the 13x3.5BRMU Fujinon Lens or a 35mm ADAPTER????

[John Spear]

Now... I am seriously debating to shoot a feature (low budget) with the 13x3.5BRMU Lens or with a 35mm ADAPTER. I am leaning towards the former... 13x3.5BRMU Lens given the time and the fact that we'll be shooting in the actual locations. I'm shooting with the JVC GY HD 110U and this lens seems to have very good credentials. Tim Dashwood and others who have shot features with the lens swear by it. I'm doing research. I'm a bit doubtful of adapters because of all the extra glass elements and the bulkiness of the stock lens on the 110U. A relay would be in place but I don't know... I think I'll move faster with the lens. A nice wide shot with no barrel effect at its widest is what I hear. What do you think? I appreciate the input.

[Brian Luce]

The 13x rocks. If you can spring for the cash. For a feature especially -- shooting inside and stuff. You can get some shallow focus without an adapter off those 1/3" chips. There's a trick using the back focus as well to decrease DOF. The attachment was shot without any adapter or the back focus trick and you can see there's already some shallow focus. The candle is very close to the subject.

[Tim Dashwood]

As much as I love the 13x3.5mm I have to admit that if the HZ-CA13U had existed when we shot Bull I would have used it with an arsenal of Zeiss Ultra Primes.
However, those who have watched Bull (we had a hi-def screening last week at the Hamilton Film Festival) never ever comment on deep depth of field. I've had loads of comments on the "clarity," lighting, choice of angles, acting, story, etc., but no questions about the shooting format.
To me this just proves once again that script, acting, angles & lighting supersede pixel count and short depth of field.

[John Spear]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

The 13x rocks. If you can spring for the cash. For a feature especially -- shooting inside and stuff. You can get some shallow focus without an adapter off those 1/3" chips. There's a trick using the back focus as well to decrease DOF. The attachment was shot without any adapter or the back focus trick and you can see there's already some shallow focus. The candle is very close to the subject.

Thanks for tip. It is just what I was looking for, a shallow DOF with the lens. I would very much like to know the trick using the back focus, If you could share that. Also, about your picture, apart from the DOF being very cinematic, which it is, how far away is the candle to the subject in feet? And how far away are you (or the cam) from the subject? That could be a factor depending on the available space on a location. What is the Focal length of lens set to? I love the resolution of the lens. Depending on how you light, it gives a very "Kodak crisp feel". But the DOF was my main concern... The trick please...

[John Spear]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

As much as I love the 13x3.5mm I have to admit that if the HZ-CA13U had existed when we shot Bull I would have used it with an arsenal of Zeiss Ultra Primes.
However, those who have watched Bull (we had a hi-def screening last week at the Hamilton Film Festival) never ever comment on deep depth of field. I've had loads of comments on the "clarity," lighting, choice of angles, acting, story, etc., but no questions about the shooting format.
To me this just proves once again that script, acting, angles & lighting supersede pixel count and short depth of field.

O.K. the HZ-CA13U... hummm, I own a HD 110U and the image gets flipped. I have been reading about it and saw the stills from your tests at the Sundance. Striking... Again, the image in my cam gets flipped and there seems to be no solution from the folks at JVC, at least not yet... I was looking at the Letus35 Flip Module for Third Party Adapter. According to them, the Flip module was built for those who own a third party upside-down adapter who want to flip the image right side up. But then again, I wonder if that would be too cumbersome or it would add light-loss, or how that would work. That being said, I would like to congratulate your work in Bull. I have only seen the trailer on the Bull site, but I must admit I used it as a selling point to the Director of the Romantic Comedy I'm about to shoot. "Wow" he said, "this was shot on a JVC?" (he owns a HVX200) "the quality looks like 35mm" he added. I agree with him. I did notice the sharpness throughout the trailer, and although I haven't seen the movie yet, I suppose your choice to use the HZ-CA13U with a set of zeiss primes has something to do with the DOF issue. My question is why?
I must admit that the HZ-CA13U is very attractive and adds an ideal functionality to this cam. (or the 200/250 with the flip on the CCD level) and according to the folks ay JVC this adapter was designed with those cameras in mind, leaving the 100's and 110's "behind" so to speak... as far as this fabulous adapter is concerned. This was my first choice, I must admit, then I was looking at the Letus ultimate, but it takes more than it gives in many areas, specially in the type of shoot I'm involved in. We need to move fast and steady... Coming back to my question... What could I do to make the 13x3.5mm behave like a "cinematic lens"? Can I achieve fair shallow DOF? How fair?

Thanks for your input.

[John Spear]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

The 13x rocks. The attachment was shot without any adapter or the back focus trick and you can see there's already some shallow focus. The candle is very close to the subject.

That's neat you can share the grab.

Why can't I attach any pics? Am I restricted?

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by John Spear

Thanks for tip. It is just what I was looking for, a shallow DOF with the lens. I would very much like to know the trick using the back focus, If you could share that. Also, about your picture, apart from the DOF being very cinematic, which it is, how far away is the candle to the subject in feet? And how far away are you (or the cam) from the subject? That could be a factor depending on the available space on a location. What is the Focal length of lens set to? I love the resolution of the lens. Depending on how you light, it gives a very "Kodak crisp feel". But the DOF was my main concern... The trick please...

That lantern was about two feet behind the subject. Lens wide open, or nearly wide open. I was about 3' from the subject. Stock lens.

[John Spear]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

That lantern was about two feet behind the subject. Lens wide open, or nearly wide open. I was about 3' from the subject. Stock lens.

Thanks. BF trick?

[Justin Ferar]

I'm pretty sure the BF trick is just tweaking the macro adjustment on the lens, which is very effective in throwing the background out of focus and getting some nice blooming.

Taking that trick even further I guess one could even intentionally misalign the Flange Back to exaggerate the effect though I've never done that.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by John Spear

Thanks. BF trick?

No that's just the stock lens with the iris nearly wide open. No tricks.

Just a personal opinion, but I think DOF is excessively obsessed about.

[John Spear]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

. There's a trick using the back focus as well to decrease DOF.

?????????What is "The back focus trick"????????????

Is it a secret?

It's really more an aesthetic obsession and not related to anything else... There are certain shots in which you want to "focus" the attention of the viewer on a subject and this is where it comes in handy to utilize this isolating technique. It is a tool, another tool for your storytelling. Much like a sentence ending in a point. Or in suspension... or exclamation!
It comes in handy if you are a writer. It dose not substitute the story, it enhances it when used properly. But you don't have to share the "back focus trick"... Although it would be nice!

I'm going to fool around with the macro like Justin said and see what kind of novelty I can come up with....

Do you know of a film shot with the stock lens on the HD 100 or 110U? I came across THIS.
Circuit - Online Magazine - Issue No. 2 - JVC's GY-HD100U: The Evolution of the Revolution

The guy seems to have shot it with the stock lens since he states that:

"Although this bold and unprecedented appeal for feedback may have put JVC in a slightly compromised marketing position, I think when the HD100 is finally evaluated by the professional community, there won't be a naysayer with a leg to stand on. The bang for the buck simply cannot be denied…

On my second round of evaluations, JVC was kind enough to provide me with the more expensive and better quality Fujinon Th13x3.5 wide angle lens – which definitely boosted the resolution performance of the camera. So after some initial testing to determine the proper, detail, matrix and gamma I blew some footage up to film to finalize the settings – and went off to shoot a movie !"

Sounds like his second round was after the fact. What do you think?

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by John Spear

?????????What is "The back focus trick"????????????

Is it a secret?

Sorry, been obsessing over back focus lately. Yeah, as Justin says, it's the macro ring, not BF.

A lot of people, probably most people, use stock lens. The 13x is arguably the most high end accessory available for the JVC. It was $9,000 when the camera was a new kid on the block. It's a true luxury item, most learn to love the stock lens.

[Edward Tomecko]

I've had some pretty good luck using the macro focus adjustment to get a more shallow depth of field. Zooming in from a distance from your subject also works for the "look". Use a solid tripod! I still use the HD100 a lot for SD work and the clients love the look and detail. I just ordered a Encinema 35mm adapter for my Panasonic DVC30. We'll see how that works out.

[Henrik Helms]

Hi!
I am the lucky owner of both the 13X and 35 mm Letus Extreme adapter. I would not compare the two. I use the 13X for my documentaries where it works much better than the stock-lens. I have used it with both my HD100 and HD200 - its a very good lens.
The Letus is used with my three Nikon lenses and is much harder to handle.
It makes my JVC camera the longest in Denmark I think...:) It produce really nice stuff and a shallow DOF which I cannot make with my 13X. But it takes time to use - so I mostly use it in interviews or where I want to make a more filmic look and have the time to do so.

[Alex Humphrey]

Hey just to stir up the bee hive. I just noticed if you NEED a shallow depth of field for work. Nikon's D90 DSLR has a new D-Movie that records 5 minutes of 720p (720x1280) at 24fps and of course has a much shallower depth of field from the get go and excellent lens. I heard that you can only record 5 minutes at a time with the SD cards, but I haven't confirmed that yet.

Might be another option. Records AVI files so mac users will have to do some export/import I think, but PC users should be able to be up and running?

Figures, I just picked up a D-40 a few months ago for giggles.. If I had known this I would have opted for the 12 megapix D90 just to give it a try.