Here's an article in Showreel about some testing that is being done with Z1, HD100 and eventually XLH1 by Rodney Charters, the DP of 24, and Taylor Wigton, a DP and member here at dvinfo. Maybe Taylor would be kind enough to post some updates for us as he goes through the comparison workflow process.

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?141

Very cool. Thanks for that link, Tim!

I think things are really gonna change round here. Damn interesting Tim, Thanks.

Greg

Here's an article in Showreel about some testing that is being done with Z1, HD100 and eventually XLH1 by Rodney Charters, the DP of 24, and Taylor Wigton, a DP and member here at dvinfo. Maybe Taylor would be kind enough to post some updates for us as he goes through the comparison workflow process.

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?141

(please note: I am not getting ANY compensation from ANY manufacturer or Showreel Magazine)

Thanks for taking a look guys (and gals). I hope this and the next tests become a credible and useful tool. I will certainly drop an update and am very glad that the actual content written is getting wider circulation amongst all levels of production personelle. The reason: I chose Showreel specifically to publish the results and conclusions that myself and Rodney Charters ASC, CSC (DP of "24") because of Showreel Publisher Steve Parker's urge to tell things as they are, rather then pandering to the manufacturers as we see so often in the free leaflets that come in our mailboxes, etc etc. That being said, there was a clear understanding among all the manufacturers that we have been dealing with that we would love to test your new gear, but we in no way will guarantee that the written text from testing the gear will be rosy and nice. Nor will the reps who work for the manufacturers be treated like royalty, as we will make a point to let our global community become more aware of the mis-information, or lack of information, or lack of (chip specs, for example). No US publication has ever stared down the manufacturers in the way Showreel has, and I want to give a nod to UK DP Geoff Boyle (CML moderator) for one single line in a Showreel peice that made me fall out of my chair. In a sense, it's Variety Magazine for film production. Very exciting stuff, and I think more peices like this written by more of you in Showreel will effectively alter the mindset of the companies who make our tools.

Case in point: The SSE that I wrote about was looked at by JVC brass as motivation to do the best to fix what they could and get us a new rig ASAP. I'm delighted at their response to the Showreel peice, whereby they are effectively taking ownership for thier shortcomings. This will continue if we keep unbiased and even keeled, as they will become sharper and more vigilant and in the end, we will have better tools and better information for which to make smart investment choices.

In an effort to get Showreel Magazine onto global newstands, (not just Europe) I urge people to take a look online at www.showreel.org and recognize that a major push is needed to get the thick and very very informative publication from the UK and into your mailbox. We're used to free leaflets but we need to realize WHY those US trades are free. So in all of our best interests, take advantage of the free download window being offered by Showreel of past articles (in the members area section) so that you can see for yourself what this publication has the potential to do for all of us.

Finally, and this is to the moderators of dvinfo.net: Given the scope of the tests, perhaps this link could be added to the other specific cameras, lens accessories, cine adapters, NLE's, and other relevant dvinfo subheadings, as the tests we're doing are fairly broad in scope. fwiw.

All the best,

Taylor Wigton
DP, Los Angeles

Hi,
Thanks for a very informative article. I actually gained quite a bit of info from it, such as the methods they use for the car/cockpit scenes.

I do have a question though. If the set does indeed start using HDV next season, will the fact that some HDV cameras are true progressive influence what brand they choose? Fox does 720p on their hd broadcast, so I was wondering if this would influence whether they want their HDV true progressive, or the 'frame' mode that sony and canon use, or interlaced.

I am also very interested what they think of the HD-SDI on the XL-H1... bypass HDV compression altogether!
Bob C

Hi,
If the set does indeed start using HDV next season, will the fact that some HDV cameras are true progressive influence what brand they choose?

Hi Bob. Although the peice is rather long in certain areas, I don't want this peice to lead people in the wrong direction. If it was not clear from the text, my apologies. Although we have not completed our tests of how "low-cost 1/3rd inch HD camera systems" perform against the 35mm 'gold standard' on a high end, high budget small screen tv drama, the initial conclusions are quite clear as it pertains to "24." At this point in time, HD aquistion of any kind, all the way up to the Panavision Genesis, has been deemed unable to withstand the agressive shooting style and extreme range of light levels that any given "24" sequence must endure. The executive producers of "24" realized that 35mm Vision 2 negative was the only medium that could handle such extreme shooting conditions, and so that said, HDV is not in the cards for next season.

We knew this going in, but not all shows endure the rigors of "24." "24" was a great venue to push every camera, and there are plenty of areas where 1/3 inch HD aquisition might work for "24," the test is not directed squarly on that show only. All the tv networks shoot all sorts of tv, and this is why FOX figured out that what we were testing was broad and sweeping, so they now want to be the first in line to see images alongside the 35mm master and commander to find how and where they can begin to implement this new low cost HD technology.

BOB's QUOTE: "I am also very interested what they think of the HD-SDI on the XL-H1... bypass HDV compression altogether!"

That's what we're setting up right now, along with the HVX-200. We'll record the H1 to HDV and also out via HD-SDI 4:2:2 and compare those images. So again, this particular Showreel series of tests is less about "HDV" and more "1/3rd inch HD aquisition and post-workflow," and does it have the chops to be used for SMALL SCREEN TV DRAMA. (theatrical presentation is not part of this test either) But all questions are encouraged and I'll do my best to answer what I know or am allowed to answer at this point. I also need to help curb any rumors or speculation that might take on a life of it's own... ;-o

Taylor Wigton
DP, Los Angeles

Thanks. As I was writing my previous post, I did give thought to replacing 'HDV' with '1/3" ccd'. I just forgot to make the change.

It's looking like part 2 will cover quite a bit. Hopefully we'll hear more about the results of 1080i (on the cams that don't do true progressive scanning) and de-interlacing in post, rather than cineframe.

Thanks,
Bob C

Hopefully we'll hear more about the results of 1080i (on the cams that don't do true progressive scanning) and de-interlacing in post, rather than cineframe.
If considering the Canons frame mode, I think any post production de-interlacing process (vegas, fcp, AE, cinema tools, etc...) would be hard-pressed to out perform the power of the DIGIC processor built in the XL-H1. Although the camera scans interlaced, it records every bit of 24p/30p, and they resolve higher resolution then any other HDV camera at that. So I beleive the xl-h1 would best be served by shooting in 24f/30f mode. How it scans is irrelevant....how it "looks" and "performs" is what matters for a broadcast tv show.

sidenote: HDV doesn't even come close to Vision2 stock, but for the other shows they produce, it may be excellent.

- ShannonRawls.com

Taylor thanks for the results. If you need the JVC with the Mini35, I own both so let me know and I will be more than happpy to help out on a test.

I appreciate any and all offers for use of gear for testing purposes. I will keep all offers in mind should be find ourselves in a bind moving forward.

There is alot that alot of people know that could accelerate the learning curve as Rodney and I move into the Canon H1 and the HVX. Perhaps a list of suggestions and opinions based on first hand experience with either of the two cameras could be set up here in a simple way so that we can expedidite the process of getting the most out of these next two cameras. There is so much information that needs to be injested, and if those who have direct experience can generate a list of the good, bad, and the ugly- this would be highly useful.

We are working with all the vendors directly and we have had excellent effeciency and cooperation with everyone except Panasonic, who at this stage does not feel any desire to be apart of our tests. They stand alone here, and despite small shipments of all product from around the world, low product output has not been an impediment, except for this case. This being said, it makes me wonder....why are you the ONLY manufacturer that has not been excited to be apart of these tests? Regardless, I am not interested at this point, save the fact that we all want to see what this little machine can do, and it's our obligation to you all that we obtain the HVX and put it through the ringer. We have a couple Los Angeles based outfits who have offered to loan us the camera (and who will get a credit in the published peice) but the date of delivery is uncertain. Therefore, if anyone has access to the HVX and would like to donate the machine for one, maybe two days on the set of "24," I will make sure you receive credit in Showreel for your contribution. Ideally we want to shoot the HVX before the end of the month.

The Canon and JVC will have the mini35 attached and and assortment of Panavision E series primes. The HVX will be fitted with the M3 from RedrockMicro with Nikon SLR primes. All cameras will be shot clean, and we will build elements gradually to give a wide range of vantage points for which to evaluate each system configuration.

Thanks again, and all insights into the H1 and HVX would be greatly appreciated by us and the production community that has come to use this online board religiously.

Taylor Wigton
DP, Los Angeles

Hey Taylor,

Let me know the days and if they work out, I'll bring my HVX.

Great article Taylor. Thanks for sharing your experience. That’s the real deal, the test which should really matter, a real drama production. Can’t get better for a test than that. Can’t get closer to a real world test, since it IS real world. It was very interesting to find out some of the details of the show and to read your and the 24 DP’s opinions. I share the same opinions when it comes to drama production, like the fixed auto lenses problems for serious drama shooting etc. I feel sorry Panasonic is not being cooperative, as the HVX200 seems to have been made with drama production in mind. You would think they would be ready to jump in an opportunity to test their camera in the biggest TV show of the moment. By the way, do you think there’s any possibility any footage or at least screen grabs from the test be posted or printed in Showreel’s website? Since the set is being lit for film, it would be great to see first hand how the cameras handle it. The ultimate test for any camera.
Great job and keep up the good work.

By the way, do you think there’s any possibility any footage or at least screen grabs from the test be posted or printed in Showreel’s website? Since the set is being lit for film, it would be great to see first hand how the cameras handle it.

Up until the "24" premier Sunday night, I noticed a red dot on my chest every so often. Sometimes on my forehead. Must have been the silly kids from down the street playing with those laser pointers ;-/ And while on set, I had a bag over my head the entire time, except for the very quick photo op. Strange.

So getting Season 5 frame grabs from Fox easy as pie! Right?
--------
My original idea was to not only pull frame grabs, but make an attempt to compile a DVD/HD DVD with all shot footage (AFTER SEASON 5 IS COMPLETED) which could be an even more fruitful way to allow people to make up thier own mind and perhaps begin a dialogue that was based upon a single source that everyone had equal access to......or maybe that will get me more time with a bag on my head and more red dots. Either way, I muster up something in due course.

WOW Taylor, that's interesting.
When we tested the cameras last week, representatives direct from SONY called Adam Wilt on his personal cell phone asking if they could swing by & bring the brand new HD XDCAM 24p HD Camera to the shootout as well.


That IS good news, that should stir the pot a bit!

The Canon and JVC will have the mini35 attached and and assortment of Panavision E series primes. The HVX will be fitted with the M3 from RedrockMicro with Nikon SLR primes.

Taylor, thanks for the great info. You sold me on Showreel - I know first hand that advertising runs most U.S. media.

The showreel article really highlighted the 35mm adapter units may be critical for dramatic TV so I'm sure a lot of us are curious to hear an unbiased comparison.

I'd love to hear resolution differences between the Mini35, Guerilla35 and Micro 35. Maximum usable lens F-Stop (ie deepest usabable DOF) on each unit would be interesting. Vignetting issues and actual Field of View differences would be good to know also. If one unit requires more of a zoom to get rid of vignetting then you'd be losing FOV...right?

And if these units seem soft can they be sharpened up in post enough to get the job done?

Thanks for contributing!

Taylor, thanks for the great info. You sold me on Showreel - I know first hand that advertising runs most U.S. media.

The showreel article really highlighted the 35mm adapter units may be critical for dramatic TV so I'm sure a lot of us are curious to hear an unbiased comparison.

I'd love to hear resolution differences between the Mini35, Guerilla35 and Micro 35. Maximum usable lens F-Stop (ie deepest usabable DOF) on each unit would be interesting. Vignetting issues and actual Field of View differences would be good to know also. If one unit requires more of a zoom to get rid of vignetting then you'd be losing FOV...right?

And if these units seem soft can they be sharpened up in post enough to get the job done?

Thanks for contributing!


I've used the HD100/Mini35 combo on 2 jobs now. I find that the groundglass is a little too visible at HD resolutions (which isn't the end of the world), but HDV doesn't deal with all the grain very well...it's too hard to compress cleanly.

Not to mention that the HD100/Mini using Cinegamma is 64 ASA, on a good day. One gaffer thought it was closer to 32. In my low budget world, that makes me only want to use it for daylight exteriors.

I love it, but I'm not sure how practical it is anymore, like I once did.

Hi Taylor,

Thanx for all you work in getting information out there. I’m sure you’ll be getting lots of replies to your request for info on how to procced with your tests; there’s lots of people out there trying the same thing. So I'll keep my reply short as possible.

We’re in pre pro for a feature that we hope to shoot using the two GY 100 we have, both fitted with the P & S mini 35. We are by passing the tape transport and thus the poor quality Mpeg 2 compression and shooting straight to disk using two Waffian HR-1 recorders and CineForm’s excellent HD Prospect compression as an intermediate. I say hope because there are plenty of issues as yet unresolved. The biggest are:

1) Noise from the CCD
2) Barely acceptable HDV resolution at 720p
3) Poor quality of the relay lens supplied with the mini 35
4) Focus concerns

1) CCD noise. In all areas of the image below a middle to light grey there is a very noticeable pixel dance. It is especially noticeable over lighting gradients on areas of flat colour. Mildly underexposed skin tones have a blotchy look that can resemble great big birth marks. At times it looks like the bit depth of the colour sampling is too low even though we are capturing a 10 bit image straight to disk. My guess here is that the pixel size of an HDV 1/3 inch CCD chip is just physically too small. It is probably something to do with the wavelength of light being similar in size to a single pixel or perhaps the number of individual photons needed to excite the pixel to output each luminance and colour value. My (garden shed) theory is that since a pixel from a 1/3 inch CCD is 1/4 of the size of a pixel from a 2/3 inch CCD it will be hit by a quarter of the number of photons. Perhaps this number of photons is small enough that the essentially random nature of photon strikes becomes statistically significant. Sort of like the difference between doing market research on a group of 25 people or a group of 100 people. Let me re-emphasize that I am just guessing here.

2) Resolution. I’m just not convinced that 720p is really HD. Shooting with detail off gives an unacceptably soft image so we have to resort to the artificial sharpening of a detail function. With that comes all the associated issues such as increased noise and ghosting, issues which are really only noticeable under close inspection but which non-the-less I’m sure contribute to giving that ‘video’ feel.

3) Mini 35 Relay lens. Over all the new mini 35 is a superbly well engineered piece of kit and so it baffles me as to why they would use such a crap piece of glass in their relay lens. I have run resolution test which show an enormous difference between using the lens wide open and stopped down by just one stop. There is a very noticeable colour shift and a foggy softness when wide open that largely disappears at one stop closed. Added to this the are the horrible blue colour aberrations which are present on all strong highlights. These do diminish as the relay lens is stopped down but they are still visible at about 5 stops. Before you do anything with the mini 35 take the relay lens in your hand and have a look at how much glass there is there. It just doesn’t look like enough. I'll be posting some of my test results on a blog that has been set up: www.indiefilmlive.blogspot.com. Let me know if the link doesn't work.


4) Focus. You lose about 2 stops of light using a min 35. Some people say 1.5 but I’m not convinced. It is actually very hard to tell as the Fujinon lens diaphragm seems to be particularly badly calibrated. I read somewhere that the relay lens is only T2.8ish which makes me think that with the ground glass effect added a 1.5 stop loss is impossible. Anyway, you lose light so you have to shoot about 2 stops more open than you usually would, or if you prefer, shooting with 100 ISO stock. Add to that the fact that the relay lens has to be shut down by at least one stop and you might actually be down to 50 ISO. This means you need to shoot high speed primes mostly wide open. Which means you need a really good focus puller. And now remember that the eye piece view finder is basically useless for anything other than operating. How do you judge such critical sharps other than off the ring? There is an answer somewhere but it involves buying some sort of expensive high deff monitor for the operator.

We recently saw our first 35mm test blow ups and were all suitably unimpressed. It could have been a poor projector lens and it could have been the blow up process we used (‘LARA’, a south African invention as far as I understand where each frame is grabbed individually of a very high definition monitor). Later this week we hope to be going for a Lighting blow up to be able to compare.

There is also quite a good discussion about it the mini 35 and other aspects here - http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56502&page=2

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Joe de Kadt. DoP.

I've used the HD100/Mini35 combo on 2 jobs now. I find that the groundglass is a little too visible at HD resolutions (which isn't the end of the world), but HDV doesn't deal with all the grain very well...it's too hard to compress cleanly.

Not to mention that the HD100/Mini using Cinegamma is 64 ASA, on a good day. One gaffer thought it was closer to 32. In my low budget world, that makes me only want to use it for daylight exteriors.

I love it, but I'm not sure how practical it is anymore, like I once did.


Have you tried the other alternatives, which claim to lose much less light than the Mini35 like the letus35 and the G35? If the problem is only light, these might help somehow. Do you feel the resolution or sharpness is considerably knocked down in comparison to the stock Fujinon?

Joe, very interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
But you should remember you can only expect so much from a $5,500 camera. Sure it isn't Varicam or F900, which by your complains, it seems you might barely be happy even with them, but remember those cameras cost over 15 times the price of the HD100 after they are all ready to shoot the way the HD100 comes out of the box. When you throw an image converter in the equation, it can only “improve” the image as much, before it's trade offs (in this case, in exchange for shallow DOF) start to get in the way. I have been thinking lately if the whole 35mm adapter thing is really worth all the trouble or if having a shorter DOF in close ups only, but an overall sharper and cleaner image is the best way to go with those 1/3” cameras. I’m pretty sure that using a Mini35 in a movie you intend to blow up to 35mm and project is suicide. To be honest, I have my doubts if even a F900 with the Pro35 wouldn’t be suicide. Have you noticed that none of the commercially released movies shot on the F900 used the Pro35? Instead, they used Fujinon HD primes or Zeis Digi Primes for the best sharpness possible. What does that tell you?
I have got to the conclusion after long considering to buy a 35mm adapter, that an image converter is a compromise and it should be expected. Hoping for something else is unrealistic. That may be subjective, but one thing is for sure, a $5,500 with an image converter won't hold up against a F900. Big old saying of " You get what you pay for" plays a big role here. I didn’t completely rule out buying a 35mm adapter yet, but I’m not expecting it to improve my image as much as I was a while ago, and sure not expecting it hold up on a 35mm blow up.
Have you considered renting a F900 for your shot? You may be much happier than trying to squeeze F900 performance out a 1/3" camera.
I have a HD100 and love it, but I know it can't get even close to be a camera made for 35mm blow up, neither can any of the 1/3” HD cameras. I would be surprised if they could even match Super-16 blown up to 35mm. If you throw in a Mini35, I think even normal 16mm would look sharper. Just my opinion.

P.S. I'm following all your tests and results very closely. It's all very interesting.

3) Poor quality of the relay lens supplied with the mini 35
4) Focus concerns


How about abandoning the mini35 in favor of the 13x fuji lens?

I love it, but I'm not sure how practical it is anymore, like I once did.

That kinda makes me wonder if the HVX would be a better match when using a 35mm adapter. Also, I've seen you comment you don't really want to sell your JVC after seeing how well it did against the HVX. Is it possible to dial in the HVX to be more JVC like or is the JVC just capturing something different than the HVX that you like better?


How about abandoning the mini35 in favor of the 13x fuji lens?

To me the footage I've seen from that lens looks very sharp but it doesn't really get you any closer to the 35mm DOF feel. Out of the box the footage still looks very video-ish to me on all these cameras including the F900.

What about this variation - get a JVC to Nikon mount adapter, throw a Nikon 28mm or 20mm lens on there (with the multiplier becomes telephoto) and then put a G35 or Micro35 in front of that? The Nikon becomes the relay lens and it's a lot less expensive than a Mini35.

Back in 2001 i made a film using a PD150 and a 35mm adapter with prime lenses and i can tell you this is something i'll never do again. We had major problems from vignetting, and rotating ground glass in the footage. Low light was bad and grainy and we ended up lighting everything like we were using 35mm cameras. Overall the experience was bad and large portions of the footage couldn't be used.

As much as i like the 35mm DOF, it not worth compromising your film for it, instead concentrate on storytelling.

Back in 2001 i made a film using a PD150

Was it the P&S Mini35 or something else?

I think you're right that focus needs to be the story. Before I shoot anything longer form I'm going to have my solution well tested. If 35mm adapters won't get me there then I won't use one.

Joel,

Don't let my experience put you off, back in 2000/01 i believe the mini35 was the only adapter available, it was the pioneer of the products available today. Over the technology has improved and people are getting better results... and yet judging by footage from the JVC and Canon it seems that the extra resolution is bringing those old problems we experienced back.

I'm currently evaluating two low budget feature films made with the Sony F700 and F900, and the cinematography is fantastic without the 35mm adapters, in fact for both films it's the story that lets them down.

I'm looking at purchasing the Sony HD XDCAM for a project later on this year, i'm hoping the problems will be resolved by then, even so i still may not use one.

Joel,

I'm currently evaluating two low budget feature films made with the Sony F700 and F900, and the cinematography is fantastic without the 35mm adapters, in fact for both films it's the story that lets them down.

I'm looking at purchasing the Sony HD XDCAM for a project later on this year, i'm hoping the problems will be resolved by then, even so i still may not use one.

As far as I know, there are only two P+S adapters available. The Mini35 for 1/3inch CCD cameras and the Pro35 for 2/3inch CCD cameras. The pdf brouchure for the upcoming Sony XDCAM was a slight letdown when I saw the 1/2inch CCD spec, as I was kinda giddy at the idea of popping on a DigiPrime onto a HDV-esque camera + 2/3inch imager. (HDV is good for what it is, IMOP). That said, I am a bit unclear what it was about the f700/f900 that enticed you: Since you were referencing 35mm Cine adapters, I'm wondering if the f900 films your were looking at used DigiPrimes shot wide open, in which case you would which is capable of acheiving DOF that can come into the realm of 35mm DOF. And given no cine adapter whose elements will certainly decrease some of your resolution, I can see how you may have been looking at some good cinematography. Or maybe the movie you were evaluating was shot by a good DP, but then again, make sure you look at a movie shot well with a cine adapter so you have a good frame of reference to make a judgment call.

Most importantly, before you buy anything, my advice would be to decide what things you find as nice cinematography because not that the XDCAM could not do nice things, but a 1/2inch CCD might be a hindrence to what you are ultimately looking to acheive, ie 35mm DOF w/out adapters. If I think 1/2 inch, I think about the camera far away from the subject, wide open, and at the very end of the barrel if I want shallow DOF. Where do you want to make the tradeoff?
----------
On a related note, I want to see the 2/3inch GV Infinity/DigiPrime combo. Some call it a 'newscamera' but I've shot narrative on interlaced newscameras and it looked fine. Funny that they used to shoot news with 16mm film.

As cliche as it sounds, I look at camera/lens/CCD/cine adapter/film all as items that can not exceed the qualifications of the person using it, or that can excel because someone qualified is using it.

Taylor,

You're correct, there are currently no 35mm adapters available for 1/2 inch CCD's at the moment, i'm sure by the time i'm ready someone will have a solution worked out, even so i'm actually planning on getting the Sony 2/3 adapter and a set of decent HD Primes, oh and did i mention that i might be getting 2 cameras as this project may end up going 3D.

The other reason why the Sony is so important is the variable framerates, currently only the HVX and the Varicam offer this ability in camera. The HVX has fixed lenses and the Varicam is too expensive to buy 2 of them, so this leaves the Sony at a price point that is affordable.

Tony

Taylor,

........ i might be getting 2 cameras as this project may end up going 3D.

The other reason why the Sony is so important is the variable framerates, currently only the HVX and the Varicam offer this ability in camera. The HVX has fixed lenses and the Varicam is too expensive to buy 2 of them, so this leaves the Sony at a price point that is affordable.

Tony

Well put Tony. Did not know about the variable frame rates on the XDCAM which is by all means an exciting offering. Good luck with the 3D thing, and keep us informed on how that goes. I also read something last night about the release sometime in the future of a XDCAM with 2/3inch sensors. Do not know how this will effect the price point when that rig arrives, etc etc. Best of luck.

Just saw the article, but I have not read it yet (it's long, and I'm at work). So my request may very well be what you are intending to do, but just in case...

I would like to see you guys compare image quality in a couple of ways:

the standard HDV compressed quality, and the pre-compression HD output. I know that the Canon has HD-SDI out. I can't recall whether the HVX200 does or not off of the top of my head. The JVC has HD uncompressed out, and JVC has an HD to HD-SDI out box specifically for the camera. I have no idea what the Z1 has, if anything for uncompressed output.

I would also be interested in workflow. I know that you were planning, in the last part of the test, to test these cameras w/ various NLEs, but I don't know if your tests will start with the footage in the NLE, or start with getting the info to the NLE. It would be nice to see what any cameras shortcomings or exceptional features are as far as getting everything INTO the NLE (& whether you are going HD-SDI into the NLE or using the minDV tape/Rev-Pro/HDD/Sonys Blu-Ray Pro). It should be particularly interesting considering that you might be testing a GV Infinity, and possibly an HD-XDCAM, given that they use different media, and the GV in particular uses JPEG2000 compressed codec that the others don't use. I don't know what NLEs (other than GV's own NLE) can deal with JPEG2000 either natively or via a 3rd party plugin. Perhaps Final Cut Extreme or FCP 6 will be able to handle JPEG2000 (?) when they are announced (I'm guessing they will be announced at NAB, but that is pure speculation - I've heard nothing other than they will be announced soon, and FCX will run around $10k).

I, as well as many others will be watching the series closely, and can't wait for part 2 (and I haven't even really read beyond a quick skim part 1!).

Thanks

Alex F

Hi Taylor

This is fascinating stuff and a great way to test products. When will part 2 be completed?

DB

I've shot with the Mini 35 a few years back and thought it was too soft thenm with and XL1 (before HDV). While the Mini35 fits the new cameras, I have never heard if the improved the innards for HD work? This could be why it looks even worse on HD footage than SD? I'm currently cutting a f900 show that used the Pro35 with Cooke primes - everyone who sees it assume sit's 35mm, but it was shot by a very experienced DP at a great location.

I'm hoping Cinemek makes a G35 that ataches directly to the JVC body and not to the end of the lens. Footage from the Cinemek appears far superioir to anything I've seen with the Mini35 and it's $1200 vs. $10,000!

I too am very interested in the new Sony HD XDCAM gear - though I was disappointed by the 1/2" chip decision. A friend at Sony says the footage so far looks as good or better than the f900.

Curious if someone like David Mullen would know how a 2/3" Digiprime or similar would work on 1/2" camera with adpater. I know the focal legth changes but would that prevent you from shooting with it? For instance if you wanted a 50mm look, just use a wider lens that equaled the 50mm on the 1/2" chips?

Lance

I've shot with the Mini 35 a few years back and thought it was too soft thenm with and XL1 (before HDV). While the Mini35 fits the new cameras, I have never heard if the improved the innards for HD work? This could be why it looks even worse on HD footage than SD?

Who said HDV looks worse than SD when using a mini35? Have you seen Charles/Nate HD100 test with the Mini35? Looks gorgeous and much better than any SD Mini35 footage. HD was just the extra resolution that was missing for the Mini35. I always though SD looked soft with the Mini35, but HD looks great.


I'm hoping Cinemek makes a G35 that ataches directly to the JVC body and not to the end of the lens.

That’s easier said than done. I don’t think anybody can come up with an el cheapo relay lens for the HD100 and get any good quality out of it for cheap. A relay lens for the HD100 would have to be a very sharp lens because of the small but high pixel count CCDs. That’s more of a job for companies like Zeiss or even P+S than a small company. Somebody may even come up with something, but I don’t think it will be up to HD specs, specially not for cheap. My opinion is that none of the homemade entrepreneurs have the resources to come up with a lens sharp enough to resolve HD in a 1/3” chip, so don’t hold your breath ;)

I'm currently cutting a f900 show that used the Pro35 with Cooke primes - everyone who sees it assume sit's 35mm, but it was shot by a very experienced DP at a great location.

I'm hoping Cinemek makes a G35 that ataches directly to the JVC body and not to the end of the lens. Footage from the Cinemek appears far superioir to anything I've seen with the Mini35 and it's $1200 vs. $10,000!

Curious if someone like David Mullen would know how a 2/3" Digiprime or similar would work on 1/2" camera with adpater. I know the focal legth changes but would that prevent you from shooting with it? For instance if you wanted a 50mm look, just use a wider lens that equaled the 50mm on the 1/2" chips?

Lance

I'm sure the Digiprime would be great on a 1/2inch camera w/ 2/3inch adapter, but as far as I know, this will *NOT* make your 1/2inch camera now have DOF of a 2/3inch camera. Better resolution and overall optical performance with a Digiprime? Probably.

For Part 2/Showreel, we're looking at a total of four different 35mm cine adapters that seem to be on the market for 1/3inch CCD cameras: PS Tek, Mirco35 (M2), Movietube, and G35 (Cinemek). What I can say after very close examination of these adapters after being captured by 1/3inch HD CCD's and being processed by HDV Mpeg-2 encoders, is that it is vital to view shot footage on a 17inch HD monitor (or larger) played back from the recorded HDV tape when looking at your final results. Keep in mind that if you are testing the adapters in real time and sending the signal out of the componant direct to a monitor, you are bypassing the MPEG-2 result, so this is NOT your actual picture if in fact you plan to record to HDV tape. (unless you have the budget to go componant out -> HD-SDI to a HDCAM recorder and bypassing the HDV format altogether).

What I have found is that going online to a Cine Adapter website that has small quicktime demos of footage and where native HD frame grabs are unavailable is something that should be looked at with guarded sketicism. Request a Full res QT or frame grab before making any rush to judgement, especially when it comes to making any purchases.

Part 2 of Showreel should be available the first week of March, or thereabouts, where these matters will be analysized in depth. Given the overwhelming interest in Part 1, the Showreel website crashed as too many downloads of Part 1 happened all at once, and I am not sure what the plan is for accessing Part 2. You may want to contact Showreel directly at www.showreel.org if Part 2 is something that you are interested in taking a look at.

With regard the the question posed at the end of Part 1, combining 1/3inch HD with 35mm Cine Adapters, we've made some very interesting discoveries, (if not outright ironic an counter-intuitive) and I am very excited to pen the peice with Rodney and let you guys know what we have observed.

All the best,

Taylor Wigton
DP, Los Angeles

What I have found is that going online to a Cine Adapter website that has small quicktime demos of footage and where native HD frame grabs are unavailable is something that should be looked at with guarded sketicism.


Can you tell us whether any of the adapters made you at least somewhat happy?

Can you tell us whether any of the adapters made you at least somewhat happy?

The objective is not to find out what makes 'me/us' happy, but to look at these different products in an unbiased and objective manner and to then give our impressions of what we saw. Sounds odd, but what will make me happy is that you guys, the filmmaking community, will have a credible resource for which for which you can then come to your own conclusions, rather then making conclusions based on 'he said this and she said that.'

So it's not a witch-hunt here, but a way for the truth to be presented to a large audience who can have a stepping stone for which to look at matters further. Chasing phantoms is tough, and so I suppose I'm 'happy' to have ALL the adapters in my/our possession, all at the same time, so that we can look at all of them side-by-side. Aligning all the stars to get all these tools in one place has been very difficult, to say the least, but imperative in my mind if we are to evaluate and publish credible observations for the best interest of EVERYONE who loves to tell stories with moving pictures, be you students, amatuers, or professionals- and regardless of your talent of career potential.

Hope this makes sense. Best, Taylor

Hope this makes sense. Best, Taylor

:-) I'm looking forward to your article.

Part 2 of the article has been posted, but you will now need a membership to read it.

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172

Yep, we posted the second part of the article on our website yesterday. At the moment it can only be viewed by web and magazine subscribers. However it will become freeview once all our readers worldwide have received copies of the magazine (which is in distribution at the moment).

As much as we would love to make it freeview immediately, as both Taylor and Rodney have done such a great job (over 7,000-words worth), we wouldn't want to undermine our subcribers. Though of course feel free to become one;).

I'll let you all know when it becomes freeview. In the meantime, there is still lots of other good stuff to read online.

Best

Denise
Publisher
Showreel Magazine
www.showreel.org

Due to overwhelming lobbying, the second part of the three-part article by DPs Rodney Charters and Taylor Wigton is now FREEVIEW on Showreel magazine's website.

Along with the JVC GY-HD100 and Sony HVR Z1 Rodney and Taylor introduce the Canon XL H1 and Panasonic HVX200 to the rigours of high-end drama on the set of 24. I'm sure Taylor will more than happy to discuss their findings on this forum.

The article is at www.showreel.org/memberarea/

Subscribers can also check out Geoff Boyle's article from the set of David Fincher's upcoming movie 'Zodiac', David Valentines indepth look into the massive investment pouring into 3D movies and the technology devised by James Cameron and Vince Pace… and lots more.

Best

Denise
Publisher, Showreel

I subscribed and glad I did. Great zine.

Thanks for posting here Denise!