pan and crop or teleconverter?

joejon wrote on 7/18/2011, 10:07 AM

I recently bought the Sony hdr-cx700v and it only has a 10x zoom unlike my Digital8 that had a 24x zoom. IQ wise would it be better to just do a crop in Vegas to enlarge the image or would it be better to use a teleconverter on the camera? I've never used a teleconverter before andI don't really see a teleconverter for that camera except a really cheap one by an off brand.

Comments

joejon wrote on 7/18/2011, 10:13 AM

It's not always possible to move closer and the 10x zoom is pathetic on such a wide angle lens that Sony put on that camera. It shoots 1080 hd so I may be okay cropping in Vegas, but I would like to get some input about that versus using a teleconverter.

Steve Mann wrote on 7/18/2011, 10:35 AM

Any lens correction will be better than a digital zoom in post.

joejon wrote on 7/18/2011, 12:24 PM

Thanks for your reply. If that's the case then I guess I will try to find a teleconverter that will work with the cx700v. If anyone knows of a good quality one let me know.

PeterDuke wrote on 7/18/2011, 7:44 PM

"Any lens correction will be better than a digital zoom in post."

That statement is a bit sweeping. Obviously a poorly made, say 2X, teleconverter lens could perform worse than 2X digital zoom.

In the still camera world, my Fuji 30x zoom camera at full zoom was not very sharp. I haven't done a direct comparison but I felt it was about as sharp as my old camera at half the focal length would have been with 2X digital zoom. I no longer have the Fuji so can't tell now.

I have a 2X teleconverter for my old still camera and suspect that the same story may apply. I must test that some day.

It's not only about the quality of the teleconverter, because softness in the main lens is amplified as well.

johnmeyer wrote on 7/18/2011, 7:59 PM

Peter, I agree about your statements about the teleconverter. I have owned a few (although this was a LONG time ago), and the results were pretty darned bad. Lots of chromatic abberations; various kinds of distortion; darkness around the edges, especially at aperature extremes; and, in the case of one teleconverter I had, significant increases in contrast.

Of course, digital zoom will decrease resolution. BUT, it won't have any of those other issues. Also, digital zoom can be masked in some cases. For instance, you can put the result in an inset or in some other way combine it with another video stream or still photo. You can also use some of the up-resn'g software discussed a few days ago in order to make the loss of resolution less noticeable. And, if the video has already been shot, then this is the only option available.

And, of course, if the final output is going to be DVD and the original is HD, then you can do all sorts of zooming without any degradation whatsoever.

The best thing, if the OP is going to do a lot of this, is to spend the money on a camera that has a longer optical zoom. (thanks Peter for pointing out the error in my initial post).

PeterDuke wrote on 7/18/2011, 8:21 PM

"spend the money on a camera that has a longer digital zoom"

Typo? optical zoom?

johnmeyer wrote on 7/18/2011, 8:56 PM

"spend the money on a camera that has a longer digital zoom"Ooops! Nice catch. I went back and corrected it. Yes, definitely optical zoom.