Jump to content


Photo

quick question about bvw-d600ws sensor


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 steve waschka

steve waschka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Indian Harbour Beach, FL

Posted 07 July 2013 - 09:16 PM

sorry. i know this isnt the forum section for sd cameras. but the photographer who might have this info may never check that forum again... have any of you any first hand knowledge of the bvw-d600WS? and if so was the sensor physically different than the d600? or on that camera was it just an in camera crop? the specs i find on line quote the same picture elements for both bodies. thanks again. 


  • 0

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:38 AM

Around that time there were two versions of Digibeta cameras one of which was 4 x 3 and the other was  the WS which was 16:9, but if you wanted 4 x 3 it was cropped resulting in a narrower field if view. My understanding was that BVW d600 had the same digital camera front end as the DVW700, so I'd have thought it was in camera cropping and the WS squeezed into the 4x3 Betacam SP.


  • 0

#3 steve waschka

steve waschka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Indian Harbour Beach, FL

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:41 AM

thanks. the specs show the same picture elements on the stnd d600as on the ws. and the notes say you dont want to take a 16:9 from that cam and crop in post to produce 4:3. so im assuming as you say it crops to 16:9 and squeezes in camera. im guessing that means if i take my stnd d600 and crop in adobe and run the final edit thru a scaler ill get the same image. which i already do.


  • 0

#4 steve waschka

steve waschka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Indian Harbour Beach, FL

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:10 PM

update: I recently acquired a bvw-d600ws. Image quality on the ws model in 16:9 is much higher than a 4:3 from a the stnd d600 cropped. My new understanding is that the ws models do some form of electronic anamorphic utilizing the full height of the sensor. You can in fact use the same lenses. There is no issue with coverage as i have seen debated on the internet. The issue that since the final diagonal dimension of the image is greater than a 4:3, the FL has a different magnification just as when changing up or down on any sensor size. The fix was to use the flip converter feature of the 2x converter lenses and replace that element group with a .8 or something of that nature. So far havent come across any times when that was critical to me.


  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:51 AM

At the time there was the option of having a converter option on your lens, so that you didn't lose any angle of view when you switched between 16:9 and 4x3.


  • 0

#6 steve waschka

steve waschka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Indian Harbour Beach, FL

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:39 PM

Yeah i havent needed it yet. Im getting ready to sell my 2x converter lenses, fujinon and canon. If i can. Not sure who buys this stuff but me anymore. The ones i have are a bit soft, even without the converter in the path. I picked up one of those big Fujinon 1.6 to go on the front. Cant just throw a switch but the image is nicer with minimal light loss. Ive got a plain canon b4 zoom that out performs the 2x lenses. So I'll keep it and im planning my attack to use primes. Not the Zeiss B4 stuff. Cant afford em. I have a nice Nikon-B4 adapter but its has an internal element that protrudes fwd of the lens flange so it accepts only telephoto. BUT if i step up to longer ffd via a ring adapter to say med format, which i already shoot, im back in business. So im going to test shoot with some of that and see how it looks. Testing with a Nikkor 300mm was soberingly sweet compared to the converter lenses. Cant wait for surf season. That footage will look a bit better with that lens.


  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:37 AM

Not all x 2 converter zoom lens had the 4 x 3 to 16:9 change over option. This was an additional feature.


  • 0

#8 steve waschka

steve waschka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Indian Harbour Beach, FL

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:54 AM

Brian youve helped me with info along the way with this sd vid gear and I appreciate it. I started out just wanting a single camera to shoot the interview portions of my films. Now I shoot tons of sd footage. The ability of this gear and how it all worked together was and is amazing. It spoils you. I simply cant afford a 2k workflow that does what this can do. I suspect the equivalent 2k workflow to my sd would cost $500k if you had to buy it all new. And the affordable options just dont do enough better than my gear to make me want to tolerate all the cut corners. I consider myself a professional photographer and a hobbyist camera engineer. And I will roll up my sleeves and do a lot of service and tweeking to the cameras. If I worked along a true camera engineer for a day I think I would be in absolute awe. Cool stuff. Thanks for all your input!


  • 0


Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

CineLab

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post