HZ-CA13U PL Mount Test Footage
 

I'm back from Sundance and have uploaded the results of my impromptu test with the HZ-CA13U PL mount adapter.

HZ-CA13U Sundance Test

The test has been downconverted to 480P and heavily encoded using H.264 Quicktime to get the file size under 30MB for the 3:30 clip. Therefore you will need Quicktime 7 and a fast enough processor to view this smoothly.

My "models" were JVC's Craig Yanagi, National Marketing Manager, Creation Products (cool looking guy with sunglasses) and filmmaker/composer Nathan Fleet (paparazzi guy.)

There was only one prime PL lens available to test (16mm FL) and I didn't have any additional ND filters with me for the matte box.
Since this adapter has an imperceivable amount of light loss, and I wanted the aperture open to at least F2.8, I had to increase the shutter speed to compensate - sometimes as high as 1/1200. This is why there is practically no motion blur.

I didn't have a 1stAC, so I was pulling focus myself as I shot handheld. As you can see from the size of the rig with all accessories, this wasn't easy. Therefore, some of my focusing will not be perfect.

Typically I set the aperture to T2.8 in the sun and opened to T1.3 in the shade (adjusting the shutter speed to obtain correct exposure.)

The bottom line is that this thing works very well, and unlike the rest of the popular lens adapters, there is no ground glass, and hence no added grain or barely any stop loss.

Everything was shot "overcranked" at 720P60 and is playing back at 24fps. See this thread for info on how to do this on a mac.

Simply incredible

Thanks for posting this information. I am really considering this adapter after seeing your footage. I still can't believe jvc made this thing.

Awesome rig pics too! Looks like a perfect run & gun setup, lol.

Jonathan

WOWWW!!! Tim--you the man!! What was your setup for the "purple guy"?
Looks great---any inside word on when the unit will hit the streets? Thanks for posting this-awesome!

Absolutely incredible.
When and where can we buy this?

Excellent, What shoulder mount were you using? I have been in the market for something like that.

Very clean pictures, interesting to try the lens at T1.3 and also to test a zoom lens (although that could be a long rig).

Is that a bit of CA on the extremely hot areas on top RHS of the end shot?

The DOF looks great. But I'm not impressed at all with the sharpness. I seem to get sharper results with the stock lenses on extreme close ups such as the ones in that clip. I have also seen sharper images from the home breed DOF adaptors like the SGpro. On the top of that I think I see CA too. But it really makes the difference for the DOF.
Did you use any filtration to soften it? Was it shot with a Zeiss Super Speed?

GY-HD200 Cine Rig
 

Here's what the "rig" consisted of:

- Chroziel matte box kit with 16x9 follow focus and handles (courtesy of Birns & Sawyer, Hollywood, CA)
- Arri 16mm/16mm film lens (courtesy of Birns & Sawyer, Hollywood, CA)
- HZ-CA13U film lens adapter (rods clamp and brace courtesy of Birns & Sawyer, Hollywood, CA)
- GY-HD200CHU ProHD camcorder
- IDX battery system with new HWR-HD250KIT U-bracket kit for 200 series
- DR-HD100-80 hard disk recorder

The HZCA13U is due to ship in the latter part of February, arriving into dealers in March. There has been a delay in shipping in order to make some final design adjustments. Availability will be limited as each piece is hand crafted.

YESSSS!!!

That stuff looks great, thanks so much for taking the time to shoot and post it! I must get my hands on one of these puppies!

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.

I used the same setup for every single shot in that test (except for slight aperture and shutter changes.)
I remember that I used the cine gamma, lowered the knee to 80% and stretched the black all the way to "5". Other than that, I can't remember specifically what camera settings I used.

I don't think so. I think the green fringe you are seeing in the overexposed area is something else...possibly caused by the detail circuit being left on NORMAL. (I forgot to turn it down before the test.) I have to explore this phenomenon a little more, but I think it is safe to say that it isn't an optical aberration, it is something electronic.

I was actually quite surprised to see hardly any sign of CA in any of the images. This is one of the great benefits of shooting with a prime, but the nice thing is that the optics inside the HZ-CA13U don't seem to be distorting the image in any way.
I think the most extreme example of CA was at the point when the white SUV drives by in the background (in front of Hungry Moose) and you can see the tiniest bit of green/magenta fringing.

Shockingly impressive.

This thing is amazing.

Does anyone know if this will ne available in the UK? If so how much?

If not can we buy it from the US?

Andrew

Amazing pictures.

I'm wondering what kind of used lens can fit on it. I know it's a pl mount, but i'm really not aware of brands that can fit on it. Will it be hard to find used lenses ?

What kind of research can I do, to see if I can invest in this tool (plus an HD251), or if the prices of lenses brings it to far from what i can afford ?

With an adapter you can also use Arri Bayonet mount lenses. These are 16mm film lenses, manufacturers include Zeiss, Cooke, Optar, Canon, Angenieux, also Arri Ultra series.

You can find used lenses, although the demand will have increased because of the RED and SI 2k HD cameras.

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.

Can you shed any light on the nature of the optics in this adapter? Is it reflective or refractive optics? If there isn't a GG, what is the focal plane for the prime?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Not at all. Now seeing the full rez frame grabs, I have got sharper images with the Mini35 and M2. On edge to edge this looks very good though. Better than the M2 for sure. But not better than the SGpro which is very sharp.
I also se Ca all over the place on those grabs.
DOF is not nearly as shallow as I like. For 4,000 I think I'm better off with a SGpro. Nothing to do with being a "nay-sayer". It's just not worth $4,000 for what it is IMO. May be for other people, but not for me.

I imagine the P+S Pro35 fills that gap in the market. I know there are quite a few TV series that employ the Pro35 on the F900 or Varicam. It does have a ground glass, but I think the performance is much better than the mini35. Retails for $27000 USD.

The majority of Babel was 35mm. What 16mm shots had selective focus and looked great?

I know the Pro35, just I don't want to have something that automatically has a promist effect. I'd prefer clean, then let me decide on the filtration.

I'm way confused 'cuz now you're noting the same things I was...LOL.
Looking at these frame grabs, the DOF is hardly noticeable....with the exception of the closeup, and I would expect very shallow DOF in that scenario with any lens.

I agree, I hate hate hate the batteries and vibrating screens, which is why I was so attracted to this unit. But the DOF is really not a selling point. Guess I'm not very impressed with this adapter, especially given the cost.

Morocco. http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...abel/page1.php

I know 16mm was used for the Morocco scenes but so was 35mm. Do you know what shots were what? With very, very long fast lenses is possible to achieve decently shallow DOF in 16mm, but in short, it’s the same thing as trying with 2/3" cameras as the frames are very similar in size. Anyone who has ever tried getting shallow 35mm like DOF with a 2/3" camera knows it's not easy task. Much better than 1/3" of course, but not an easy task at all.

Watch "The Devils Rejects" - Entire thing is Super 16mm, Looks good to me.

Also about loss of light. I have a feeling that with this adaptor and a super fast lens you would actually gain light over the stock lens.

The 16mm lens was being used at more or less f2.8, which on 16mm, gives a reasonable DOF (@ 5ft: 4ft 3" to 6ft 8"), shooting it at f1.4 will reduce the DOF (@5ft.: 4ft 51/2" to 5ft 9").

f2.8 @ 10ft: 6ft 8" to 20ft while f1.4 @10ft: 8ft to 13ft 5"

This is similar to how people use the Digiprimes on 2/3" CCD cameras.

However, if stylistically you want an even shallower DOF, you'll have use a 35mm format.

I expect there were a number of reasons why JVC decided to go with using 16mm, one of which I expect is that 35mm adapter market is pretty well covered.

Fair enough in regards to chromatic abberation and depth of focus (though 16mm is fine for 90% of shoots, certainly some styles (soft focus glamour) require something different. I wouldn't discount sharpness just yet, though; all this stuff was focused on the fly and we don't know the in camera settings. I also wonder just why you need such a shallow depth of focus; if set design and lighting are good, it's possible to make do with a stock 1/3'' lens and still get a great look.

The best argument you make is the price, though, and you do have a more than fair point--particularly since a hd250 plus adapter costs $14,000--near the price of a true 2/3'' camera. And whil you may need 4 times the light to use a ground glass adapter, you can use cheaper lenses (nikon rather than angenieux, zeiss, etc.). And $4,000 buys a lot of light.