: That is still incorrect. There is a difference that can be observed when you put a filter in front of the lens, no matter how well manufactured the clear filter is.
NOT correct! That was the point I was making (even in a
MUCH higher-res system than video, even under the MOST
difficult conditions, the addition of a good-quality
filter has NO effect that can be observed on resolution
[though under SOME conditions, you may detect minor
additional reflection problems - though this, too, is
unlikely...]).
:The same for WA converters which decrease image quality no matter how good they are. Even the most expensive Century Precision wide angle adapters for the VX1000/2000 subtract from the quality of your final recording. And it gets compounded when you finally go to analog. Maybe be you do not see the difference. Depends how critical you are. [...]
Here we go, again...;-) I NEVER said the WA converter does
not degrade image quality!!! It does! What I did say is that
an example of video being less critical of optical shortcomings
than higher-res still cameras is that a WA converter that can
be OK on a video lens will look terrible on a still-camera lens.
(It would be nice if you would first read posts you respond
to...;-)
: (You seem to be relying too much on a TV monitor to observe things. Pay more attention to oscilloscopes to do your analysis.
[...]
Hmmm, your point being that what shows on a 'scope is more
important than what shows on a good TV, I suppose...?
Gosh, I just find that a tad difficult to agree with...
(That one got you into trouble before, as I recall, when
you insisted that the flaws seen on a 'scope precluded the
use of high gain in night shooting, 'cuz you could see the
problems on a 'scope, though they were not particularly
visible in the video or in VHS copies...
Makes one wonder...;-)
Guess we are going around in circles, again, judging from my
earlier post below, so, time to give this one up, too...;-)
: : Yes, of course! You took the above out of context. I was
: : referring to lens systems - comparing one lens with, and
: : the same lens without, a filter... In this case, the video
: : system is less critical for showing differences in optics
: : (lens + filter vs. lens alone) than is a good still-photography
: : system, since the resolutions involved in the video systems
: : are so much less. A good example is the WA converter that
: : looks just fine on a camcorder lens, but looks terrible
: : on a still camera lens - the still system requires better
: : optics for satisfactory performance (which is not to say that
: : replacing a given video lens with a better one will not show,
: : since it probably will...). My point was that if putting a
: : good filter on a still camera with a good fast long lens
: : (a very critical test) does not show a problem with using
: : filters, puting the same quality filter on a less sensitive
: : system (a video lens) will almost certainly not show a problem...