|  |  | |
| Differences of 0.66 and 0.7 wide angle converter
Question of Wedding_HDV:
Mai 2009
I opted for a Company MF konwert Raynox.
There are 2 in question:
HD-6600PRO
and
HD-7000PRO with one adapter, 43-58
Questions:
What are the indications 0.66 (; on HD-6600PRO) and 0.7 (; at HD 7000PRO?
I go much expect that this figure indicates how much the wide angle is weitwinklich. Now the question is, in which converter I get more picture again? I've seen that start with the claim Fisheye Converter 0.3. For me, it would read: The smaller the number, the more comes to the Picture. Thus the mean that would Angleanbietet of HD 6600PRO with 0.66 indicating a larger wide. But it is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the HD-7000PRO!
As I understand wrong?
Reply pilskopf:
Just as you write it, it is correct. If you have ne focal of 40mm, then multiply this with the value of the converter and you have the ultimate focal.
Why the one now is cheaper, suggesting the quality, perhaps. Maybe the more expensive is fully zoomable, no idea.
Reply Wedding_HDV:
Both converters are fully Zoombar. The more expensive but has a higher resolution of 540 lines / mm and the cheaper with the 0.66 has 350 lines / mm.
I film in HDV and always do often BlueRay DVD's.
Now I wonder what is more important: The higher resolution or the factor? And how big is the difference between 0.7 and 0.66?
Reply pilskopf:
Both converters are fully Zoombar. The more expensive but has a higher resolution of 540 lines / mm and the cheaper with the 0.66 has 350 lines / mm.
I film in HDV and always do often BlueRay DVD's.
Now I wonder what is more important: The higher resolution or the factor? And how big is the difference between 0.7 and 0.66?
The difference is ridiculous when you calculate yourself. At 40mm focal either 28mm or 0.7 x with the 26.4 mm with the 0.66 x WW. So little difference.
Reply tommyb:
Then again, a higher resolution would not necessarily be of disadvantage - especially since these 540 or 350 lines are often measured in the middle of intent, where is it anyway s.schärfsten.
Reply pilskopf:
Take the Expensive. : D Or the Ranox HD5050 if that fits. Is a 0.5 x. I think it's great.
Reply tommyb:
A 0.5, however, is already up close s.Fisheye. Given the distortions and unschärfen especially towards the edge are usually enormous.
A Wide Anglemit lowest possible factor usually makes better pictures - unless you like the tunnel look.
Reply pilskopf:
I'm synonymous s.Rand very little blur, that's true, but just very little, does not fall on next. The curve can be seen only sTürrahmen. Who can go, on my page as the signature is in there and just looking at the self. I can perceive as s.end no distortion. I always have a building but synonymous Kasch and one that minimizes the vertical edges of course.
| |
| |
