Grazie wrote on 1/7/2005, 8:51 AM
Thanks Bob! - I just zoomed in on the pigeon . . WOW! those fine feathers . . amazing .. G
farss wrote on 1/7/2005, 9:23 AM
I think you really need to study the results very closely.
One of the shots he shows some color fringing with the stock lens that the Nikon doesn't have. These are pretty minor things though. Still being able to fit a range of lenses would be nice. The idea of going wider or tighter by putting more glass on the front seems contrary to common sense to me as more elements = more possibility for errors.
Lenses built for 16mm should come close to the same target area as the CCDs, interesting times ahead I think.
JJKizak wrote on 1/7/2005, 9:24 AM
I love this.

mjroddy wrote on 1/7/2005, 10:45 AM
Z1 should have been designed for interchangable lenses in the first place - in my humble opinion. It's the ONE reason I'm considering not purchasing the camera. I'm convinced that in less than a year, they'll come out with the Z1x and it will have 60p with interchangable lenses. And, no, I don't have inside info by ANY means - this is just wishful thinking based on past experience (I have purchased new cameras before and within a few months, they have updated that very camera with new kewl features I wish I had ((note the JVC DV500)) ).
I am SO tempted to get the Z1, but think I'll force myself to wait a bit. <<sigh>>
JJKizak wrote on 1/7/2005, 10:51 AM
Sony does have a propensity for bringing out new models.

Grazie wrote on 1/7/2005, 10:52 AM
"Lenses built for 16mm should come close to the same target area as the CCDs, interesting times ahead I think."

Bob, please spell it out. You kinda left me hanging .. yeah?
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 11:21 AM
I might be wrong here but do I see a slight bluish ting on the left side of the bird in the first picture?

Might just be a monitor thing, going from white to black.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 11:30 AM
looks to me like maybe the nikon lense doesn't have such a red hue. or possibly it's just my imagination but on these two images, the Nikon lense is still fringing on the trash in the BG but not as badly because it's not as Red overall.

Nikon Image

The one that is the Zeiss is definately more red overall, but that might have been something to do with the scene at the time.

BTW, would there be any chance that the Nikon lense would still AF?
JJKizak wrote on 1/7/2005, 11:32 AM
Giving up the optical stabilization would be a problem for me.

vitalforces wrote on 1/7/2005, 12:11 PM
Having just shot an entire (low budget) feature with our DVX100, I'm waiting for HDV to 'meld' into the world of true 24p at my price point--no interlace lines. I swear by 24p (with a weak Tiffen filter and Vegas 'movie look' settings) despite certain comments that it doesn't make that much difference; it does.

HDV to me means there'll be enough resolution to move the 'banding' threshold way back when doing color and masking effects in post, which together with real 24p (the under-5K Panasonic type, at present), will be spectacular. About this time next year, I'd guess...

And yes, interchangeable lenses, for Pete's sake. With that to add depth of field, we can have a lot more confidence pitching that a DV film can be blown up for a big screen and not just TV.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 1:13 PM
I wonder if it can be hacked to take a 1/2" bayonet mount, or 2/3" or something.
farss wrote on 1/7/2005, 2:22 PM
Just thinking out loud Grazie. I'm no expert on optics, all I know is that one issue is the size of image a lens produces. A lens designed for 35mm needs a CCD the same size as the 35mm frame to work optimally. If the CCD is smaller then the effective focal length is smaller and the DOF is also affected.
A lens made for a 16mm camera would seem perhaps better suited, that's all.

You have to keep in mind as he does say on his site, you are in complete control, i.e. no autofocus, no image stabilization and no auto exposure. No doubt using a suitable broadcast lens you could get iris control back (broadcast cameras don't have autofocus anyway) if you could interface the servos etc to the FX1s electronics.

Two things to keep in mind though, lets say this guy or someone else decided to make a business out of it selling Z1-GTS. He'd have to be adding $2K just cover his costs and that's before you add a lens. I'd suspect you'd need to spend a lot to get a lens better than what comes with the Z1 so you end up with a camera worth 20 to $30K and whose going to give you warranty?

Secondly, if you do a bit of hunting around you can buy HiDef camera heads that do take broadcast lenses, I think Sony even do one that's progressive, you just add your lens and recording system.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 2:43 PM
isn't the head technically the recording part of the camera?

maybe the name is sticking even though the recording is starting to happen elsewhere.
but then does that head come with a send?
farss wrote on 1/7/2005, 2:47 PM
The 'back' is the recording part. Yes they come with a 'send'.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 2:57 PM
Wiating is probably what caused you to get something just before something newer and better came out man.

BTW, HDV (unilke HD) is only 1080i or 720p (at least that's what I understood from the book HDV: what you need to know) so there wouldn't be any 1080 60p at best I think there would be a 720 30p but probably not a 60p simply because of the constraints of the recording medim if nothing else. They are already using a 15GOP for the recordings so that they can fit all the info that they need to the miniDV tapes. To fit 60 P (essentially doubling, if not a little more than doublng the information written) they wouldn't be able to make it work on a 25Mbps data transfer rate (as far as I understand this stuff).

I would guess that we wouldn't see it from Sony at least.

Perhaps if this DVCHD-Pro stuff about panasonic is true, it might be on something like that (assuming here that it would definately be a different medium then and a different datarate)

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 3:05 PM
well there you go, I've got a friend who works with FOX football, he works cosulting for purchases with some other companies, and he was telling me that they have the lense, the head, and the send.

Is this a different thing with broadcast cams (he was saying about 30,000 per part) than it is with the equipment you're reffering to?

I.E. are the send and head combined on your references?

apit34356 wrote on 1/7/2005, 3:09 PM
frigindediting, what farss is referring to is that Sony calls a camera "head" or sometimes called a "core" -- really means body with ccds, electronics, but no lens or tape transport.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 3:29 PM
so are we talking about stuff that doesn't have a tape transport anywhere? just a send? For like studio, and live event recording/ live switching?

farss wrote on 1/7/2005, 4:40 PM
A lot of broadcast cameras don't have a tape transport. Some are a modular design. So you have a head which has the CCDs and lens mount. To that you can connect a transport module or I guess a 'send' unit. The later I think may have a large multipin connector to go back to a CCU or a triax connector. Mostly used for studios and OBs, You also get stuff going back to the camera, talkback and mixer output so the operator can talk, see what;s going to air and if he's on air via tally lights etc.

The cameras I was talking about are simpler and cheaper, more like a security camera. Because they don't have all the docking connectors etc the cost is kept down. I have played with these sort of units and I can see no reason why they couldn't be used IF you can cope with supplying power and a recording device.
The other thing I'm interested in is some of these will run at high frame rates, and there are other cameras that run at extreme frame rates. This is way outside normal video stuff but there's no reason why once you have a still image sequence that Vegas couldn't handle it. The data rates are HUGE, think ultrawide SCSI to camera. There's some sample videos around too, things like arrows going into cinder blocks, bullets leaving barrels, look interesting.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/7/2005, 5:13 PM
I'd be down with that.

Of course the price probably wouldn't be down where I am, so I guess I'd be down, below that ;-)
vitamin_D wrote on 1/7/2005, 11:11 PM
Dunno why it would have to cost $2k -- the guy shows how it's done in pics.

Assuming the title "the day of the new flange" says it all, it's just adjusting the flange focal length from the rear of the 35mm lens to the CCD -- you're not going to get the entire 35mm FOV, but you will get it's DOF. This is the same "hack" being done with the 35mm adapters on, though those are done with a "rear projection" setup in front of the DV camera's lens, where the 35mm image is captured, then relayed to the DV camera's CCD via a macro lens.

This kind of hack can be done with any DV/HDV camera, provided you've got the guts/money/technical prowess. Only cost would be your time, the tools, the C or F or... whatever mount, and a new lens. The mount would determine the flange focal length, so it could be done with any mount/lens combo, including Arri...

- jim
musman wrote on 1/8/2005, 3:25 AM
I've said the same thing before about, but Spot swears that the Z1's built in deinterlacing is very stunning, so I'll of course give it a look. Still, 24p and the great audio is why the dvx100 is so much more popular than the sony pd150/170. I've shown similar material from my pd150 to my friend'd dvx100a and the views always prefer the 24p even if they're not told about it.
So I agree, it matters and I hope to see it in hdv soon.
farss wrote on 1/8/2005, 3:57 AM
I'd respectfully suggest that it MAY have more to do with a lot of the other magic in the DVX100 than the 24p. Why don't you try shooting the same footage on the DVX100 in 24p and 60i and see how they react.
I may well be wrong but without any such valid comparison I still think a lot of this 24p hubris is just that. CineGamma is a whole different thing, that I have no doubt makes for better images. Just comparing a frame from a scene shot on the DVX100 against the PD150, the 100 looks much more pleasing but that frame is the same at 24p or 30p. I'm all for progressive scan but at higher frame rates.