the 13x3.5BRMU Fujinon Lens or a 35mm ADAPTER????
 

Now... I am seriously debating to shoot a feature (low budget) with the 13x3.5BRMU Lens or with a 35mm ADAPTER. I am leaning towards the former... 13x3.5BRMU Lens given the time and the fact that we'll be shooting in the actual locations. I'm shooting with the JVC GY HD 110U and this lens seems to have very good credentials. Tim Dashwood and others who have shot features with the lens swear by it. I'm doing research. I'm a bit doubtful of adapters because of all the extra glass elements and the bulkiness of the stock lens on the 110U. A relay would be in place but I don't know... I think I'll move faster with the lens. A nice wide shot with no barrel effect at its widest is what I hear. What do you think? I appreciate the input.

The 13x rocks. If you can spring for the cash. For a feature especially -- shooting inside and stuff. You can get some shallow focus without an adapter off those 1/3" chips. There's a trick using the back focus as well to decrease DOF. The attachment was shot without any adapter or the back focus trick and you can see there's already some shallow focus. The candle is very close to the subject.

As much as I love the 13x3.5mm I have to admit that if the HZ-CA13U had existed when we shot Bull I would have used it with an arsenal of Zeiss Ultra Primes.
However, those who have watched Bull (we had a hi-def screening last week at the Hamilton Film Festival) never ever comment on deep depth of field. I've had loads of comments on the "clarity," lighting, choice of angles, acting, story, etc., but no questions about the shooting format.
To me this just proves once again that script, acting, angles & lighting supersede pixel count and short depth of field.

Thanks for tip. It is just what I was looking for, a shallow DOF with the lens. I would very much like to know the trick using the back focus, If you could share that. Also, about your picture, apart from the DOF being very cinematic, which it is, how far away is the candle to the subject in feet? And how far away are you (or the cam) from the subject? That could be a factor depending on the available space on a location. What is the Focal length of lens set to? I love the resolution of the lens. Depending on how you light, it gives a very "Kodak crisp feel". But the DOF was my main concern... The trick please...

O.K. the HZ-CA13U... hummm, I own a HD 110U and the image gets flipped. I have been reading about it and saw the stills from your tests at the Sundance. Striking... Again, the image in my cam gets flipped and there seems to be no solution from the folks at JVC, at least not yet... I was looking at the Letus35 Flip Module for Third Party Adapter. According to them, the Flip module was built for those who own a third party upside-down adapter who want to flip the image right side up. But then again, I wonder if that would be too cumbersome or it would add light-loss, or how that would work. That being said, I would like to congratulate your work in Bull. I have only seen the trailer on the Bull site, but I must admit I used it as a selling point to the Director of the Romantic Comedy I'm about to shoot. "Wow" he said, "this was shot on a JVC?" (he owns a HVX200) "the quality looks like 35mm" he added. I agree with him. I did notice the sharpness throughout the trailer, and although I haven't seen the movie yet, I suppose your choice to use the HZ-CA13U with a set of zeiss primes has something to do with the DOF issue. My question is why?
I must admit that the HZ-CA13U is very attractive and adds an ideal functionality to this cam. (or the 200/250 with the flip on the CCD level) and according to the folks ay JVC this adapter was designed with those cameras in mind, leaving the 100's and 110's "behind" so to speak... as far as this fabulous adapter is concerned. This was my first choice, I must admit, then I was looking at the Letus ultimate, but it takes more than it gives in many areas, specially in the type of shoot I'm involved in. We need to move fast and steady... Coming back to my question... What could I do to make the 13x3.5mm behave like a "cinematic lens"? Can I achieve fair shallow DOF? How fair?

Thanks for your input.

That's neat you can share the grab.

Why can't I attach any pics? Am I restricted?

That lantern was about two feet behind the subject. Lens wide open, or nearly wide open. I was about 3' from the subject. Stock lens.

Thanks. BF trick?

I'm pretty sure the BF trick is just tweaking the macro adjustment on the lens, which is very effective in throwing the background out of focus and getting some nice blooming.

Taking that trick even further I guess one could even intentionally misalign the Flange Back to exaggerate the effect though I've never done that.

No that's just the stock lens with the iris nearly wide open. No tricks.

Just a personal opinion, but I think DOF is excessively obsessed about.

?????????What is "The back focus trick"????????????

Is it a secret?

It's really more an aesthetic obsession and not related to anything else... There are certain shots in which you want to "focus" the attention of the viewer on a subject and this is where it comes in handy to utilize this isolating technique. It is a tool, another tool for your storytelling. Much like a sentence ending in a point. Or in suspension... or exclamation!
It comes in handy if you are a writer. It dose not substitute the story, it enhances it when used properly. But you don't have to share the "back focus trick"... Although it would be nice!

I'm going to fool around with the macro like Justin said and see what kind of novelty I can come up with....

Do you know of a film shot with the stock lens on the HD 100 or 110U? I came across THIS.
Circuit - Online Magazine - Issue No. 2 - JVC's GY-HD100U: The Evolution of the Revolution

The guy seems to have shot it with the stock lens since he states that:

"Although this bold and unprecedented appeal for feedback may have put JVC in a slightly compromised marketing position, I think when the HD100 is finally evaluated by the professional community, there won't be a naysayer with a leg to stand on. The bang for the buck simply cannot be denied…

On my second round of evaluations, JVC was kind enough to provide me with the more expensive and better quality Fujinon Th13x3.5 wide angle lens – which definitely boosted the resolution performance of the camera. So after some initial testing to determine the proper, detail, matrix and gamma I blew some footage up to film to finalize the settings – and went off to shoot a movie !"

Sounds like his second round was after the fact. What do you think?

Sorry, been obsessing over back focus lately. Yeah, as Justin says, it's the macro ring, not BF.

A lot of people, probably most people, use stock lens. The 13x is arguably the most high end accessory available for the JVC. It was $9,000 when the camera was a new kid on the block. It's a true luxury item, most learn to love the stock lens.

I've had some pretty good luck using the macro focus adjustment to get a more shallow depth of field. Zooming in from a distance from your subject also works for the "look". Use a solid tripod! I still use the HD100 a lot for SD work and the clients love the look and detail. I just ordered a Encinema 35mm adapter for my Panasonic DVC30. We'll see how that works out.

Both...
 

Hi!
I am the lucky owner of both the 13X and 35 mm Letus Extreme adapter. I would not compare the two. I use the 13X for my documentaries where it works much better than the stock-lens. I have used it with both my HD100 and HD200 - its a very good lens.
The Letus is used with my three Nikon lenses and is much harder to handle.
It makes my JVC camera the longest in Denmark I think...:) It produce really nice stuff and a shallow DOF which I cannot make with my 13X. But it takes time to use - so I mostly use it in interviews or where I want to make a more filmic look and have the time to do so.

Hey just to stir up the bee hive. I just noticed if you NEED a shallow depth of field for work. Nikon's D90 DSLR has a new D-Movie that records 5 minutes of 720p (720x1280) at 24fps and of course has a much shallower depth of field from the get go and excellent lens. I heard that you can only record 5 minutes at a time with the SD cards, but I haven't confirmed that yet.

Might be another option. Records AVI files so mac users will have to do some export/import I think, but PC users should be able to be up and running?

Figures, I just picked up a D-40 a few months ago for giggles.. If I had known this I would have opted for the 12 megapix D90 just to give it a try.

Sergio Leone shot lots with as much light as possible (broad daylight bright) specifically so he could get deep focus shots.

Watch "Once Upon a Time in the West" for example.

I see a lot of movies. Sharpness and good composition is much more important than shallow DOF. Mushy pictures where some parts are less mushy than others is irritating.

If shallow depth of field is most important, one can always smear vasoline around on the lens where you want to lose focus.

I would vote for the HZ-CA13U or the 13x for anything that is going to be seen large in the theater (either film transfer or digital projection). I would stay away from adapters that look through the inferior standard lens.

I'll second that. Another way to get a similar effect is while blocking (staging) make set the background farther away, less colorfull, more subdued lighting etc, as well as using smoke to help seperate the subject from the background without having to use longer lenses. We used that exclusively in 1997's TITANIC for the period scenes.

This my 2 cents. I don't think I would spend my cash on either. When I calculated the cost of 13x3.5 lens, which is $6600 bucks I might as well buy a new Sony EX1.

If you like the form factor of the EX1, go for it. I was faced with the reality of having $x to spend and I decided I wanted a shoulder cam with an inexpensive archival media (tape) that accepted industry standard batteries (Anton Bauer) and could power industry standard accessories like on camera lights from one power source. I also specifically didn't want CMOS sensors so I bought two 200's and my JVC PL mount adaptor should be here Monday.

Know HOW you're MOST likely to use your camera and what you expect to be doing 3 years from now and buy accordingly. I expect to be looking at disc based XDCam HD stuff in 2 - 3 years so I wanted ~12v power stuff that I can take forward with me. This isn't the right solution for everybody.

Do I wish I had better low light performance? Sure. DO I wish my stock lens went wider? Absolutely. Am I willing to give up a semi-fullsize shoulder form factor for those? No thanks. The Sony EX's are engineering marvels but I needed a solution that worked for me and MY workflow.

Will I buy a 13x wide? Probably, but not until next year. I need to play with my new PL adaptor for a while first.

Hi Shaun,
I bought the 13 x lens and its the best thing I have ever done. I also could not get my head around using the toy looking EX1 even though I know it is a great camera. the 13x lens has boosted my low light most of all and I will never buy a camera without the true wide angle from now on. It has changed my business so much and has paid for itself many times and i have only had it about 4 months.

Dennis: I realize the 13x is a true wide angle lens (which inevitably means a short zoom and therefore a short maximum focal length) but do you find that you are ever limited by having a shorter lens? Do you leave the 13x on the camera all the time or use it when you are likely to require the wide side? Does your 16x (or 17x) come out in the field with you? In my TV news days, we kept the "normal" lens on the camera and the "wide" in the truck until we needed it. Curious to see how others use their lenses.

Hi Shaun,
Good question but I cant tell much difference between the zoom on the 13x or the stock lens. I have never and will never have the need to put the old one back on. As well as having a beautiful wide angle shot, I just love the way it makes footage look from a dolly. Simply stunning. I shoot TV commercials mainly and now I can stand a little back from a business and take a shot whereas before I had to go back across the road to get the business in. At the distance it was impossible to see the signage on the business. I am rapt and the low light benefits are amazing.

You can buy those 13x lenses second hand for around 4500 bucks.

May I require your reason for this statement?

Rolling shutter drives me mad. It may be the future but even the first generation CDs sounded like crap compared to the vinyl UNTIL the manufacturers got it "right".

Oh, and pan and tilt "smear".

Bruce,
I would sure like to find one used, do you know of any place to look?
mark

I was buying a couple of items from B&H, I mentioned popular belief about 13x lens letting more light through. According to B&H this is not true. 13x lens is simply wider lens, that's all. It has exactly same number of F stops. It has a different configuration of the optics allowing more detail to get to the CCD.

Never heard such nonsense. The 13x lens on my JVC111 has made an enormous difference to my camera for low light. Matter of fact, I had an EX1 on loan the other night and there is not much difference between the low light of the Sony compared to the JVC with 13x lens. With the stock lens on the JVC, the Sony EX1 is truly amazing in comparison of low light capabilities.

It may TECHNICALLY not increase the aperture but a wider field of view MAY allow for more light to hit the CCDs. Don't know.

Robert,

Good quality lenses give better overall illumination as compared to others. Even if the have the same f stop. A case in point are my nikons which i also use with my JVC. My 85mm f2 renders a darker background than my 80-200 f2.8(this is in theory suppose to be slower).

The 80-200 at 85mm f2.8, which is much more expensive and robust, renders a brighter overall image than the 85mm at f2.

Just as, different brand lenses supposedly marked at same fov values don't exactly have the same fov.

In your statement you are referring to two things, illumination and detail. this are two different qualities. some lenses due to quality, provide more detail and perceived sharpness than others brightness is another quality as well. Both are affected by the quality of the optics.


Ted

With the 13x, as soon as you turn on the camera and look in the LCD, you'll immediately notice a brighter more vivid image. The real question is in the cost/benefit analysis of such pricey piece of glass.

Try to find a Letus HD100 (the one that attaches directly to the camera body) and some lights for that money... If you find one get the GG replace with the one that comes in the new Letus Extreme. This is what i shot this with. It's a lil muddy due to the compression, no real post just crushed the blacks a bit.

http://www.theworksfilms.com/wi

On sort of the same topic, I've been looking at the mtf nikon adapter for my hd100u. I know you get a huge magnification; I'm curious if this would be better specifically for weddings and short films than my stock 16x. And before you respond: no, I don't have the cash for a 13x. No, I don't have the cash for a letus. No, I won't have the cash anytime soon- new mac first.

No. its not useful for weddings and docs. I have the zoerk and the magnification is such that even a 20mm nikon gives you somethin like an 80-85mm fov.

In our facility, we have a 'events videography' dept which shoots weddings and they have the jvc hd100, I handle the corporate and commercial department and i use the HD200.

I only use my zoerk(which is very similar to the MTF) for Nature and outdoors and situations where extreme magnification is needed like when i shot mating butterflies and caterpillars and windsurfers about 3 miles out in the sea.

Your better off getting a wide adapter to thread infront of your stock lens if you need a wide angle.

You can play around with the macro of your fujinon to achieve an effect similar when using a DOF adapter, a blurred background, but it won't be as versatile as the lens adapters using the stock as relay.

Ted

I'm less concerned with wide angle shots as I usually don't need anything wider than what my stock lens will offer. I'm chiefly interested in making my wedding videos more cinematic, and I understand the 35mm adapters are bulky and somewhat difficult to shoot with- not what a videographer with a big camera wants to hear! I'm looking for an alternative that won't cost me as much as my camera did. Any suggestions welcome =)

I think all of the adapters you lose 2 stops on an already dark camera. I would just shoot 24p, 1/48th, and have the detail set to MIN or at least -7. OFF really is OFF, so if you are still getting video buzzing/venitian blinds then more the detail to MIN or even OFF. You can always bring back the edge enhancement later with a filter in your NLE. The other thing to do is shoot close to the subject at 45mm setting, have the aperature around f2.8 to f4 and try to throw the background out of focus if you can. Other than that, maybe a 17x or 13x used lens some day, and most importantly work on composition and exposure and find a color profile you like to shoot/edit/color correct with and call it good.

It's not a Varicam or even a HPX-500. (though with the better lenses such as the 17x or 13x or 18x it will give the HPX-500 a serious run for it's money. Of course the HPX-500 and Varicams can upgrade their glass from the stock cheap lenses as well.