HD100 and 16MM

[Jim Giberti]

FWIW my new DP got a chance to handle the HD100 yesterday and see some of the footage from the past couple of months from it.
He's been a full time film maker for 20 years and while he's recently done a series for MTV with the Panasonic, all of his 12 films were shot on 35mm or his Aaton 16mm.
To say he was blown away wouldn't be an exaggeration. I think he was still thinking he would convince me to shoot our upcoming projects with the Aaton but he left the studio asking if he could have his own, and how soon we could start principle shooting on the next film with it...seriously.
He had just done a presentation in Albany with Kodak featuring his last project.
My immediate impression was - he should have shot it with the JVC, but of course didn't say that.
After holding the camera for 10 minutes and seeing a mix of interiors and exterior work with it on the Sony monitor his first comments were:
The latitude...never seen anything that film like before from a digital camera.
The warmth, the way it handled the reds and the skin tones (I'm using an evolution of settings that roughly resemble what Paolo has evolved toward recently).
The uncanny resemblance to film stock.

Personally, I also like it better because I find it much easier to get a good image under challenging conditions than with film.

Oh, he was also pleased at how nice the stock lens was, specifically the ability to get a more filmic dof than with the Pana that he was shooting with recently.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

Oh, he was also pleased at how nice the stock lens was, specifically the ability to get a more filmic dof than with the Pana that he was shooting with recently.

I think a lot of people overlook how helpful that 1.4 can be. There can be more CA there but if you plan around it or don't zoom in quite so far you can avoid it.

I think I'm going to play with turning off the detail and doing selective sharpening in post to see if that feels even more filmlike.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

I think a lot of people overlook how helpful that 1.4 can be. There can be more CA there but if you plan around it or don't zoom in quite so far you can avoid it.

I think I'm going to play with turning off the detail and doing selective sharpening in post to see if that feels even more filmlike.

Joel, I think you'll find that Minimum is a great way to keep calrity without any digital junk especially in highlights. I've kept it there since day one.

[Earl Thurston]

Having used both 16mm and the HD100, I won't be going back to film anymore. The image quality is so close that the advantages of digital production outweigh whatever benefits film had, in my opinion.

[Steven D. Martin]

Originally Posted by Earl Thurston

Having used both 16mm and the HD100, I won't be going back to film anymore. The image quality is so close that the advantages of digital production outweigh whatever benefits film had, in my opinion.

I sold my Eclair NPR S16 last fall and bought an HD100 with the money. Never looked back.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

Joel, I think you'll find that Minimum is a great way to keep calrity without any digital junk especially in highlights. I've kept it there since day one.

In some situations I still see the sharpening on minimum that I don't see on "OFF", but I'm probably being a little picky there. For greenscreen stuff I might think off could work a little better. It's easier to sharpen that after the fact. I kinda wish there were 10 levels between MIN and OFF. Seems like that would be an easy software/firmware update. It's just math, right?

I've heard some HVX users talk about the HD-100 not being filmlike. I think they are seeing overly sharpened stuff. There's no doubt from my tests that the HD-100 can be very filmlike. I've shot some 16mm that didn't look nearly as good. Super 16mm with good lenses and a great Telecine probably still wins, but for the time and money I don't think it would be worth it.

I've had some surprsingly good results with the Redrock adapter, though it's taken me QUITE a bit of experimenting to get results that have headed into the "impressive" range.

I LOVE the way the HD-100 handles highlight and lower mid tones. Very smooth across the tonal range with no disturbing noise in the shadows.

[Ivan Alonso]

About that "filmlike look", i've watched a lot of footage from the HVX and the HD100 trying to decide in which one i want to invest my money. It's very subjective (and i'm not a pro) but the film look from the HD100 clips made my decision clear above all the "issues"....

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

Super 16mm with good lenses and a great Telecine probably still wins, but for the time and money I don't think it would be worth it.

I've had some surprsingly good results with the Redrock adapter, though it's taken me QUITE a bit of experimenting to get results that have headed into the "impressive" range.

I LOVE the way the HD-100 handles highlight and lower mid tones. Very smooth across the tonal range with no disturbing noise in the shadows.

That's a good point (on S16, good lenses and transfer) but if you're producing for broadcast or straight to DVD then I think we're at a tipping point in film vs HD with this camera and it's comaprative cost and ease of production.

I'd like to hear more about your experience with the Redrock Joel, especially fitting the apparatus on the front of the existing lens.

We were early adopters of the Mini 35 and I'm on the fence of outfitting one HD100 full time with another Mini 35 or frankly waiting for the RED and shooting straight 35mm DOF, FOV.

The Redrock (is it the M2?) would be a pretty affordable interim solution, but the upside down image and all the extra glass is the reason I haven't.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

The Redrock (is it the M2?) would be a pretty affordable interim solution, but the upside down image and all the extra glass is the reason I haven't.

I'll try to post some test stuff. From what I've seen the stuff I'm getting now is as good, if not better than the HD-100 +Mini35. It's still softer than the straight Fujinon stock lens though.

The upside down thing basically requires that you use an external monitor turned upside down. Cineform will flip it upon capture if you use that for post.

Personally, I'd rather get less light loss and better picture quality than have an optical flip if that's the trade you have to make. The new JVC's are going to really solve the flip issue when they come out. If a GREAT, small relay lens came out then it would really be cool.

I thought the length would bug me, but so far it doesn't. Once it's on a tripod that can handle the weight you're fine. It's still a lot smaller than an F-900. A small relay lens would be the best. A 20mm Nikkor with the Zoerk adapter might work as a relay lens, but I'm not sure it's as sharp as the Fujinon. Also, the 1.4 of the Fujinon really helps with lower light situations.

I've had the HVX-200 and Micro35 together and it's shorter, but the HVX is fat. So it's still bulky. Also... the HVX noise really shows in out of focus areas... so... you probably get the picture. ;-)

I'm on the Red reservation list - I'm hoping it will be the best alternative to film at almost any price... but I'm starting to think a perfectly tuned Micro35 adapter might be the next best thing.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

I'll try to post some test stuff. From what I've seen the stuff I'm getting now is as good, if not better than the HD-100 +Mini35. It's still softer than the straight Fujinon stock lens though.


Personally, I'd rather get less light loss and better picture quality than have an optical flip if that's the trade you have to make. The new JVC's are going to really solve the flip issue when they come out. If a GREAT, small relay lens came out then it would really be cool.

A small relay lens would be the best. A 20mm Nikkor with the Zoerk adapter might work as a relay lens, but I'm not sure it's as sharp as the Fujinon. Also, the 1.4 of the Fujinon really helps with lower light situations.


I'm on the Red reservation list - I'm hoping it will be the best alternative to film at almost any price... but I'm starting to think a perfectly tuned Micro35 adapter might be the next best thing.

We should probably do this in another thread, but I'm surprised to hear that the image could be better with the Redrock through the Fuji lens and then another lens.
What were you using for glass on the front - PL mount Cine primes or Nikons?

Your other point about the Zoerk adaptor (didn't JVC announce on e at NAB as well?) and a Nikon is an idea I hadn't considered. You could make up for the 1.4 of the Fuji with a 1.2 35mm Nikor AIS, that would have a very low profile and be quality piece of glass. But is the 7x focal length an issue with the Redrock?

So you're saying that the Redrock would fit onto, say a 52mm Nikon if it were mounted on the HD100?

Interesting...in that case you could have the same lens (say a Nikon 35) on both ends of the Redrock. Now you've got me thinking, and we use FCP so there would still be the issue of flipping everything in the timeline after copying over the files from HDD aquisition.
But the idea of putting a low profile 35mm on the JVC is really interesting. Are you saying the 20mmm because of the 7x issue?
Not really familiar with the Redrock and what it requires.
And less light loss than the Mini35?

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

Your other point about the Zoerk adaptor (didn't JVC announce on e at NAB as well?) and a Nikon is an idea I hadn't considered. You could make up for the 1.4 of the Fuji with a 1.2 35mm Nikor AIS, that would have a very low profile and be quality piece of glass. But is the 7x focal length an issue with the Redrock?

I too considered this - I thought their would be three issues - the focal multiplier, the minimum focal distance and the back focus of the Nikon lens (the lens is not designed to focus at exactly the same distance to the CCD sensor). So you need a lens with extreme macro capability or you would need a decent close up lens on the front - no surprise there. I think to complete the project you'd need some technical info on distance to front of lens and projected image size from redrock.

It sounds viable, but there are some pretty experienced optical designers on dvinfo.net who might be able to comment?

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

I'm surprised to hear that the image could be better with the Redrock through the Fuji lens and then another lens.

That's my anecdotal reaction. The fujinon is at a sweet spot around 20mm so there's not CA that I've seen so far. The Fujinon also has macro capability. That combined with the achromat allows for very close focusing.

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

You could make up for the 1.4 of the Fuji with a 1.2 35mm Nikor AIS, that would have a very low profile and be quality piece of glass. But is the 7x focal length an issue with the Redrock?

The mm of the Nikkor is close to the same as the mm of the Fujinon. I need to set the Fujinon at about 20mm +use the RedRock achromat to get properly set to film the ground glass.

If you're out at 35mm +achromat you get into a situation where you're cropping too tightly on the ground glass and losing a lot of the the field of view. You can counter that by moving the M2 further away from the lens but that defeats the purpose. If the 35mm doesn't have macro ability it might not be able to achieve focus on the ground glass at all.

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

So you're saying that the Redrock would fit onto, say a 52mm Nikon if it were mounted on the HD100?

A 52mm? A fast 20mm with great macro would probably be the ticket. If you could eliminate the redrock achromat picture quality might improve - I'm not sure.