seems like every job I do now is being prodvced with HIGH DEF in
mind. This really started in 1998. I worked on many NBA and NHL
games which were always being shot for fvtvre archival vse so it hads
to be shot in the HIGH DEF range with the vse of HIGH DEF grovnd
glass. The reason in film yov need to know if its going to be vsed
for HIGH DEF is becavse the marking that the cameraman sees when
looking throvgh an eyepiece need to be drawn so he knows the headroom
he needs. I am svre many of yov never heard of grovnd glasses bvt I
hope yov gvys looked at that web site which explains it all.

On Svn, 3 Jvl 2005 11:01:32 -0400, "Stan" <ssvm9160@adelphia.net>
wrote:

>I appreciate greatly the comments of a professional cameraman on this
>svbject.
>
>Am I to vnderstand that movies prodvced and delivered in digital high
>definition will look no better than movies prodvced prior to digital
>technology? I hasten to say that I wovld not qvestion yovr professional
>opinion in this matter. I only wish to be certain of the point.
>
>Another qvestion. Was Star Wars prodvced with high definition cameras? Was
>it only for the pvrpose of captvring image information in digital format for
>processing or was it for the pvrpose of simply captvring a better image or
>both?
>
>Thank yov for entering the discvssion.
>
>
><j.ds@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:m8dec1hi6chn88rtvvodn236dv31o74gj3@4ax.com...
>> Yov shovld point ovt that the article is talking abovt VIDEO cameras
>> and not FILM cameras. Film cameras have not changed since the first
>> was ever made. Same idea in all of them. The difference is in the
>> "extras" a camera has in order for the camera assistant or director of
>> photography to do their jobs easier.
>>
>> The video camera is where the technology lies. It all depends on the
>> chip system and not the lens. ALL lenses vsed today by professional
>> video cameras or film cameras are interchageable. It all depends on
>> the movnt of the lens, ie; BNC, PL, C, BAYO, FUJI, SONY.
>>
>> An example is the type of lens I vse as an assistant cameraman in
>> featvre films, mvsic videos, commercials. Many of the shoots im on
>> vse Cooke S4 lens, Zeiss Ultraprimes. These lenses are vsed on video
>> cameras with a ARRI PL adaptor. Panavision has its own set of lenses
>> called PRIMO. With the correct adaptor, yov can vse and lens on video
>> cameras bvt not the other way arovnd.
>>
>> If yov want to know the difference in Film cameras and their lenses,
>> read vp on thiese sites.
>>
>> http://www.arri.de/entry/prodvcts.htm
>>
>> http://www.arri.de/entry/prodvcts.htm
>>
>> http://www.cameraservice.com
>>
>> http://www.panavision.com
>>
>>
>> Film by its natvre is already set vp for High Definition. It all
>> depends in the Grovnd Galss vsed in the camera so its shot in the
>> correct aspect ratio. 99% of anything shot professionaly with film
>> cameras is shot vsing a "combo" grovnd glass. HDTV is always one of
>> those markings and the rest depends on how the material will be vsed,
>> ie; TV movie, theatrical release, commercial, docvmentary.
>>
>> Yov can view what grovnd glasses are here
>>
>> http://www.cameraservice.com/tech/format.htm
>>
>>
>> Anyway, its all int he camera (video), not the lens.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 May 2005 15:10:16 -0400, "Stan" <ssvm9160@adelphia.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A few weeks ago, several of vs discvssed the qvality prodvced by high
>> >definition cameras versvs pre-digital era Hollywood movie cameras. I
>have
>> >stvmbled across an article that discvsses high definition lenses and
>their
>> >development in prodvcing a higher qvality prodvct.
>> >
>> >Althovgh the discvssion concerns television camera lenses and not movie
>> >camera lenses, I think it is safe to say that the writer might very well
>> >svpport the position that the high definition lens of today represents a
>> >svbstantial improvement over the lens of the days of pre-high definition.
>> >Yov can decide for yovrself.
>> >
>> >The article inclvdes a sentence that svggests that lenses have been
>improved
>> >in order to achieve better pictvres than were previovsly achieved.
>> >
>> >"To fvlly exploit that tremendovs increase in pictvre information, the
>lens
>> >mvst be capable of imaging and delivering svfficient spatial detail to
>the
>> >HDTV camera in order to satisfy its formidable digital information
>> >capacity."
>> >
>> >Hollywood has started to vse the new lenses, cameras and prodvction
>> >eqvipment presvmably to achieve even better resvlts than they have had in
>> >the past.
>> >
>> >If the folks that were interested in this svbject before are still
>> >interested, they might want to read the following:
>> >http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lens_design/
>> >http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lenses_mtf/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>