Spot done on Mini 35...WOW
 

I rented the Mini 35 for a quick spot we had to do.

The spot was shot in 1 hour. Not pro talent....

Equipment was the Canon XL H1, Mini 35 and Zeiss SuperSpeed Lenses.

I was amazed. We shot it in HD 24f. The DOF is amazing...and exactly what we were looking for.

I have no concerns using this technique for larger budget productions...

This was a great test....

Go here to see the spot:

http://www.takeoneprod.com/Mini35/

I forgot...I wanted to post these grabs...if you don't want to download the movie.

Kev: It would be better if you posted the frame grabs in JPEG.

Glad you enjoyed the experience.

Looks nice, one question, was it "no preset" or you used CP?

No custom preset.

Here are the JPGS...

Looks good Kevin,

If you're looking for the next step, some color correction could make "great" phenomenal.

Very true Nate...

We had a $2500 budget for the spot. $500 plus $150 FexEx charges got us the Mini 35.

No lights, only some bounce.....

The jpgs' don't give the video any justice...they look washed out...and I don't know why. There is plenty of chroma on the video....

I was thinking the exact same thing.

That does look great. As for the color correction, it could use a little more contrast, perhaps a touch of curves (darkening the shadows and lightening up the highlights - just a tad), a a bit more saturation.

The depth of field is awesome (as could be expected). Your focus was sharp, as well, for all except the very last shot. I thought that one seemed to be having trouble keeping both the boy and the man in sharp focus.

Awesome stuff!

Dale

For no extra powered lights Kevin, that really is wonderful. And, I wouldn't at all say it needed more light! Looks really good - thank you for sharing!

Kevin, what MM lenses where you using to get that? The wide looked like more of an 18-30 and the closer shots looked more like an 80. Am I hitting anywhere close?

Matthew

I would guess a 50 and an 85, possibly 100mm for the closest closeup...?

Nice work Kevin. As you probably figured out, pulling focus in the shallow end of the pool is a whole different ball game when using an adaptor (can't really be done well using just the camera's viewfinder). As Dale mentioned there is an issue with the last shot, but of course you wouldn't be able to hold both of them in focus and with the grandpa looking out in profile (and the little boy with his head down) it would have been a good choice to rack from the grandpa to the little boy, following their dialogue. Also as you probably know the first closeup of the little boy is a bit soft.

Regardless, you had a solid shotlist and compositions and enough different angles to keep things interesting.

Great work on the spot. The DOF looks excellent. Its always impressive to see what these cameras can do.

It looked like you have a dead pixel though. I see it in the bmps and the movie file you posted. Look for it in the top right hand area of the frame.

Thanks for all the great words...and advice.

The wideshot was the 18mm.

Cu was the 85mm but we also used the 50mm.

I purposely kept grandpa "out of focus" for the last shot....just a creative choice. Liked how the dof kept the boy "centered"....

As for the dead pixel...you're right...I'll have to look at it in edit tomorrow (still in our avid)....looks like a dead pixel...but we've never seen it before....wondering if it's something on the adapter glass...that looks like a pixel...

Interesting...I just pulled up some footage on my laptop from home...shot AFTER that shoot....no missing pixel. This might open up an interesting conversation...can you get a missing pixel anomoly like this using a 35mm adapter with spinning glass??

Charles...you are correct....shooting with primes like that and the adapter...a HD monitor is a must. We had our HDSDI Panasonic monitor along...and I had to constantly look to double check focus.

The first cu of the boy is slightly soft....and I decided to keep it...because it was by far the best "performance" by him. Remember....these aren't pro actors...and this was the first time the boy ever did anything like this...so directing him and getting him to do lines was a challenge.

Thanks again for everyones' input...I love this forum...and we're planning on doing some other kids spots early first quarter...so I'll be sure and post them here when they're done. They'll be shot in studio.

Just and update...I checked the footage and yes...there is a missing pixel.

But I also check footage shot AFTER that shoot....and it's not there.

Turned the camera on...and no missing pixel.

Ideas ? Can the 35 adapter throw a pixel like that ? Bizzarre !

some times you have to let the camera heat up for some time before a pixell will glow. also try bumping up the gain. that will bring them out. the relay (unless it was a item on the glass) will have no effect on the block. take the lens off and put the port cap on and leave it on for an hour. then roll some black and run up the gain and look at that footage.

Thanks Craig....will try that. I normally run the H1 at -3db.

Because of the "dark" location...I might have gone to a 0db setting....

I looked at the other footage....shot after this....and the camera was on ALL day....still no pixel....

Might be in the 0db setting....so I'll look.

THANKS !

That's some really nice footage. Perhaps some day I can have the spare cash to get an adapter myself.

I'm curious about the audio as it's the sound that I'm striving for.

May I ask what microphones you used and/or adjustments you made in post?

Thanks!

Dave,

We used Letrosonics wireless mics, with Sonotrim microphones.
Just hid them on the talent...and no eq in post.

Well...

I've checked all the settings...at different db settings....that "pixel" isn't present.

Looks like a pixel. Smells like a pixel....but it's not. So...does that mean if there was something on the "glass" that "looks like" a pixel ?

very strange...

I was curious what some quick CC would do for the default H1 settings as I'm considering this camera for myself. I dropped your quicktime into my timeline and a few seconds later.... 'Great Green' really comes to mind.

Thanks Travis !

What's wierd is that's more what it looks like in post....

I don't know why the Avid Adrenaline...washed out....the jpgs.

the spot doesn't look like that....very close to your "color corrected" version...

Cool!

Kevin, do you have any images of your rig? I always love seeing how others configure them.

nice work
 

Well done the pics look great.

Travis - well done also, certainly added some punch to what was already some nice frames.


S

A little late i getting to this, but I've noticed when I use the same setup (mini 35, xl-h1) I will occasionally get the strange lit pixel, I think it might have something to do with a fine piece of dust on the glass, don't know why it reads as a pixel but I've had the strange pixel phenomenon as well, fwiw.

This is something groundglass imaging brings to the surface sometimes.

A camera might have a pixel fault which is likely buried deep enough in relatively sharp highly textured clutter characteristic of the long depth-of-field of 1/3" video to be not noticed.

With large smooth but nevertheless changing colours or tones across bokeh areas, you will more easily observe image defects like hot or dead pixels, banding and electronic noise, which is normally also buried deep in the texture of the image unless the gain is cranked up.

The hairs on the sow's ear have shown up in the silk of the purse. If the pixel has been mapped out by camera techs, it may be that the process is only so good and may rely on fairly defined textures in the image to work. Somebody else more knowing than I on the subject may add to this. Believe that person first as I am no expert.

This is an old post...but I wanted to add something to it again...

We used the adapter 400 series....last week.

After the camera was "warm"...the same pixel that showed up last summer...showed up again. But with the standard 20x lens on...it doesn't.

We were shooting at 0 db in the studio. So...as folks have said...is this just a "feature" of using the adapter...and having the image "smooth"...compaired to a sharper image with the standard lens ?

Or should I have the camera sent back to Canon...to have them map the pixel ?

Thanks....and BTW...I'll post some shots of this...and a small video clip...
Footage looks great...and I used a Cook 18-100 zoom lens.

Hope you don't mind, but I downloaded the spot and passed it through Magic Bullet Looks. It has possibilities, but it's very noisy. After Effects Noise Filter and some sharpening would probably help the spot a lot.