Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Barry Green]

Yes, everything we shot for this article was 24p.

[Robin Hemerik]

Does anyone know a way to convert these m2t-files to mpeg2? I tried with this program: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~balazer/H...EG2/index.html

It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )

I want to show these shots to a friend on his DVD-player, that's why.
Thanks in advance.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Robin Hemerik

It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )

The camera records real 24P, at the camera head and to tape in the MPEG stream. They did however have to be clever how they got 24fps in a 720P format, and the method they used (repeat flags) is not read correctly by all MPEG2 decoders...

Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

[Robin Hemerik]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

Allright, thanks for the info.

[Michael Maier]

Could anybody tell me which lens and which f stop was used on the last clip with the woman walking by at night? Was gain on 0db?

Reading the article, I didn't see it mentioned.
Thanks.

[Charles Papert]

I believe it was the 18mm wide open at T2, 0 db.

[Michael Maier]

Do you mean the 27mm? I see no reference of a 18mm in the article. Just 27mm, 50mm and 100mm.
What's T2 in f-stops, F2?

Thanks Charles.

[Tim Dashwood]

This article got lost in shuffle, so I've made it a sticky.

[Chris Hurd]

Good on ya... thanks Tim!

[Frank Farago]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Howdy from Texas,

This past weekend, our own Charles Papert took a crack at the HD100 combined with a Mini35 image converter for a couple of days and put the combo through its paces.

Link to Video -- Downloadable HD Clips
Help yourself to these m2t files, but do yourself a favor and watch 'em on an HDTV.

Well... I did download three or four of these clips and watched them in HD. Either the JVC camera is worhtless, or else there was some major problems in the upload/download, becase everything I saw at playback was jerky as hell. Frames dropped apparently by the dozen in these 10-20 second long clip.

I also saw the Canon X2 H1 footage that was shot in Japan this past summer by an early adopter... did not notice one single frame drop at playback in those.

I was playing both sets of clips using the VLC player and outputting to a 1920 x 1080 notice rez monitor. It was not a resolution or color spacing issue, however... it was that frames were dropped en messe like every 2-3 seconds, making the clips all but unwatchable!

I am curious as to what could have happened here with the JVC GY-HD100 test cips. Did anyone else also get the playback footage all chopped up, like I did?

It is so nice to have received a product DVD in the mail from Sony with some great looking 1080i footage shot with their HVR-Z1. I am not sure how many hundres of thousands of doaalrs would it cost for JVC to actually commission and pay for a product demo DVD and send it out to those hardy folks who contemplate purchasing the GY-HD100. But I think it would be well worth it.

So far, the only footage I could see shot with the JVC 720P camcorder all but convinced me to go with either the Canon or the Sony 1080i alternative.

[Robert Niemann]

No no, the videos run very smoothly. There has to be something with Your computer system. Maybe it is not fast enough.
The Mini35 videos look very filmic to me. The only problem is the last (at night): It shows the split screen effect.

[Frank Farago]

Originally Posted by Luis Reggiardo

Tthe HD100 + Mini35 is the only HDV kit that really comes closer to film shooting. Of course, as you say, the picture doesn't have the ultra-clear resolution or bandwith of the CineAlta/Varicam/Viper but the camera cost is 1/20 - 1/30 of the Cinealta and you DON'T get 20-30 times less quality!. Besides, for DVD-output / film festivals / broadcast / TV-series it rivals Digibeta for also much less money.

Even more, imagine this configuration on a real shooting with fine-tuning and careful post. HD100+Mini35 is the real revolution, forget about Z1 in my humble opinion. Buying a HD100 and the renting the Mini35 for ocassional film production would be a really good bargain! L.

Well, leave it to the inventive Germans to Frankenstein a camera using 1/2-inch video tape to 35mm film camera. What's wrong with this picture?

(A) A 1/3-inch sensor will always be a 1/3-inch inch sensor... no matter what sort of front optics will one park on it.

(B) A film camera will see reality as the film stock does, and does it naturally... whereas a video camere will always strain to give you that evasive, but much sought after "film look."

(C) Not that resolution per se is all that important, but still... here we have a camera that does 720 lines native. When you shoot on film stock (16 or 35), you can get many fold this resolution -- even up to 8000 lines, and certainly up to 4000. And by the time video gear wil get to this resolution, films stock would have far surpassed it.

(D) Money-wise, since it is so "sexy" to shoot using CineAlta and the like vs. old-fashioned film stock these days, one can actually get a 35mm film rental gear for less money per diem than a CineAlta package.

(E) 35mm film lenses were invented for 35mm film cameras. Not for 1/4-inch digital video cameras. On the other hand, our friends at P+S Technik have a right to make a living as well... ;-))

Not to be contrarian or anything, but why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

And so your point is what, Frank?

There are several people (myself included) that are happy with 35 mm adaptors on the front of a 5K camera. There is a loss in resolution in using it, true, but so what? It's my media, my production, and my choice. I'm into my cam with lenses, mattebox, M2 35mm adaptor for under 10k, and I can make great stuff with it for myself and for my clients.
1. I'm not experienced in 35mm production
2. Even if I was, I couldn't afford the cost of developing and converting to dig and back.
3. Myself, my clients, and most folks here are very happy with what we're getting for our buck and the access it offers us.
4. It looks great when output to film when/if that needs to be done. Most film fests today prefer HDCAM output, so that's what we work with. Most broadcasters prefer it.
5. If you're willing to put up the cash to pay for daily rental of 35mm, pay for my learning curve, pay for the transfer to dig, and pay for the transfer back to film, all for display at Cannes or Sundance, you can find my contact info by clicking my name.
Tape size has virtually nothing to do with anything. Compression might, but that's not mentioned in your post.

So, if you don't like 1/3 chips, if you don't like 35mm adaptors, if you don't like 1/4 tape, and if you can afford film; I'm wondering what your motivation is to come into the forum and blast away? I'm not a big fan of the JVC either, but the format is a good format, and the JVC certainly is no toy camera.
Have you actually EXPERIENCED a 35mm adaptor? Your inability to simply play back the m2t files tells me you don't have a system that's up to the task of even HDV, let alone HD...Why take potshots at a system you know nothing about?

[Frank Farago]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

To be fair, it should be pointed out that there's a Mini35 configuration for the Sony Z1 as well. The primary difference would be what Charles points out in Part One of his article, in that the image from the Mini35 has to pass through more optical elements when it's used on camcorders with built-in lenses, such as the DVX100, PD150, Z1 and so on. The advantage of the HD100 and the Canon XL series camcorders is direct access straight into their image sensor blocks... there's less glass in the optical path, and not as much light lost.

Well, that is indeed some sight on the P+S Technik site... the Mini35 squezed onto the Sony HVR-Z1's zoom lens! First I though it was some sort of an optical illusion... I mean, why would anyone purchase a camcorder with a fixed zoom lens, knowing that it has a fixed zoom lens... then purchase a pricey adopter like the P und S Mini35... then install another zoom lens front of that... and maybe spice the whole concotion with some adapters and converters.

I mean... if you MUST have a film lens on a DV camera, get one that have removable lenses like the Canon and JVC (thank you Lordy for them).

Having an extra zoom lens frankensteined onto a fixed zoomed camcorder like the Sony Z1 is plain nonsensical... talk about front-heavy ergonomics. And the result looks like the unfortunate Bride of Frankenstein indeed. A good choice for horror shoots, though. :-))

[Charles Papert]

It has been my experience that most productions shooting on HD or lesser formats would have been shot on film if the budget warranted it. There are a few high-profile filmmakers like Lucas and Rodriguez who like to trumpet their preference for digital, but for the vast majority of the rest of the filmmaking world the decision is purely economic.

I myself own an Arri 2C as well as a DVX100a and Mini35; the two packages cost me roughly the same amount of money to purchase. On any given weekend I could potentially shoot a short film on both; the cost differential for the 35mm version would be thousands of dollars (stock, processing, telecine) vs maybe $50 for tapestock. When I do run film through my camera, it's on someone else's dime.

At the end of the day, it's about working within a specific budget and telling the stories you want to tell. Making an inexpensive camera system look good enough that at the very least it doesn't cheapen the material (and hopefully complements it) is a noble cause. I'm personally not hung up on the finer points of emulating the film look on video--I've always had an issue with the setup cards and settings that nominally imitate specific film stocks--but I think that given the combination of 24p and the selective focus of the Mini35 and similar systems, the stage is set for the filmmaker to be able to produce images that will satisfy the vast majority of viewers visually; if they don't consciously or subconsciously register that they are watching anything other than film (i.e. the footage doesn't look "cheap"), then you've won.