Nick,
What was the widest lens you used and what matte box set-up are you employing? Thanks,

vince

The widest lens we used was a 18mm The mattebox was a chrosziel compact wideangle housing. Hopefully I'll be able to get some production clips soon.

Maybe your use of higher (than 1/48) shutter speeds is freezing the oscillating ground glass. I'm not sure that the glass can move fast enough for faster shutter speeds.

Good question.

I'm wondering why you are are shooting faster than 1/48th or 1/60th for any reason. What's the point of 1/3000th!

Does someone want a VERY strobing look?

OK! It runs at vlc (at quicktime, it plays slower and softer) but not so smoothly as the Kaku's files, for instance, here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52110

Or like Run Dan Run from Nick Hiltgen (page 3), it plays perfectly at PC side.

Are you sure that it's not possible to get a m2t conversion?

Well, m2t or not I'll be waiting for the remaining files at PC side. Thank you!

Regarding this file, I see compression artifacts at left of the screen, is it from the mpeg4 conversion right? And it seems a little bit soft, is it from the Mini35 device?

I appreciate to have these answers because as you I'd like work with this specific solution and I'm worried if it goes well or not...

About m2t conversion, if you tell me how to do the conversion I am not lazy to do it, I would be glad to contibute here. Also, if you can tell me how to capture m2t than I can post new clips, we were shooting some TV commercial in snow these weekend, with H1+mini35. So, I can either capture it the same way I did, or the way you tell me.

Regarding the compression artifacts at left of the screen, well, it is more visible after conversion, but I think it was there in the original one also, but absolutelly unnoticable, actually, I didn't notice it untill you pointed.

Softness, yes, because of mini35 it is soft (if you mean focus) but that thing I don't mind. film is always softer than video, and I don't like sharp images at all. What do you think?

As to summarize, I don't think that H1+mini35 is not a working combination, I think, after good experience, it is a very nice tool for someone who wants to have a film like picture. I understand that it is not perfect, and maybe if it was blown out to a 35mm film, than on a big screen it would look the best, but I am doing this test also and I will report. Actually, the commercial that we were filming this weekend will be transfered to film for cinema adverts, so I will let you know, within next 2 weeks, how it looks on a big screen.

So before I upload new clips, I will be expecting your comments on how you want me to capture it and do it in a way that everyone could see.

Also, let me know, how you liked the shot, and was it grainy from your point of view, is there anything you think I should consider?

nick,

thx. i got my camera today and don't want to get a mattebox that will interfere if i use an adapter and wide lens.

vince

Vince, no problem, I was surprised that the film lemses we used had a smaller outside diameter then the HD lenses I'm used to. I think the mattebox we used was fine, but the next one I buy will be a swing away, so that changing lenses will go faster.

Steve, 1/3000 was for a single shot, after that the highest we got was 1/150th and yes it was for the strobic effect (we were making a horror movie after all) I accept that that look can be done in post, but it was the directors call.

nick,

if you're still in atlanta and have a free day coming up, check my request at this link. or if there is soomeone there you can direct me to.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58932

vince

anyone else that is interested may want to check the link as well.

Vince, dropped you an e-mail.

About m2t conversion, if you tell me how to do the conversion I am not lazy to do it, I would be glad to contibute here. Also, if you can tell me how to capture m2t than I can post new clips, we were shooting some TV commercial in snow these weekend, with H1+mini35. So, I can either capture it the same way I did, or the way you tell me.OK, I opened a single thread here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58965

But maybe you have info here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=418067#post418067

Regarding the compression artifacts at left of the screen, well, it is more visible after conversion, but I think it was there in the original one also, but absolutelly unnoticable, actually, I didn't notice it untill you pointed.

Softness, yes, because of mini35 it is soft (if you mean focus) but that thing I don't mind. film is always softer than video, and I don't like sharp images at all. What do you think?The same. Sharpness is a video requisite, too. If you wish a filmic look, you are in a good way. My only concern it is on the big screen. In fact, I've been thinking that Z1U would be a good choice. I love the Sony colors, the care with the highlights and so on...but my fear is on the screen. A 16mm approach (see this LINK (http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=174900673)) instead of some place between Super16mm and 35mm? That's why I consider the XL-H1 sharpness despite the Sony colors and its filmic softness. I know that it's not your business after your XL-H1 purchase but these two cameras comparative is a useful sample of the sharpness (more video-like but helpful on big screen) vs. softness (more film-like but dangerous after a blown-up if not sharper enough...) debate:
link to a introduction to sharpness & color comparision (http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Die-Canon-XL-H1-im-Test.html)
link to color comparison (http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Die-Sony-HVR-Z1-im-Test.html)
link to sharpness comparision (http://www.eidomedia.com/test/out_test.htm)

On the other hand, there is the interlaced's video look approach more noticeable at Canon rather Sony (increased by the different blowlight response). But with the 24F or 25F exception. BTW, what's your opinion about the film-like contribution of this Canon advantage? Does it offer that film look? And can we forget that it's an interlaced camera?

As to summarize, I don't think that H1+mini35 is not a working combination, I think, after good experience, it is a very nice tool for someone who wants to have a film like picture.Did you prefer it instead that russian camera?

I understand that it is not perfect, and maybe if it was blown out to a 35mm film, than on a big screen it would look the best, but I am doing this test also and I will report. Actually, the commercial that we were filming this weekend will be transfered to film for cinema adverts, so I will let you know, within next 2 weeks, how it looks on a big screen.Good news. We'll be waiting.

Also, let me know, how you liked the shot, and was it grainy from your point of view, is there anything you think I should consider?I already saw some of your (previous) good work. Regarding XL-H1 I'd like to see something more to evaluate correctly.

So before I upload new clips, I will be expecting your comments on how you want me to capture it and do it in a way that everyone could see.m2t conversion to PC users, any help? Nick? (considering your m2t files that run well)

There wasn't really anything special about my conversions, I used HDVxDV it's a free program for you to try, and just captured some clips through it. That's really all i did.

Did you prefer it instead that russian camera?


No - I didn't, russian camera is much, much better, but they couldn't finish it, and I couldn't affort to way any longer, since I do jobs, and everyday that I didn't have a camera was a lot of costs to me. So, I decided to go with h1 for this time, and also, there are couple of new CMOS projects, like RED that might do better than the russian one. So, waiting for NAB this year, I will see and decide my final purchase than.


Oh, and regarding the grain, I had shooting this weekend and since we did it in snow, high in the mountains, I didn't have opportunity to look at the footage on the monitor, now we returned to the city, and pictures are ugly. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong, pictures look as if they are dirty.

I will do my best to clean the picture in post, but I am not sure what my attempts will end with.

I did everything like I did when I was testing the camera with mini35, and during test everything was good, and now it is not. The only difference that comes to my mind now is that I used ND3 filters on shots, which I didn't have on tests. Could that be reason?

Levan, when me and dan were testing our 35 setup we noticed a small amount of what appeared to be still grain in the highlights, I'm wondering if you saw something similar. One othe rpossibility might be some sort of codensation on the adapter which may give it a little bit of a muddy look. can you describe the dirtyness. hopefully this shoot wasn't too critical and can be redone if not fixed in post.

Levan, when me and dan were testing our 35 setup we noticed a small amount of what appeared to be still grain in the highlights, I'm wondering if you saw something similar. One othe rpossibility might be some sort of codensation on the adapter which may give it a little bit of a muddy look. can you describe the dirtyness. hopefully this shoot wasn't too critical and can be redone if not fixed in post.

yes, actually, we could call white snow highlights, and it has some grain, that seems not to be moving. I thought this could be from ND filter, but maybe totaly stupid idea.

I not only can describe the dirtyness, but I will upload the clip so you can see for yourself.

Well, I think I don't have to redo the shot, because this shot are aimed for SD and when I watched material on usual TV the grain and dirtyness is not that much noticable any more. So it will do the job, but I am totally unhappy with it after all.

when I have it uploaded I will post a link. So see for yourself.

Is there a Picture you can post of the setup?
Did you use a relay lens or mount the adaptor directly onto the Canon stock lens?
Thanks,
J

Did you prefer it instead that russian camera?


No - I didn't, russian camera is much, much better, but they couldn't finish it, and I couldn't affort to way any longer, since I do jobs, and everyday that I didn't have a camera was a lot of costs to me. So, I decided to go with h1 for this time, and also, there are couple of new CMOS projects, like RED that might do better than the russian one. So, waiting for NAB this year, I will see and decide my final purchase than.Well, a reliable option?! Considering the amount involved isn't it a high risk?

Oh, and regarding the grain, I had shooting this weekend and since we did it in snow, high in the mountains, I didn't have opportunity to look at the footage on the monitor, now we returned to the city, and pictures are ugly. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong, pictures look as if they are dirty.

I will do my best to clean the picture in post, but I am not sure what my attempts will end with.

I did everything like I did when I was testing the camera with mini35, and during test everything was good, and now it is not. The only difference that comes to my mind now is that I used ND3 filters on shots, which I didn't have on tests. Could that be reason?I don't think so!

To tomorrow downloading, is it possible more PC side files then?

Levan, did you try any of the tips? Nick's one for example?

Well, see also this one: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58808

If not try the same method than before. It's better than nothing.

Thanks!

http://homepage.mac.com/sarke/FileSharing3.html

ok, see "snow in h.264" and let me know what you think. this is the shots I did in snow with mini35. with the dirt issue.

it is h.264 so, I am not sure if this is going to work on PC but as I know it should.

Levan, I see what you're talking about, I don't know what would cause that look though. What white balance did you use? Did you have any filters in? I noticed a few shots where the mattebox was in the shot, is it possible some light leaved in on the side of the lens? I'll try to think of some other possibilities.

Nick, I am sure no light was hitting the lens. We used Auto White balance. And I will explain why, maybe it will aslo be a news about the camera. So when we went up on the top of the mountain, where it was freezing, I don't know what caused it, (I guess cold) but the viewfinder showed ghosting on moving objects. Like, if you ever have tried to set NR1 to high, you can see that moving objects in the picture are ghosting, so the camera started to do that, even thou no NR1 was on. I tried everything, but ghosting didn't dissappear. I tried to set everything to normal, including white balance. Then I skied down to the car, turned the heating on and warmed the camera a bit, and then everything went to normal. So, then, when we continued shooting we left white balance to auto.

Well, yes, I have ordered a matte box, which is still on the way, stuck somewhere in fedex office, and meanwhile we used old matte box, the one that we used with arri 3. So we had to mount the matte box with tape, because it didn't fit the rods of mini35, and so when we were moving fast matte box moved. But this is not a big deal anyways.

We used only ND3 filter to lower the light, because I didn't want to close down the lens to more than 4, to avoid grain.

http://homepage.mac.com/sarke/FileSharing3.html

and again new file called office - it is a shot, done later in the snow and in the office with mini35. Partially solved the dirty look.

I have a question, how should I capture from the camera? Everybody is talking about HDVxDV and then convert it to either dvcpro HD or AIC. But why no HDV60i (50i in my case). and do it straight in FCP. Can anyone explain why that is not the good way?

OH, AND THE NEW FILE IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF UPLOAD, SO IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

Levan,

For 60i, straight to FCP is fine like you're doing.
We are talking about 24f, which needs HDVxDV for the time being.

- ShannonRawls.com

First of all - I'm never using mini35 with an H1!And second...you do realise you can clearly see the h1 in the reflection on the glasses.

http://homepage.mac.com/sarke/FileSharing3.html

ok, see "snow in h.264" and let me know what you think. this is the shots I did in snow with mini35. with the dirt issue.

it is h.264 so, I am not sure if this is going to work on PC but as I know it should.Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Do you already test the Nick's method following Shannon's tip?

If you don't get it, try as before. Thanks.

Shannon.

with 60i I understand it is ok the method I am using. But what would you do with if you were to capture material that you shoot with 30F?

Will you capture it with HDV60i.

also, I realize that I can see the h1 in the glasses, never mind that.

Ok I will try the Nicks method.

Yeah, the ghosting issue in the viewfinder is super annoying, this is due (according to canon) to the nature fo lcd's but once they warm up the problem should go away, but as far as I'm concerned if you lose 30 minutes of a shoot waiting to be able to monitor through a viewfinder that's pretty darn unacceptable.

Levan all of the footage I captured was 24F so 30f should work through the HDVxDV process.

Pete I'm not 100% sure you should scrap this whole mini 35 deal, Levan and I (the most vocal posters who've used it) are both pretty new to using this device and lighting set up. I think that in the right situations and once the work flow gets Ironed out it could be a great tool to get 35mm DOF and HD resolution, just everything is still in it's beta phase.

Pete I'm not 100% sure you should scrap this whole mini 35 deal, Levan and I (the most vocal posters who've used it) are both pretty new to using this device and lighting set up. I think that in the right situations and once the work flow gets Ironed out it could be a great tool to get 35mm DOF and HD resolution, just everything is still in it's beta phase.


Absolutelly agree, with nick. Just want to add, that I feel that it is matter of experience. Sometimes I shoot and get perferct picture, very clean, but then with this snow, had so much problems.

So, I think if we had some good advise from other mini35 users, who have had experience with xl2 and mini35, they could give us some valuable advise.

As the bottom line I could say that mini35 can be used with h1, in good hands.

Ok Levan, if it's not possible as m2t conversion, I can confirm that Snow in h264.mov worked better at PC side than the method before. Can you so convert the other files at same way? (if it isn't possible as m2t files)

BTW, I like your work. You have a special eye. And it's possible to watch that Snow in h264 is from the same author than the former commercial posted before. Nice filmic feel environment.

Kudos

New question,
...as I lean towards the H1 (away from the HVX200)
why use a 35mm adapter?
Depth of field, I know....
but cannot you mount one directly on camera?

if you use an EF adapter you can use Canon lenses...
but it degrades the image A Lot
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-56642.html

what are the other 35 mmoptions for the XL-H1
besides strapping on another adapter.

renting cheap Cine-Lenses?
What?

Thanks,
J

Cinemek is developing a relay lens for the XL-H1, so you will have less light loss (I think) and a direct mount.

Yeah, the ghosting issue in the viewfinder is super annoying, this is due (according to canon) to the nature fo lcd's but once they warm up the problem should go away, but as far as I'm concerned if you lose 30 minutes of a shoot waiting to be able to monitor through a viewfinder that's pretty darn unacceptable.

Well, the ghosting is one thing, but the slight delay I see, particularly in the VF, must be due to DIGIC processing. Nick, I remember you asking me to wave my hand in front of the lens and see if I noticed a delay. Well, there definitely is one, especially in 24F, and that's gotta be due to the processing. In regular 1080i, rather than 24F, I noticed very little delay in the VF, and none on the analog out.

Anyone else have this experience? The delay doesn't really bother me as my eye is glued to the VF and nothing else.

I'm not a fan of the ghosting at all, but it hasn't ruined a shoot yet. Still, I'm definitely going to pick up the FU-1000.

Anyone else have this experience? The delay doesn't really bother me as my eye is glued to the VF and nothing else.

I'm not a fan of the ghosting at all, but it hasn't ruined a shoot yet. Still, I'm definitely going to pick up the FU-1000.


I experience delay, but not always. I am not sure which conditions cause it thou. What surprises me is that, there is no delay in the field monitor at the same time.

Cinemek is developing a relay lens for the XL-H1, so you will have less light loss (I think) and a direct mount.

Thanks Barlow,
yes Cinemek has said as much - there is no timetable given however - but it is a priority (after they get the regular G35 out)

Levan, have you the PC conversion of the remaining files?

no, actually I didn't forget to do that, what I am doing now is shooting some new things with mini35. I will be done shooting this weekend and I will upload totally new clips.

:*)

...as I lean towards the H1 (away from the HVX200)
why use a 35mm adapter?
Depth of field, I know....
but cannot you mount one [35 mm lens] directly on camera?

Hello John,
The depth of field is a combination of the size of the film format (in this case the 1/3" CCD sensor), the focal length of the lens and the distance to the filmed object.

A larger format camera with a normal lens will have a much smaller DOF than a smaller format camera with a normal lens. For instance:
Photograph with an expensive Hasselblad camera with a 80 mm normal lens: You need to precisely set the focus otherwise the object will look unsharp. DOF is very short due to its large 6x6 cm film size.
Photograph with a cheap cell phone and everything will look "sharp" because it has a very tiny sensor and a very short lens, perhaps 3 mm to get the same angular view as the lens above.

Sure you could mount a longer tele lens like a Canon 600 mm on the XL H1 with a suitable adapter to reduce the DOF but then you have to stand far away from your object because the field of view will be extremely small. The 1/3" CCD is 7.2 times smaller than the 35 mm film and most of the projected picture is wasted outside of the CCD chip. (This waste is light bouncing around between the camera (outside of the chip) and the rear lens which could in fact damage the contrast in the picture.)

You don't solve the problem by just grabbing a lens for a 35 mm camera. It has nothing to do with that. It is solely the focal length, the distance from the object and the film sensor size making up the DOF.

The various adapters mentioned here for small DOF, projects the picture on a larger (than the 1/3" CCD) artificial film plane made of ground glass or similar. Then they have a relay lens (macro lens) to just photograph this plane picture on the glass. This lens has no function for the DOF. It is just there to see the whole 35 mm "film" or whatever size it is made for.
Be careful to not get dirt on this glass, otherwise you will get a macro photo of it on every frame ... The adapter system with a spinning disk will move around these imperfections fast so you don't see them so clearly.

Hope this makes it more clear. Regards Johan

Johan,
Thank you...Once again, very informative !