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.