Interesting video. Question ... If these lenses (glass) is so refined, why don't we see similar being used on digital cinematic cameras where sensor technology is far more refined. Traditional cinematic lenses offer outstanding quality with resolution, colour & contrast which carries over to the big screen beautifully. Is it a sensor issue for TV studio cameras, because (to be honest) picture quality is sterile with very little depth (flat) Today on pro cameras, we're seeing digital S35mm even full frame 35mm looking amazing. A high end RED, ARRI, or even Sony's new full frame Venice would win a visual challenge - even in a studio setting?
I am a Cameraman, feel free to read my opinion. the main reason is simplicity, lowest bandwidth as possible while maintain the optimum image clarity Since broadcast camera are real time production, they need to reduce time lag or any delay caused by time consuming process in post production/editing. Studio cameras or most of broadcast camera systems are known for its prism based multi image sensor. the resolution is fixed at given formats, such as 1080p or UHD 4K . It has no purpose to reach maximum image projection on large screen, since their goal is to transmitte video signal to their end user, which is nothing but a TV. Broadcast cameras do not have sensor issues or any technological obstacle. they merely depend on the supporting infrastructure of its own. Television is a giant business models pretty much like power station. everything is long term decision. everything is planned to be as stable as possible, as low cost low maintenance as possible. Broadcast camera produce an analogue signal, analogue doesn't need to be processing via computational process like in desktop computer. if they do, it's still different discipline comparing to Cinema industry. Hence it is called broadcast production. If television use digital streaming method, digitalizating all of their workflow, and try to keep maintaining output bitrate losslessly, uncompressly at 10bit 4:4:4 RGB, it would be damn huge file size for 1 second of the content ( a broadcast camera like Sony HDC2000 even has 16bit 4:4:4 Analogue to digital converter processing, and it just a HD ones not UHD model ). a TV station needs to become like RUclips, spending terabytes petabytes even exabytes of their bandwidth all the time without any schedules. youtube itself heavily compress their video bandwidth up to more than 70% compression ratio. A broadcast camera take a video, send it to operator in the station or directly live broadcast their show, everything all done without digitalizating the incoming source signal via computational based processing. So, it's one way transmitting procedure. While it's true for live broadcast, but off course, tv station still do post processing for their content, but believe or not, everything is completely different than editing workflow in cinema industry. RED, ARRI or any cinema like cameras are post processing method. a post edit, since nobody, no any movie director ever record a footage at the same time they project the image onto large projection screen and satisfy the audience. they need to be processed digitally/manually if it were film negative, all footage need to be edit or store in storage medium. all the footage need to be compose perfectly before ready to consume. if something or anything must be stored, you should store your best archive as best as you can. that's my point of view, but, time is changing, everything is changing so fast . I ask my kids, "what you watch guys, and they said : watch youtube". TV will be obsolete for sure, but people will never satisfied by youtube, and something new will coming near future.
These box lenses are optimized for servo operation, in cinema you have a 1st AC and a 2nd DC to do this, plus you have way more time to plan ahead and rehearse your scene, but opticts are very similar. In fact, some of my friends have used those box lenses on digital cinema cameras (mainly for telephoto stuff) because the optics are almost the same as Canon cine lenses in terms of quality, nothenless they always end up with some weird rig because they're used to smaller lenses
Eh, he really glossed over the main reason. TV isnt that high quality (but cinema is), and cinema production never uses lenses like that (because compared to cinema lenses, the image quality is crap). What he really ought to say is these lenses produce acceptable quality for a super-zoom. They need a super-zoom because they dont have time to change lenses. In cinema production they use prime lenses, which are of far higher image quality and much more portable, but to change focal length you need to swap lenses, which you can do in cinema production.
Why would you want quality at the centre of the lens and “relaxation of the specification” at the outer? Utter rubbish. You don’t want it, you just have to put up with it because that’s what’s produced.
Optics have limitations, with a box lens you dont get vignetting on extreme close ups, but that's barely an issue while doing ENG contrary to a studio application (specially with a plain background or while doing chroma key)
@@AlexRutiaga Not quite sure what you are trying to explain. Who is suggesting you would get vignetting? I’ve never had that on a box lens with a ECU frame, however ECU Ramping on any lens is not uncommon. Nor have I ever had issues in the same frame size with ENG lenses irrespective of background. My point was made in my first post.
talks about HD Lenses ... appears in 240p
You don't need to write like Shakespeare to write _about_ Shakespeare.
WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER! Smash that *144p* button!!!
Can we use the Box lens with a High End camera like the Sony Venice? has anyone done that?
Can you please explain the numbering system of the studio box lenses?
Can an older tv studio box lens (designed for plubicon cameras) be adapted for modern cameras?
Thank you for posting!
Interesting video. Question ... If these lenses (glass) is so refined, why don't we see similar being used on digital cinematic cameras where sensor technology is far more refined. Traditional cinematic lenses offer outstanding quality with resolution, colour & contrast which carries over to the big screen beautifully.
Is it a sensor issue for TV studio cameras, because (to be honest) picture quality is sterile with very little depth (flat)
Today on pro cameras, we're seeing digital S35mm even full frame 35mm looking amazing.
A high end RED, ARRI, or even Sony's new full frame Venice would win a visual challenge - even in a studio setting?
I am a Cameraman, feel free to read my opinion.
the main reason is simplicity, lowest bandwidth as possible while maintain the optimum image clarity
Since broadcast camera are real time production, they need to reduce time lag or any delay caused by time consuming process in post production/editing. Studio cameras or most of broadcast camera systems are known for its prism based multi image sensor. the resolution is fixed at given formats, such as 1080p or UHD 4K . It has no purpose to reach maximum image projection on large screen, since their goal is to transmitte video signal to their end user, which is nothing but a TV.
Broadcast cameras do not have sensor issues or any technological obstacle. they merely depend on the supporting infrastructure of its own. Television is a giant business models pretty much like power station. everything is long term decision. everything is planned to be as stable as possible, as low cost low maintenance as possible.
Broadcast camera produce an analogue signal, analogue doesn't need to be processing via computational process like in desktop computer. if they do, it's still different discipline comparing to Cinema industry. Hence it is called broadcast production. If television use digital streaming method, digitalizating all of their workflow, and try to keep maintaining output bitrate losslessly, uncompressly at 10bit 4:4:4 RGB, it would be damn huge file size for 1 second of the content ( a broadcast camera like Sony HDC2000 even has 16bit 4:4:4 Analogue to digital converter processing, and it just a HD ones not UHD model ). a TV station needs to become like RUclips, spending terabytes petabytes even exabytes of their bandwidth all the time without any schedules.
youtube itself heavily compress their video bandwidth up to more than 70% compression ratio.
A broadcast camera take a video, send it to operator in the station or directly live broadcast their show, everything all done without digitalizating the incoming source signal via computational based processing. So, it's one way transmitting procedure. While it's true for live broadcast, but off course, tv station still do post processing for their content, but believe or not, everything is completely different than editing workflow in cinema industry.
RED, ARRI or any cinema like cameras are post processing method. a post edit, since nobody, no any movie director ever record a footage at the same time they project the image onto large projection screen and satisfy the audience.
they need to be processed digitally/manually if it were film negative, all footage need to be edit or store in storage medium. all the footage need to be compose perfectly before ready to consume. if something or anything must be stored, you should store your best archive as best as you can.
that's my point of view,
but, time is changing, everything is changing so fast . I ask my kids, "what you watch guys, and they said : watch youtube". TV will be obsolete for sure, but people will never satisfied by youtube, and something new will coming near future.
Well said
These box lenses are optimized for servo operation, in cinema you have a 1st AC and a 2nd DC to do this, plus you have way more time to plan ahead and rehearse your scene, but opticts are very similar. In fact, some of my friends have used those box lenses on digital cinema cameras (mainly for telephoto stuff) because the optics are almost the same as Canon cine lenses in terms of quality, nothenless they always end up with some weird rig because they're used to smaller lenses
Eh, he really glossed over the main reason. TV isnt that high quality (but cinema is), and cinema production never uses lenses like that (because compared to cinema lenses, the image quality is crap). What he really ought to say is these lenses produce acceptable quality for a super-zoom. They need a super-zoom because they dont have time to change lenses. In cinema production they use prime lenses, which are of far higher image quality and much more portable, but to change focal length you need to swap lenses, which you can do in cinema production.
That’s why those box lenses cost over $100,000
"Even in portable applications use the box lens" I think your steadicam operator will not agree
Tripod outdoors = portable
Canon logic lmao
Harga Rp Juta ratusan miliar Bisa JuaL BELi ONLINE Aplikasi ONLINE produk DiGiSUPER Canon
Why would you want quality at the centre of the lens and
“relaxation of the specification” at the outer?
Utter rubbish. You don’t want it, you just have to put up with it because that’s what’s produced.
Optics have limitations, with a box lens you dont get vignetting on extreme close ups, but that's barely an issue while doing ENG contrary to a studio application (specially with a plain background or while doing chroma key)
@@AlexRutiaga Not quite sure what you are trying to explain. Who is suggesting you would get vignetting?
I’ve never had that on a box lens with a ECU frame, however ECU Ramping on any lens is not uncommon. Nor have I ever had issues in the same frame size with ENG lenses irrespective of background.
My point was made in my first post.
@@pha4614 lmao ok boomer