Good work all of you, I'm glad there is some good news about this camera!

"Walking-Hands"
 

The "walking-hands" shot is really film-like. Haven´t seen a shot with that motion and depth of field on any Z1, not even using the Mini35.

Based on this I think we could say the HD100 + Mini35 is the only HDV kit that really comes closer to film shooting.

Of course, as you say, the picture doesn't have the ultra-clear resolution or bandwith of the CineAlta/Varicam/Viper but the camera cost is 1/20 - 1/30 of the Cinealta and you DON'T get 20-30 times less quality!. Besides, for DVD-output / film festivals / broadcast / TV-series it rivals Digibeta for also much less money.

Even more, imagine this configuration on a real shooting with fine-tuning and careful post...

HD100+Mini35 is the real revolution, forget about Z1 in my humble opinion.

Buying a HD100 and the renting the Mini35 for ocassional film production would be a really good bargain!

L.

The exterior settings were:

Color matrix: standard
Color gain: 6

As noted, I too felt it was slightly ruddy, but I liked what this setting did with the greens. Under very controlled circumstances i.e. having video village within a blacked-out tent etc, we might have dialed down the red within the matrix, but not on this shoot. Again, I think this would easily be taken care of with color correction.

Great DP work guys! The shots are stunning. If they can lick this QC dead/stuck/hot pixel issue the camera is a sure winner in my eyes.

Pappas

Luis:

I think we should be careful in assuming based on this footage that the camera is obviously superior to other offerings; I'd like to think that if I had been given a Z1 with the Mini35 I'd have been able to make it look pretty good also. The only way to know how they compare would be to have them side by side with the same setup. I've never used the Z1 so I can't report on my thoughts--Nate, you've had plenty of time with the FX1, perhaps you can share something based on what you saw with the HD100?

Hi Luis,

To be fair, it should be pointed out that there's a Mini35 configuration for the Sony Z1 as well. The primary difference would be what Charles points out in Part One of his article, in that the image from the Mini35 has to pass through more optical elements when it's used on camcorders with built-in lenses, such as the DVX100, PD150, Z1 and so on. The advantage of the HD100 and the Canon XL series camcorders is direct access straight into their image sensor blocks... there's less glass in the optical path, and not as much light lost.

Z1+Mini35 Vs. HD100+Mini35
 

Hi Charles,
Yes you are right, I've made my assumptions based on previous Z1+Mini35 footage.

BUT, Even though you can have the similar depth of field, the real 24P motion effect and the color rendering seems more film-like on the HD100 (without too much tweaking!), whereas the Z1 looks more "DV-Video" like and you have to go through extensive calibration and post-processing to get this feel.

Also dont forget as is stated by Chris up here, that you cannot remove the Z1 lens so it may increase image abberations / light loss when light passing through the Mini35 + Z1 lenses VS. just the Mini35 on the JVC for more direct lens-to-sensor.

L.

Gotcha Luis, good point. I had forgotten that about the 24 frame Z1 issue. Thanks for the clarification.

Umm... I'm not so sure about that. You've just heard an experienced cinematographer state: "I'd like to think that if I had been given a Z1 with the Mini35 I'd have been able to make it look pretty good also."

Luis, please don't try to turn this thread into a camera battle; that's not what we're about. Around here, such debates go nowhere fast and then disappear even quicker. Thanks,

Geez, Charles beat me to the post. Victor Milt, working with the Z1 and the RedRock Micro was able to obtain stunning footage. I can see how some folks like the 24p acquisition, but to say "forget the Z1...." is a little over the top. In the hands of any DP, like Charles, Victor, or the guys from the second largest computer company in the world (we can't name them), the Z1 with the Micro35 will look like 'da bomb' and impress. The HD100 is a very nice cam too, although I personally felt the demo model they had at WEVA wasn't well built. I was told the flimsy eyepiece and LCD were made to "break away" and that's why they're not as tight as other cams.
Anyway, Charles did an outstanding job, but that's what he does. No matter what camera you hand him.

Hi Chris & Douglas,

Sure, no prob. never wanted to start a battle :-)

I agree 100% with Charles, an experienced DP will get the best from any camera and there are plenty of unique examples about pushing the technology to its limits. We should also remind that its not only about getting the last drop from tech available but also is about the fine art and craft from the skilled person behind the camera.

As usual: Everything lays on the script... and the people behind.

L

Hi Guys

Great work with the HD100. I run a rental company in New Zealand and as yet there is not a mini35 available for hire here.

Can you explain to me the decision making process in using the mini35 as opposed to putting the money into a digibeta or imx camera with 2/3' lenses?
(for a normal shoot I mean, not in relation to this test)
Is it purely for the DOF effect?
I take it the DOF provided is worth the trade off in using a 1/3' camera?

I would imagine the combined cost of the mini35, camera and lens choices must make for some interesting budget vs gear considerations.

The footage really has made me consider making the investment in a mini35, which was something I was waiting for the HVX200 for.

Do you think the lack of a fixed lens has increased the performance of the mini35 on the HD100?

We have our 2nd HD100 after returning the first with two dead pixels and the split/screen shading.

The 2nd camera still has the split screen effect but not to the same degree as the first.

The other major concern with the camera is the chromatic aberration on the supplied Fujinon 16x lens. Purple fringing is chronic on the long end of this lens, left and right of frame. It is clearly visable in moving video, not just stills.

Wonderful work guys, well done.

To further hammer this point home, I've still got some XL1 (pre-XL1s, pre-Mini35) footage on my reel nestled between 35mm and 16mm footage, and I wouldn't have it there if I felt it didn't hold up from a photographic standpoint.

Yes indeed. I do consider the trade-off to be quite heavy in using the Mini35; cost of the gear, cost of the lenses and accessories (I think for a heavy Mini35 user, it's worth buying the adaptor but still renting the cine lenses as needed), having to use a good AC, and the exposure loss which is significant with interiors or night exteriors.

However, the net result in terms of DOF (the primary reason to use a Mini; I think any other results such as contrast, grain pattern etc. are peripheral in comparison) is significant enough to justify the means. A 2/3" camera will certainly provide a better image than a bare 1/3" camera, but the depth of field improvement to me is not really enough. When shooting HD with the F900, I always wish I could throw the backgrounds out just a bit more, but I don't really believe in having to "force" the DOF by using significantly longer lenses for that reason alone.

I feel that it must; there are a lot of elements in a fixed zoom lens vs the one in the Mini35 relay, which inevitably takes a toll on the image.

Hi Charles,
When using th Mini35 (with any camera) which lenses did you use, did you noticed any problem with any of them?

L.