16mm lens for JVC-HD200U? or super 16mm? at DVinfo.net

Michael Totten · April 26th, 2006, 10:46 AM

16mm is a 4:3, right?

So if you're using a 4:3 16mm prime lens with the JVC-HD200U (which is native 16:9) then isn't the lens blocking some of the image from the 16:9 CCD?

Or maybe it doesn't work like that? Anybody?

Seems like it would make more sense to use a Super 16mm lens.
Like this:http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/sk4

Nate Weaver · April 26th, 2006, 11:18 AM

Reimagers like the Mini35 and the new JVC unit can make the image any size they like.

The ground glass has to be a specific size to fit within the image circle that the 16mm lens projects, but the relay optics on the backside will size that groundglass image to the necessary size for the HD100 CCDs.

In other words, no worries.

Michael Totten · April 26th, 2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Reimagers like the Mini35 and the new JVC unit can make the image any size they like.

The ground glass has to be a specific size to fit within the image circle that the 16mm lens projects, but the relay optics on the backside will size that groundglass image to the necessary size for the HD100 CCDs.

In other words, no worries.

I'm really trying to AVOID using the mini-35 adapter, cinemek ect... I don't want to spend any more money than I have too. Not to mention the light loss and SIZE of 35mm adapters.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding how this works.
I was under the impression that in unison with the NEW lens adapter (HZ-CA13U) I would be able to mount a 16mm cine lens DIRECTLY onto the camera. (NO GLASS IN BETWEEN). Is this correct? I can use Super 16mm cine lens in the same way?

Or does the new HZ-CA13U adapter actually utilize relay glass itself? I envisioned it as a metal bracket that allowed PL mounting.

Where am I missing?

Drew Buchanan · April 26th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Chip size would still be small so 16mm lens depth will not look like the 35mm adapter depth. The PL mount is encouraging though. Will this camera have the same size chips as the 100?

Tim Holtermann · April 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM

Even the DOF on 1/2" and 2//3" inch chips is not the same as 35mm. If you really want that look you will need to use and adaptor like the RedRock or get a full framed 35mm sensor.

However, being able to put on some high quality Super 16mm lenses which are very available on this camera is outstanding.

Marco Leavitt · April 26th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Doesn't the JVC have a 1/3 inch sensor? I think the image area of 16mm film is slightly larger than a 2/3 inch video imager (16:9), so I'm pretty sure it'll cover. You won't be getting 16mm DOF though, and you may have back focus problems. The Panavision site (sorry, can't remember the link) has a PDF showing the size of various formats. You might want to check it out to help you visualize this.

Barry Green · April 26th, 2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

Doesn't the JVC have a 1/3 inch sensor? I think the image area of 16mm film is slightly larger than a 2/3 inch video imager (16:9), so I'm pretty sure it'll cover.

Correct, 16mm is more like the size of a 1/2" sensor. The 1/3" chip on the JVC is somewhere around 4.8mm x 2.7mm, vs. the 16mm frame which is 10mm x 7.5 mm.

Steve Mullen · April 27th, 2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Green

The 1/3" chip on the JVC is somewhere around 4.8mm x 2.7mm, vs. the 16mm frame which is 10mm x 7.5 mm.

According to a JVC rep, the adaptor has a lens -- or lens system -- that provides a 0.46X image reduction. Which would be about right given your numbers.

He claimed, there is no ground glass taget -- rather, the lens -- or lens system -- simply alters the light path coming from the mounted lens so that it lands on the CCD prism.

Don't ask me if he's right about an adaptor working that way. It seems so obvious, yet too good to be true.

Brian Drysdale · April 27th, 2006, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

According to a JVC rep, the adaptor has a lens -- or lens system -- that provides a 0.46X image reduction. Which would be about right given your numbers.

He claimed, there is no ground glass taget -- rather, the lens -- or lens system -- simply alters the light path coming from the mounted lens so that it lands on the CCD prism.

Don't ask me if he's right about an adaptor working that way. It seems so obvious, yet too good to be true.

Is JVC going to provide a handle like the Aaton or Arri for hand holding with the film lens, or will this be left to third party manufacturers?

I'm asking because the handle is currently built into the video lens.

Michael Totten · April 27th, 2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

According to a JVC rep, the adaptor has a lens -- or lens system -- that provides a 0.46X image reduction. Which would be about right given your numbers.

He claimed, there is no ground glass taget -- rather, the lens -- or lens system -- simply alters the light path coming from the mounted lens so that it lands on the CCD prism.

Don't ask me if he's right about an adaptor working that way. It seems so obvious, yet too good to be true.

Is it possible to use a Super 16mm lens with JVC's new adapter?

Steve Mullen · April 27th, 2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Totten

Is it possible to use a Super 16mm lens with JVC's new adapter?

That's what it's designed for. S16 Arri lenses.

Michael Totten · April 27th, 2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

That's what it's designed for. S16 Arri lenses.

Thanks for the clarification.
Maybe I read the JVC press release wrong. I thought it said 16mm, not Super-16mm. I thought it'd make a difference?

Marco Leavitt · April 27th, 2006, 03:36 PM

So does this mean the image will have the same characteristics as the Super16 lens -- DOF, angle of view, level of distortion?

Soroush Shahrokni · April 27th, 2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Leavitt

So does this mean the image will have the same characteristics as the Super16 lens -- DOF, angle of view, level of distortion?

Thats what JVC says...almost too good to be true, a digital super 16mm camera! =)

K. Forman · April 27th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Which would be the better lens in general? The Super 16, or the 13x Fuji? What are decent lenses, and what might they cost?

April 26th, 2006, 10:46 AM	#1
Michael Totten Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 38	16mm lens for JVC-HD200U? or super 16mm? 16mm is a 4:3, right? So if you're using a 4:3 16mm prime lens with the JVC-HD200U (which is native 16:9) then isn't the lens blocking some of the image from the 16:9 CCD? Or maybe it doesn't work like that? Anybody? Seems like it would make more sense to use a Super 16mm lens. Like this:http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/secondary/sk4

April 26th, 2006, 11:18 AM	#2
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	Reimagers like the Mini35 and the new JVC unit can make the image any size they like. The ground glass has to be a specific size to fit within the image circle that the 16mm lens projects, but the relay optics on the backside will size that groundglass image to the necessary size for the HD100 CCDs. In other words, no worries. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

April 27th, 2006, 07:58 PM	#15
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	Which would be the better lens in general? The Super 16, or the 13x Fuji? What are decent lenses, and what might they cost? __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

April 26th, 2006, 01:26 PM	#4
Drew Buchanan New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Chapel Hill, NC Posts: 18	Chip size would still be small so 16mm lens depth will not look like the 35mm adapter depth. The PL mount is encouraging though. Will this camera have the same size chips as the 100?

April 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM	#5
Tim Holtermann Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 184	Even the DOF on 1/2" and 2//3" inch chips is not the same as 35mm. If you really want that look you will need to use and adaptor like the RedRock or get a full framed 35mm sensor. However, being able to put on some high quality Super 16mm lenses which are very available on this camera is outstanding.

April 26th, 2006, 02:57 PM	#6
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Doesn't the JVC have a 1/3 inch sensor? I think the image area of 16mm film is slightly larger than a 2/3 inch video imager (16:9), so I'm pretty sure it'll cover. You won't be getting 16mm DOF though, and you may have back focus problems. The Panavision site (sorry, can't remember the link) has a PDF showing the size of various formats. You might want to check it out to help you visualize this.

April 27th, 2006, 03:36 PM	#13
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	So does this mean the image will have the same characteristics as the Super16 lens -- DOF, angle of view, level of distortion?