HZ-CA13U PL Mount Test Footage

Matthew Wauhkonen · January 29th, 2007, 09:40 AM

I think it looks great, too. I didn't see any CA, but I didn't look for any, and frankly I don't care. Even the best lenses have a bit and so long as it's under control it's fine.

To those complaining about the "not shallow enough depth of focus" remember that this was shot at 16mm (I think? was that the focal length or format--seems it could be both), which is a moderately wide angle lens, and this adapter apparently feels "wider" than native 16mm film, too. And most of this is also shot at t2.3, and there are many nice 16mm primes that open up to t1.3 and zooms that open up to around t2. Considering that most 35mm films are shot at t4 (equivalent to t2 on 16mm) as a starting point (with a range from t0.7 to t16, of course...) this isn't half bad. If you use a portrait lens (50mm t1.3) your depth of focus will be super shallow.

And since you have an effectively smaller circle of confusion at 720p than at 480p, the depth of focus will seem shallower at full resolution. What we see from most 35mm adapters is actually much much shallower than what you see in Hollywood, but since the whole image is blurry, you need this to draw out the in focus part. Even the mini35, which is excellent, softens the image considerably.

Personally, I would love to have this in 35mm as well, but I suppose Nikon lenses aren't "cinema" enough and PL mount primes cost so much as to be prohibitive. So a 16mm PL mount adapter makes sense.

Anyhow, it's a shame my school has HVX200's and I don't have any money or I'd be really interested in this type of thing. Ah well, I'm sure by the time I can afford a new camera (probably four or five years, sadly and I'm still on my dvx) there will be even better stuff availible, but this looks fantastic. I hope people use this for more than the typical use of 35mm adapters (where people just keep the lens wide open, use one or two focal lengths at most, and just blur a poorly lit background until it doesn't matter how it looks) since the use of real cinema glass--even 16mm glass--opens up a lot of exciting possibilities. Particularly in the realm of low light! Assuming the JVC is 320ISO, with this adapter it should still be at least 200ISO, and not only are most 35mm adapted cameras effectively 50ISO to 64ISO, but few 35mm SLR lenses are faster than f2 (t2.2ish or slower?). The money you save on lights alone makes this quite significant. It also means you can stop down and take advantage of good glass at its sharpest apertures (not wide open.) Great stuff.

Mack Fisher · January 29th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Looks great, I really like the absence of a fuzzy median most 35mm adapters seem to give.

Brian Drysdale · January 29th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack Fisher

Looks great, I really like the absence of a fuzzy median most 35mm adapters seem to give.

I've just noticed more info here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=78280&page=5

With extracts from a report by Jon Fauer, ASC.

16mm depth of field is fine, shooting at T2 with a prime lens should give good results and not having a ground glass (with the light promist effect) is a big advantage for big screen work.

Michael Maier · January 29th, 2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Keep in mind you are looking at a heavily compressed/downconverted file. I found that the edge to edge sharpness definitely exceeded anything I have ever seen from any ground-glass based re-imager, and probably even the stock 16x zoom lens. I'll output and upload a couple of frame grabs from the 720P source to see for yourself.

Tim, the sharper 35mm images I was referring to were also compressed and I saw it online as well. I'm talking about Wayne's Sgpro clip in the pub. It looked sharper than the footage acquired with the CA13U PL. Specially the close ups.
I also get sharper images with the stock 16x, but that's expectable and actually normal. Although I'm comparing to native m2t files. But since the Sgpro web clip seemed sharper anyways, I would say the stock 16x is most likely sharper too, but that’s expectable as I said.
In the end of the day, for over $4,000 I'm not sure this adapter is any better than the $1,000-1,500 35mm adapters out there, and you get a "35mm look" with them instead of old 16mm. For $4,000 I think I would spin for a 35m adapter with a PL mount, mattebox, follow focus and would still be short of $4,000. Just my opinion.

Bill Ravens · January 29th, 2007, 10:51 AM

From the comments posted, guess I need to qualify my comments. Being used to the images and COF's I see with a 35mm GG adapter; and, the connection with this unit as being a substitute for a GG adapter, I was quite expecting the same kind of result with the CA13U as I see with say an M2. The fact is, I don't see that same shallowness of DOF. This JVC adapter certainly produces fine results. But to equate it with a GG relay, using a 35mm prime, even if it isn't as grainy, has been misleading for me.

Michael Maier · January 29th, 2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

As I could have expected from the previous comments, the video shown here is stellar in its clarity and crispness. I would expect no less from the HD200 and the lens you used. The DOF, however, doesn't appear to me to be terribly shallow, nowhere near 35mm DOF, actually.

It's not supposed to be. It's a 16mm adapter, not a 35mm adapter. You won't get 35mm DOF with a 16mm adapter.

Bill Ravens · January 29th, 2007, 11:04 AM

Mike...
Exactly.
While it's a step in the right direction, 16mm lens DOF's aren't the same as 35mm....and I can see that looking at the footage. I've got a substantial investment in 35mm glass. I would ask the rhetorical question, "why should I be pleased about investing in 16mm prime's when I have so many 35mm prime's, and at a sacrifice in that oh-so-pleasing shallow 35mm DOF"?

Really! This is a nice little adapter...just not as nice as I would get with 35mm. Why does that statement rub everyone's fur the wrong way, unless there's some ownershp in JVC stock?...just kidding.

Brian Drysdale · January 29th, 2007, 11:08 AM

I don't think you can compare how sharp things are by viewing compressed footage online. You really need to see the original footage or a high quality still frame without compression artifacts.

I was at a demo of compression for digital distribution in cinemas. They showed compressed and uncompressed footage, one was sharper, the other softer. Later we were told the sharper looking material was the compressed material. Then you became aware that the compression had removed the diffusion that the DP had used on the lens.

Tim Holtermann · January 29th, 2007, 11:14 AM

I'd be interested in seeing the full frame grabs without further compression to see how sharp the system is compared to the stock lens.

The DOF argument - DOF should not be the only reason for wanting this new adaptor. This opens us up to a huge library of lenses (primes, zooms, high speed glass, etc) that can easily be rented or purchased for a great price.

Also, while not as shallow as 35mm the DOF is way better with this than 1/3 lenses.

P.S. Bill, you can use 35mm PL mounted lenses on this sytem you will just have a crop factor.

Matthew Wauhkonen · January 29th, 2007, 11:26 AM

Ugh. I'm really sorry to see this. This adapter looks phenomenal, borderline revolutionary, and people are dismissing it for the most trivial of reasons.

SHALLOW DEPTH OF FOCUS IS NOT THE END-ALL BE-ALL OF CINEMATOGRAPHY!

And besides, at T1.3 you can get a depth of focus as shallow as all but a few Hollywood films. I certainly agree that a 1/3'' CCD coupled with a f2.8 lens is a problem in most close ups, but this kind of adapter allows you selective focus...as well as a deep depth of focus if required.

What advantages over a $1000 adapter?
I'm guessing four times or more light efficiency, the ability to stop down to reasonable apertures, a far, far wider selection of lenses, less distortion and CA, much more sharpness, a smaller size and more useable set up, no chunky grain with HDV, etc. etc.

I've seen very little good footage out of home brew 35mm adapters, and the best I've seen has been pretty homogenous: shot at 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 and portraits. You can't get enough light and a fast enough wide angle lens to get compelling wide shots of interiors.

This type of solution allows true flexibility, at the cost of a slightly deeper depth of focus (but still enough to be selective in any situation in which it counts)...I'm shocked that there are so many nay-sayers, particularly when HDV is a terrible format for moving ground glass (DVCPROHD a bit less so) but too sharp for a static solution.

Bill Ravens · January 29th, 2007, 11:27 AM

thanx, Tim...good points. U'r quite right about the crop factor.

Matthew....ahh, exactly the kind of info I was searching for...thanx.

I do a fair bit of wildlife photography, so I hope everyone will forgive my "stubborness" on this issue. Really not trying to argue. Unfortunately for me, at this point, my 35m glass is Canon EF mount....and an adapter for EF to PL is custom made, if it's even possible.

I also shoot live musical performances...usually in dim ambient light. Anything that is more efficient on the optical path, is always a plus.

But, I'm now hijacking this thread which isn't my intent.
Peace.

Tim Dashwood · January 29th, 2007, 12:52 PM

I've attached some jpg frame grabs direct from the original m2t played back in VLC, just so you can see how sharp the image actually is. I'm not fond of scrutinizing frame grabs from motion picture images, but I just don't have the bandwidth to publish the full 720P source.

Keep in mind that I was shooting "freestyle" handheld without a focus puller and just winging it with the viewfinder. This type of situation is really not an indication of resolving sharpness. This was an impromptu test of a display prototype, and Craig was kind enough to let me keep the footage and post it, without even looking at it first. He definitely has confidence in this product!

As for the frame size of the adapter, I think it is around 16mm, which is still great for selective focus. Just think of all the productions shot on 16/Super16mm that use selective focus all the time:
Scrubs, The O.C., South Beach, Babel, Sex and the City, Saw, March of the Penguins, Veronic Mars, Hustle & Flow, The Last King of Scotland, 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,' etc.

16mm is a viable format in TV and indie film production, and personally I think this adapter will fill a gap in low-budget productions looking for 16mm quality/control at miniDV budgets.

Obviously homebrew 35mm adapters that use SLR sized ground glass will have the shortest DOF characteristics of all, even greater than standard 35mm motion picture gates. So one strike against the HZ-CA13U if you are into extremely short DOF.
However, some of the advantages of the HZ-CA13U over the homebrew 35mm GG relay systems are:

No added ground glass grain (this is good news for mpeg2)
No need for extra power for ground glass rotator or vibrator
No extra noise from a ground glass movement motor/oscillator.
Shortest "in-line" adapter available - no need to use 1/3" lens as a relay
The P+S mini35 may be shorter, but is not 'in-line' with the mount and therefore requires some custom rigging.
Very little light loss allows for interior shooting just as you would with a 1/3" video lens
Exceptional sharpness edge to edge
No vignetting
No 'fiddling' with relay/GG alignment between setups.
Light weight

Miklos Philips · January 29th, 2007, 01:03 PM

I'm dissapointed to see the color fringing and it seems it's an internal optical -block problem even in the 200 series.

Brian Drysdale · January 29th, 2007, 01:15 PM

I'm rather hoping that a version comes out for the B4 mount 2/3" CCD cameras, so that you can use the 35mm film lenses on those without that ground glass.

The ground glass always seemed a compromise for use on cameras that don't have interchangeable lenses - especially given the quality of the glass people were using on the front.

Even with the detail on the normal setting, the stills do have a pleasant non video look.

I hope they'll put a hook/lug for the measuring tape onto the adapter.

Tim Dashwood · January 29th, 2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miklos Philips

I'm dissapointed to see the color fringing and it seems it's an internal optical -block problem even in the 200 series.

Not necessarily.

Every optical system, especially 3-CCD systems, will have some form of chromatic aberration, especially in the areas that fall well outside the circle of confusion. It is unavoidable.
However, I would consider the amount of CA shown in this test to be well within acceptable limits for a 1/3" 3-CCD HD imager, and much, much improved over any image I've ever seen from the 16x stock lens.

Another unknown factor from my test is the "lens shading" feature that was added to the HD200/250. This could potentially improve colour alignment, but I just don't know.

The important thing is not to have CA in the "in-focus" areas.

BTW, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the vertical green outline in the upper right of the OTS walking shot is actually CA. I think it is somethine electronic that I haven't identified.

January 29th, 2007, 09:48 AM	#17
Mack Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 158	Looks great, I really like the absence of a fuzzy median most 35mm adapters seem to give. __________________ Northweststockfootage.com Shooting 100% HD Washington, Oregon, and Soon British Columbia

January 29th, 2007, 12:52 PM	#27
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	I've attached some jpg frame grabs direct from the original m2t played back in VLC, just so you can see how sharp the image actually is. I'm not fond of scrutinizing frame grabs from motion picture images, but I just don't have the bandwidth to publish the full 720P source. Keep in mind that I was shooting "freestyle" handheld without a focus puller and just winging it with the viewfinder. This type of situation is really not an indication of resolving sharpness. This was an impromptu test of a display prototype, and Craig was kind enough to let me keep the footage and post it, without even looking at it first. He definitely has confidence in this product! As for the frame size of the adapter, I think it is around 16mm, which is still great for selective focus. Just think of all the productions shot on 16/Super16mm that use selective focus all the time: Scrubs, The O.C., South Beach, Babel, Sex and the City, Saw, March of the Penguins, Veronic Mars, Hustle & Flow, The Last King of Scotland, 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,' etc. 16mm is a viable format in TV and indie film production, and personally I think this adapter will fill a gap in low-budget productions looking for 16mm quality/control at miniDV budgets. Obviously homebrew 35mm adapters that use SLR sized ground glass will have the shortest DOF characteristics of all, even greater than standard 35mm motion picture gates. So one strike against the HZ-CA13U if you are into extremely short DOF. However, some of the advantages of the HZ-CA13U over the homebrew 35mm GG relay systems are: No added ground glass grain (this is good news for mpeg2) No need for extra power for ground glass rotator or vibrator No extra noise from a ground glass movement motor/oscillator. Shortest "in-line" adapter available - no need to use 1/3" lens as a relay The P+S mini35 may be shorter, but is not 'in-line' with the mount and therefore requires some custom rigging. Very little light loss allows for interior shooting just as you would with a 1/3" video lens Exceptional sharpness edge to edge No vignetting No 'fiddling' with relay/GG alignment between setups. Light weight Attached Thumbnails __________________ Tim Dashwood

January 29th, 2007, 01:03 PM	#28
Miklos Philips Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 104 Images: 12	color fringing I'm dissapointed to see the color fringing and it seems it's an internal optical -block problem even in the 200 series. Attached Thumbnails __________________ ........................... Miklos Philips Producer-Director Point Zero Pictures http://www.pointzeropictures.com

January 29th, 2007, 09:40 AM	#16
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	I think it looks great, too. I didn't see any CA, but I didn't look for any, and frankly I don't care. Even the best lenses have a bit and so long as it's under control it's fine. To those complaining about the "not shallow enough depth of focus" remember that this was shot at 16mm (I think? was that the focal length or format--seems it could be both), which is a moderately wide angle lens, and this adapter apparently feels "wider" than native 16mm film, too. And most of this is also shot at t2.3, and there are many nice 16mm primes that open up to t1.3 and zooms that open up to around t2. Considering that most 35mm films are shot at t4 (equivalent to t2 on 16mm) as a starting point (with a range from t0.7 to t16, of course...) this isn't half bad. If you use a portrait lens (50mm t1.3) your depth of focus will be super shallow. And since you have an effectively smaller circle of confusion at 720p than at 480p, the depth of focus will seem shallower at full resolution. What we see from most 35mm adapters is actually much much shallower than what you see in Hollywood, but since the whole image is blurry, you need this to draw out the in focus part. Even the mini35, which is excellent, softens the image considerably. Personally, I would love to have this in 35mm as well, but I suppose Nikon lenses aren't "cinema" enough and PL mount primes cost so much as to be prohibitive. So a 16mm PL mount adapter makes sense. Anyhow, it's a shame my school has HVX200's and I don't have any money or I'd be really interested in this type of thing. Ah well, I'm sure by the time I can afford a new camera (probably four or five years, sadly and I'm still on my dvx) there will be even better stuff availible, but this looks fantastic. I hope people use this for more than the typical use of 35mm adapters (where people just keep the lens wide open, use one or two focal lengths at most, and just blur a poorly lit background until it doesn't matter how it looks) since the use of real cinema glass--even 16mm glass--opens up a lot of exciting possibilities. Particularly in the realm of low light! Assuming the JVC is 320ISO, with this adapter it should still be at least 200ISO, and not only are most 35mm adapted cameras effectively 50ISO to 64ISO, but few 35mm SLR lenses are faster than f2 (t2.2ish or slower?). The money you save on lights alone makes this quite significant. It also means you can stop down and take advantage of good glass at its sharpest apertures (not wide open.) Great stuff.

January 29th, 2007, 10:51 AM	#20
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	From the comments posted, guess I need to qualify my comments. Being used to the images and COF's I see with a 35mm GG adapter; and, the connection with this unit as being a substitute for a GG adapter, I was quite expecting the same kind of result with the CA13U as I see with say an M2. The fact is, I don't see that same shallowness of DOF. This JVC adapter certainly produces fine results. But to equate it with a GG relay, using a 35mm prime, even if it isn't as grainy, has been misleading for me.

January 29th, 2007, 11:04 AM	#22
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Mike... Exactly. While it's a step in the right direction, 16mm lens DOF's aren't the same as 35mm....and I can see that looking at the footage. I've got a substantial investment in 35mm glass. I would ask the rhetorical question, "why should I be pleased about investing in 16mm prime's when I have so many 35mm prime's, and at a sacrifice in that oh-so-pleasing shallow 35mm DOF"? Really! This is a nice little adapter...just not as nice as I would get with 35mm. Why does that statement rub everyone's fur the wrong way, unless there's some ownershp in JVC stock?...just kidding.

January 29th, 2007, 11:08 AM	#23
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I don't think you can compare how sharp things are by viewing compressed footage online. You really need to see the original footage or a high quality still frame without compression artifacts. I was at a demo of compression for digital distribution in cinemas. They showed compressed and uncompressed footage, one was sharper, the other softer. Later we were told the sharper looking material was the compressed material. Then you became aware that the compression had removed the diffusion that the DP had used on the lens.

January 29th, 2007, 11:14 AM	#24
Tim Holtermann Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 184	I'd be interested in seeing the full frame grabs without further compression to see how sharp the system is compared to the stock lens. The DOF argument - DOF should not be the only reason for wanting this new adaptor. This opens us up to a huge library of lenses (primes, zooms, high speed glass, etc) that can easily be rented or purchased for a great price. Also, while not as shallow as 35mm the DOF is way better with this than 1/3 lenses. P.S. Bill, you can use 35mm PL mounted lenses on this sytem you will just have a crop factor.

January 29th, 2007, 11:26 AM	#25
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Ugh. I'm really sorry to see this. This adapter looks phenomenal, borderline revolutionary, and people are dismissing it for the most trivial of reasons. SHALLOW DEPTH OF FOCUS IS NOT THE END-ALL BE-ALL OF CINEMATOGRAPHY! And besides, at T1.3 you can get a depth of focus as shallow as all but a few Hollywood films. I certainly agree that a 1/3'' CCD coupled with a f2.8 lens is a problem in most close ups, but this kind of adapter allows you selective focus...as well as a deep depth of focus if required. What advantages over a $1000 adapter? I'm guessing four times or more light efficiency, the ability to stop down to reasonable apertures, a far, far wider selection of lenses, less distortion and CA, much more sharpness, a smaller size and more useable set up, no chunky grain with HDV, etc. etc. I've seen very little good footage out of home brew 35mm adapters, and the best I've seen has been pretty homogenous: shot at 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 and portraits. You can't get enough light and a fast enough wide angle lens to get compelling wide shots of interiors. This type of solution allows true flexibility, at the cost of a slightly deeper depth of focus (but still enough to be selective in any situation in which it counts)...I'm shocked that there are so many nay-sayers, particularly when HDV is a terrible format for moving ground glass (DVCPROHD a bit less so) but too sharp for a static solution.

January 29th, 2007, 11:27 AM	#26
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	thanx, Tim...good points. U'r quite right about the crop factor. Matthew....ahh, exactly the kind of info I was searching for...thanx. I do a fair bit of wildlife photography, so I hope everyone will forgive my "stubborness" on this issue. Really not trying to argue. Unfortunately for me, at this point, my 35m glass is Canon EF mount....and an adapter for EF to PL is custom made, if it's even possible. I also shoot live musical performances...usually in dim ambient light. Anything that is more efficient on the optical path, is always a plus. But, I'm now hijacking this thread which isn't my intent. Peace.

January 29th, 2007, 01:15 PM	#29
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I'm rather hoping that a version comes out for the B4 mount 2/3" CCD cameras, so that you can use the 35mm film lenses on those without that ground glass. The ground glass always seemed a compromise for use on cameras that don't have interchangeable lenses - especially given the quality of the glass people were using on the front. Even with the detail on the normal setting, the stills do have a pleasant non video look. I hope they'll put a hook/lug for the measuring tape onto the adapter.