HDV lens options

[The111 0]

I have not made the switch to HDV yet, may get HC5 soon though.

Up until recently I was unaware you even needed a special lens for HD. I was reading through old posts and found one by DSE mentioned that the Century and Raynox "HD" lenses resolve at 550 lines... I always (stupidly, I guess) assumed that glass had an infinte resolution (or at least much higher than a few hundred lines). Guess it just depends how they make the glass, like anything else.

What are the best options out there, with emphasis on price? ($100-$150 maybe) DSE, you know I'm looking your way.

Also, I read some stuff before about HC5 vibrations in sitfly... any truth to this? I tend to think it's probably not, since in the past few years I heard weird rumors about other "new" cameras at the time (PC1000, HC1) that never proved to be a real problem. But it would be nice to know that it can perform in a sit... even if I'll probably be in my wingsuit 99% of the time.

Thanks!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mrwrong 0]

I have just got me a HC5, I'm using Liquid lenses (.45 and .29 with UV filter kit) from Cookie composites. I haven't noticed any problems with that lens set up.
I have only done belly jumps with the camera so I have no idea about vibrations during FF yet.

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” - George Bernard Shaw
He who dies with the most toys, wins.....
dudeist skydiver # 19515
Buy quality and cry once!

[DSE 3]

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html will help. Century and Raynox are bigger, but do have greater resolution. I'm really hoping to soon see a small profile lens that has great resolution capability...

[yuri_base 1]

Imho, "HDV lens" is a marketing BS. I have a "regular" Century 0.55x and Raynox "High Definition" 0.5x and as far as resolution is concerned, both resolve HD just fine. (Razor sharp images in the center when examined closely on a good HDTV.) The differences are in quality of the picture near the edges, flare, color, etc. but that applies to all lenses.

Also, I don't know if this problem exists with HC-3/5/7, but Raynox 0.5x 37mm lens has a convex rear element which will touch and scratch the lens on HC1.

Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps:
L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP
iOS only: L/D Magic
Windows only: WS Studio

[jimoke 0]

I use the hc3, I have tried many lenses.
sony 0.6 model vcl 0630x borrowed
royal 0.3 $150.
titanium .45 I forget, around $125
royal 0.5 $138.
piece of crap, sunpak 0.5 $38.
raynox 0.3 $108.
I have not tried the liquid/cookie lenses yet. I currently use the raynox and love the quality of the image when played on the hdtv via hdmi cable. raynox 0.3 allows the user to zoom 75% with no distortion at all.
this is useful for me when tandems land across the field, not that important for most vidguys.
the royal 0.3 lens is a slightly wider- angle shot but tends to blur progressively towards the outter edges.
the problem that seems to happen with my raynox is, the outter lens is concave where the royal lens is flat. I am noticeing a small fog spot that tends to appear right in the center. I have used catcrap lens treatment and it seemed to work but still on humid days it happens.
I compare this to others shooting on the same loads when they seem to have no fog.
the raynox has no threads for a filter so I will try covering the concave lens with a filter flipped threads out and tape it to the raynox lens its a large lens though, like 62mm or so.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/497456-REG/Raynox_HD_3032PRO_HD_3032PRO_37mm_0_3x_Semi_Fisheye.html


HD is awesome! you won't be disappointed with the quality.
Stay Safe,
Jimoke

The ground always, remembers where you are!

[Fast 0]

I haven't switched to HDV yet, but have shot some video with my friends HDV camera and my Royal .3. I honestly can't say that it would be worth it for me to put the extra weight and snag factor on my head to have an HDV lens. For what I am personally doing, just tandem and other RW/Freefly video, what I have worked just fine.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[DSE 3]

Quote

Imho, "HDV lens" is a marketing BS. I have a "regular" [url .

"HDV" lens is indeed marketing BS. The term "HDV" can *only* relate to a tape format, nothing else.
"HD" lens however, is not BS.
Lens resolution, MTF, chroma timing are documented going back more than a century.
Everyone in the production world is well aware of the different resolve of various grades and forms of glass. The glass must be matched to sensor size and distance from the glass.
You (or anyone else) should do this, if you are skeptical;
Grab any HD camcorder. Doesn't matter whose you use.
Tack up a piece of newspaper. Put the camera in wide, walk the camera up to the newspaper so that the newsprint fills the entire frame.
Shoot 10 seconds.
Now put on any low line count lens (such as the crap wides that most skydivers seem to use). If you have a Royal, Century, and/or Raynox, do the same with these, too.
Shoot again.
Capture, put both in your NLE. Put the shots side by side in a split frame.
This is better done with a resolution chart, we use the industry standard EIA 1956 chart.

Then come back and tell us that resolution at the lens is BS.

[The111 0]

Quote

Century and Raynox are bigger, but do have greater resolution.

Spot, do you know anything about the Raynox HD 5050PRO (0.5x) specifically? I'm looking at that one because it seems like a good price and allows a filter to be added on the front for protection. I read somewhere that at full wide it may get a little soft around the edges, but I guess that is the case with many lenses.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mrwrong 0]

So with this in mind, have I made a huge and costly mistake buying cookie’s Liquid lenses?
Or are those a good choice?

I can honestly say that I don’t get the half of what you guys seem to se as obvious.

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” - George Bernard Shaw
He who dies with the most toys, wins.....
dudeist skydiver # 19515
Buy quality and cry once!

[DSE 3]

Quote

So with this in mind, have I made a huge and costly mistake buying cookie’s Liquid lenses?
Or are those a good choice?

Depends on how you look at it.
The Cookie lens resolves (I think, cuz they never sent us a lens to use in the lens shootout) at around 330-370 lines. Royal isn't a lot more than that. Raynox 5050 on the other hand, is nearly double that value.
But...
you're still shooting HD, so rather than having a soft image in a soft format like DV, you're getting a slightly softer image in HD than you would be if you'd have used no wide angle adapter at all.
So, if you shoot DV on an HC3 with a Cookie (or other lens adapter) you'll have a soft image that is sweetly wide.
If you shoot HDV on the same cam with the same lens, you'll have a sharper image, that would be sharper still if you have a better lens.
How much lesser are you for using a softer lens? It's all a matter of perspective. If you are used to seeing DV, then you'll LOVE the look of HDV with a soft wide on it. If you're used to looking at HDV with no wide, then you'll probably notice the softer wide, but you'll also notice you're way ahead of the guys that are shooting DV with the same lens.
Does that help?

BTW, before someone posts that you can raise the sharpness on your HDV camcorder, DON'T do it. You'll only increase edge enhancement, and just like turning up an audio EQ in the very high frequencies, the picture becomes brittle and can fragment, and worse, you'll make the very edges you want to clean up, look aliased.
Softer is generally better with HD, which is one of the reasons that although the Cookie/Waycool/Royal low profile lenses soften the image, it works pretty well.
FWIW, for tandems and fun jumps, I use the Royal .5 or .3 and fly very close. For the "this really matters" or "want to capture stock footage" I jump with a larger cam, and very high end 800 line wide that weighs a lot. In other words, I'm pretty happy with the HC3/5/7 with a Royal. I just wish Max could figure out a 700 line, lo profile lens for less than $300.00.

[The111 0]

Thanks for the explanation. Would a Raynox 5050 on a HC5 look noticeably better than a Royal 0.3 on an HC5?

I have a Royal 0.3x that I use with my HC90 but I would like one that allows me to zoom full range for ground shots (which the Raynox 5050 does). If the 5050 will also look better on the HC5, compared to the 0.3, then I'm doubly sold.

Sure the Raynox may be slightly bigger but compared to the 10-22mm lens on my XT it's still tiny.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[DSE 3]

I've lent my Raynox out to a friend, but when I pick it up from him, I'll post some comparison pix. Noticeably better? On a small screen...barely. On a 40" or larger...yeah. You'll notice.

[mrwrong 0]

Thanx man for clearing that up for me.
It really helped!

So now i have to decide if I'm going to try to sell my Liquid's and spend $ 185 (for each) and also get another issue with my cambox *LOL*

Well, thats life for you when getting involved in a "high tech freak money & time consuming" activity... Thank god for the adrenaline rush

“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” - George Bernard Shaw
He who dies with the most toys, wins.....
dudeist skydiver # 19515
Buy quality and cry once!