Nate, yeah our gaffer put the adapter et. all at around 50 asa which seems about right as the f900 is about 320-400 asa, and this is 1 1/2 stops slower with the regular lens, and then another 1 1/2 stops or so with the adapter. I should check my math but that puts it at around 50 asa.

I'm still not completely convinced that there isn't a way to get the excessive grain out. Right now it seems like the trick is to-

stop down to -3 gain.
drop sharpness to -9
raise coring to 9
turn NR2 on (as needed)

light for 50asa
use some fast lenses
and have the ground glass spinning at 8 and the iris of the unit open to 1

Anyone else have suggestions?

Did you guys tweak the settings on the Canon or just leave it in the center? Remember, there are 12 color adjustments that you can make to enhance the colors, not including the skin detail which has another 4. But you gotta give it up to JVC....it makes a nice picture out the box.

THanks for that Mini35 comparison of SD & HD. To see it in HD and to not see it in SD means allot. THis proves Graeme & Barrys theory on how a 1/3" lens needs almost double the resolving power of a larger 2/3" or film lens needs.

Anybody have a 3x wide "AND" a 16x manual to sell?

- ShannonRawls.com

[QUOTE=Shannon Rawls]Did you guys tweak the settings on the Canon or just leave it in the center?

Hi Shannon,

Both the Canon and the JVC were at their default settings. The look was really close and I think even I could tweak both cameras to match each other... BTW... 30F looks better than 24f... we did the comparison with the Canon H1 on 30F.

We also figured out that 130 min. of uncompressed video would take a terabyte. Whew! That's a lot, but it looks awesome.

Chüc

From HDV?

Or from the 720p resolution?

Or from the HD100's noise? (other noiseless cam will it present better results?)

Or even from the combo: lens + 35mm adapter itself?

A terabyte for just 130mins? - And there was me thinking my little desktop PC with 580GB had just enough memory to work with the 50-hours of MiniDv tapes that I'm trying to edit at the moment...! It's a good job that I didn't film the project using the H1, or I'd be searching for a mega 25 Terabyte hard drive...

Tony
 

130 mins. of uncompressed

HDV is smaller then DV. So your 580 megs would be fine.

- ShannonRawls.com

"...580 megs would be fine..."

Don't you mean that my 580 Gigabytes will be fine...not megs?

I obviously need to read up more on the editing needs of the H1. I was under the impression that the H1 needed more Hard Drive memory space for editing the raw files, than is needed for editing and working on raw (XL1s/Xl2) DV Avi files (prior to final compression to mpeg for DVD burn).

So, Shannon, are you saying that my home PC with Pentium 4 CPU 3.00Ghz, 1GB Ram, with combined 280GB internal hard drive & 300GB external connected hard drive, will be enough to cope with editing many hours of footage taken with the H1?
If the answer is yes, then that will be good news.

yes, I meant GigaBytes
and
yes, your 280GB & 300GB drive would handle roughly fifty(50) hours of HDV from any HDV camera (including the XL-H1), easily.

- ShannonRawls.com

Thanks Shannon.

mini 35 tests
 

I know the other link didn't work. So, here are my shots of H1+mini35 in work. I have only 3 clips at the moment, and some new ones are being added.

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

It is only indoor, some outdoor shots will be added shortly.

Thanks for the uploads.

I'm having trouble playing the .Mov's on a PC. I have Quicktime installed, but apparently I don't have the correct codec.

Can you please tell me what I need to play these back on a PC?

Canopus Procoder suggests that the codec is HDV 1080i50. Perhaps I don't have a quicktime PAL codec? Frame rate is 25, vid frame 1920x1080.

Any advice is most appreciated.

Thanks,
Shawn

Honestly I don't know. If you tell me what codec you can playback, I could do the conversion for you.

Let me know.

Oh, and yest it is HDV 1080i50. This is how I capture in FCP.

Thank you Levan, I appreciate so much your contribution but is it possible to convert them to wmv or m2t (better yet) to PC users?

that would be mpeg4 right?

I don't know! It's like these Kaku's files:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52110

It plays very well!

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

BTW, the noticeable luma noise from the other Nick's clip that you can see here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....7&postcount=56

-- does it appear at your footage?

And what about the combination between softness (I like it!) from the Run Dan Run's clip and the XL-H1's sharpness? Is it promising to 35mm film-out work? I hope so!

If you purchased XL-H1, do you prefer it rather the other russian camera that you thought to buy (I'm not sure if you bought it or not) ?

ok, I just uploaded the new file, please download it and if it plays well, I will convert all of them the same way.

Thank you! By now I'm on dial-up but I already begin to download it: 2 hours!... But if it works I can go to my office where I have broadband for to download the others after your upload of the remaining PC compatible files.

thanks Levan!






Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }


XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

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...

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.

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?

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.

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/showthrea...067#post418067

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) 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
link to color comparison
link to sharpness comparision

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?

Did you prefer it instead that russian camera?

Good news. We'll be waiting.

I already saw some of your (previous) good work. Regarding XL-H1 I'd like to see something more to evaluate correctly.

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.

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

Well, a reliable option?! Considering the amount involved isn't it a high risk?

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.