DVX100 w/Mini35 footage? at DVinfo.net

Mark Grgurev · February 5th, 2004, 09:51 PM

Does anyone have footage shot with a DVX100 with the mini 35.

Stephen van Vuuren · February 5th, 2004, 09:55 PM

I think Barry Green was working on getting some. Barry?

For another 35mm twist, see this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=20772

Barry Green · February 5th, 2004, 11:51 PM

We shot a spec spot with it. It's a phenomenal performer. The resulting look is extremely filmlike, between the DVX's capabilities, 24P etc., and the color & contrast added by the film lens, plus the shallow DOF.

It's excellent. Have absolutely no qualms about the "fixed lens" issue -- it performs brilliantly.

Stephen van Vuuren · February 6th, 2004, 12:18 AM

Barry:

How many stops of exposure do you lose? Also, what lenses did you shoot with?

Will it take anamorphic film lenses?

Barry Green · February 6th, 2004, 08:25 PM

How many stops you lose is partially dependent on the 35mm lens you use. And how telephoto your shot is. Somewhere between 1 and 4.

We shot some shots in mini35 mode, and then swapped over to anamorphic and duplicated the shot. We found we had to stop down about 4 stops (!) to get consistent exposure with what the mini35 had!

But that was on wide angle. The DVX, at wide angle, is f/1.6. On telephoto it's f/2.8, which is about 1.5 stops. To use the DVX with the mini35, you have to be zoomed all the way in -- which means, if you're comparing against a wide-angle shot, you're already 1.5 stops in the hole. On top of that, it seems like the mini35 ground glass system costs about a stop. Then, your taking lens' maximum aperture comes into play too -- we had some f/1.2 Zeiss SuperSpeeds, but on that wide-angle shot I was using an f/2.4 lens. That's about 1.5 stops, maybe 1.75 stops, lost right there, just due to the slower taking lens.

So, to recap: if you were doing a hyper-telephoto shot with the DVX raw, vs. using the mini35 with a superfast lens (like an f/1.0), then you might only lose 1 stop total (due to the ground glass). The slower your taking lens is, the more stops you lose.

But if you were doing a wide-angle shot, you're going to lose (at a bare minimum) 2.5 stops, and depending on how fast your taking lens is, you could be down 3 or 4 or more.

But if you're going for the maximum film look, it's worth it! The mini35 added film look above and beyond its shallow DOF -- even on the wide-angle shot, where shallow DOF was not really a factor, the mini35 version was more filmish -- the mini35 adds a nice filmlike glow and texture to your shots, vs. the comparatively more harsh look of the raw DVX. The DVX is easily the most filmlike camera out there under $25000 -- but with the mini35, it looks almost EXACTLY like 35mm film.

Stephen van Vuuren · February 6th, 2004, 09:02 PM

<<<--The DVX is easily the most filmlike camera out there under $25000 -- but with the mini35, it looks almost EXACTLY like 35mm film. -->>>

Hey - what about my motordrive? It's way under $25K...

just kidding, sort of, as I plan to get it refined to works well, though you have to edit ahead of yourself with the 9 to 12 second takes, give up standard dialogue, etc.

But glad to know the mini35 is not a bust. Thanks for all the info I was worried with all that glass in front that the image would be degraded.

I look forward to seeing some footage...

Mark Grgurev · February 7th, 2004, 12:23 AM

I was looking at the "Towards a Film Look with DV" forum and someone made a homemade 35mm adaptor and they attached it to a PD150p with a 2.35 anamorphic lens. The results were AWESOME and I was wondering if anyone used a 2.35 anamorphic lens on their DVX100.

Barry Green · February 7th, 2004, 01:07 PM

There is no such thing as a 2.35:1 anamorphic lens.

Movies achieve a 2.35:1 aspect ratio by using a 2:1 anamorphic lens, which (when applied to the approximately 1.2:1 anamorphic film gate) gives a picture with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. But the lens itself is a 2:1 squeeze, as opposed to video anamorphic lenses, which are a 1.33:1 squeeze.

You could certainly use movie anamorphic lenses on the mini35. The problem is, the resulting footage would not be viewable on any television or video projector -- it would basically only be usable for a film blowup. The video you recorded would be at a 2.66:1 aspect ratio. To get a proper 2.35:1 blowup, you'd have to crop off some of the sides.

You could use that system to make internet videos, I guess, but it doesn't have much applicability for television use -- you'd have to digitally unsqueeze and crop the image down so much, that you might as well have just shot flat and cropped.

Mark Grgurev · February 7th, 2004, 09:04 PM

Actually, if it were Pal you could shrink the 2.35 anamorphic image from 1344x576 to 1280x549 and then add bars and make it 1280x720. If its NTSC you could crop it or up-ress it in S-Spline Pro to 1280x549 and add bars. So you actually COULD use it for televison.

Barry Green · February 7th, 2004, 10:28 PM

Except that the image isn't 1344 x 576. It's 720 x 576.

You could resize that down to 720 x 288 -- that'd get you unsqueezed for the proper aspect ratio -- but you'd be throwing away half your resolution.

Up-rezzing to HD, you'd still either have to crop significantly to fit the frame into the HD 16:9 frame.

It's not that you couldn't extract a usable-shaped image, it's that you're going to have to seriously crop and compromise your image to get it that shape. There are no 2.66:1 TV's out there, so to fit your image on even a 16:9 TV will involve a lot of cropping and squeezing.

Peter Richardson · February 10th, 2004, 09:49 PM

Barry--I'm excited to hear about your results with the mini35 on the spec. I'm am gearing up to shoot some specs with the mini35 as well. When you get a chance I'd love to hear more details and tips about the shoot, as well as what your plans are for the spec. Can we see it online anywhere yet? Thanks!

Peter

Barry Green · February 11th, 2004, 12:45 AM

Hi Peter,

I wrote up a fairly lengthy post & responses about the experience on this thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/Y...num=1069887552

It's not online yet, I still am working to see if I can get it sold to a particular client...

But the system works excellently. Highly recommended.

Charles Papert · February 11th, 2004, 02:33 AM

Hmm. My guess is that the best reason for using an anamorphic setup would be to present a letterboxed "'scope" image that has the optical characteristics of anamorphic: halving the depth of field of spherical lenses, plus the peculiarities of the medium such as the horizontal flares and oval out-of-focus highlights. You could ultimately cut out some of the sides and present in 1:85 or 16:9 (you'd want to frame for this) and still maintain that look. I worked on a commercial that did just this recently. Regardless of gained resolution or not, anamorphic has a very distinctive look--another interesting flavor for the DV arsenal!

Peter Richardson · February 11th, 2004, 11:24 AM

Thanks Barry, I will check out the thread. Who are you going to sell the spec to?

Peter

Barry Green · February 11th, 2004, 06:13 PM

It was done for a specific client that I've done work for before. I told him about the script, and he wants it, but "doesn't have the money" yet. I had the sets, and I had the mini35, so I shot it anyway, and it's one of the best-looking spots on my reel. Once he sees it, I know he'll buy it... :)

February 5th, 2004, 09:51 PM	#1
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	DVX100 w/Mini35 footage? Does anyone have footage shot with a DVX100 with the mini 35.

February 5th, 2004, 09:55 PM	#2
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	I think Barry Green was working on getting some. Barry? For another 35mm twist, see this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=20772 __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

February 6th, 2004, 12:18 AM	#4
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Barry: How many stops of exposure do you lose? Also, what lenses did you shoot with? Will it take anamorphic film lenses? __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

February 6th, 2004, 09:02 PM	#6
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	<<<--The DVX is easily the most filmlike camera out there under $25000 -- but with the mini35, it looks almost EXACTLY like 35mm film. -->>> Hey - what about my motordrive? It's way under $25K... just kidding, sort of, as I plan to get it refined to works well, though you have to edit ahead of yourself with the 9 to 12 second takes, give up standard dialogue, etc. But glad to know the mini35 is not a bust. Thanks for all the info I was worried with all that glass in front that the image would be degraded. I look forward to seeing some footage... __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

February 11th, 2004, 02:33 AM	#13
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Hmm. My guess is that the best reason for using an anamorphic setup would be to present a letterboxed "'scope" image that has the optical characteristics of anamorphic: halving the depth of field of spherical lenses, plus the peculiarities of the medium such as the horizontal flares and oval out-of-focus highlights. You could ultimately cut out some of the sides and present in 1:85 or 16:9 (you'd want to frame for this) and still maintain that look. I worked on a commercial that did just this recently. Regardless of gained resolution or not, anamorphic has a very distinctive look--another interesting flavor for the DV arsenal! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

February 5th, 2004, 11:51 PM	#3
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	We shot a spec spot with it. It's a phenomenal performer. The resulting look is extremely filmlike, between the DVX's capabilities, 24P etc., and the color & contrast added by the film lens, plus the shallow DOF. It's excellent. Have absolutely no qualms about the "fixed lens" issue -- it performs brilliantly.

February 6th, 2004, 08:25 PM	#5
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	How many stops you lose is partially dependent on the 35mm lens you use. And how telephoto your shot is. Somewhere between 1 and 4. We shot some shots in mini35 mode, and then swapped over to anamorphic and duplicated the shot. We found we had to stop down about 4 stops (!) to get consistent exposure with what the mini35 had! But that was on wide angle. The DVX, at wide angle, is f/1.6. On telephoto it's f/2.8, which is about 1.5 stops. To use the DVX with the mini35, you have to be zoomed all the way in -- which means, if you're comparing against a wide-angle shot, you're already 1.5 stops in the hole. On top of that, it seems like the mini35 ground glass system costs about a stop. Then, your taking lens' maximum aperture comes into play too -- we had some f/1.2 Zeiss SuperSpeeds, but on that wide-angle shot I was using an f/2.4 lens. That's about 1.5 stops, maybe 1.75 stops, lost right there, just due to the slower taking lens. So, to recap: if you were doing a hyper-telephoto shot with the DVX raw, vs. using the mini35 with a superfast lens (like an f/1.0), then you might only lose 1 stop total (due to the ground glass). The slower your taking lens is, the more stops you lose. But if you were doing a wide-angle shot, you're going to lose (at a bare minimum) 2.5 stops, and depending on how fast your taking lens is, you could be down 3 or 4 or more. But if you're going for the maximum film look, it's worth it! The mini35 added film look above and beyond its shallow DOF -- even on the wide-angle shot, where shallow DOF was not really a factor, the mini35 version was more filmish -- the mini35 adds a nice filmlike glow and texture to your shots, vs. the comparatively more harsh look of the raw DVX. The DVX is easily the most filmlike camera out there under $25000 -- but with the mini35, it looks almost EXACTLY like 35mm film.

February 7th, 2004, 12:23 AM	#7
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	I was looking at the "Towards a Film Look with DV" forum and someone made a homemade 35mm adaptor and they attached it to a PD150p with a 2.35 anamorphic lens. The results were AWESOME and I was wondering if anyone used a 2.35 anamorphic lens on their DVX100.

February 7th, 2004, 01:07 PM	#8
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	There is no such thing as a 2.35:1 anamorphic lens. Movies achieve a 2.35:1 aspect ratio by using a 2:1 anamorphic lens, which (when applied to the approximately 1.2:1 anamorphic film gate) gives a picture with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. But the lens itself is a 2:1 squeeze, as opposed to video anamorphic lenses, which are a 1.33:1 squeeze. You could certainly use movie anamorphic lenses on the mini35. The problem is, the resulting footage would not be viewable on any television or video projector -- it would basically only be usable for a film blowup. The video you recorded would be at a 2.66:1 aspect ratio. To get a proper 2.35:1 blowup, you'd have to crop off some of the sides. You could use that system to make internet videos, I guess, but it doesn't have much applicability for television use -- you'd have to digitally unsqueeze and crop the image down so much, that you might as well have just shot flat and cropped.

February 7th, 2004, 09:04 PM	#9
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	Actually, if it were Pal you could shrink the 2.35 anamorphic image from 1344x576 to 1280x549 and then add bars and make it 1280x720. If its NTSC you could crop it or up-ress it in S-Spline Pro to 1280x549 and add bars. So you actually COULD use it for televison.

February 7th, 2004, 10:28 PM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Except that the image isn't 1344 x 576. It's 720 x 576. You could resize that down to 720 x 288 -- that'd get you unsqueezed for the proper aspect ratio -- but you'd be throwing away half your resolution. Up-rezzing to HD, you'd still either have to crop significantly to fit the frame into the HD 16:9 frame. It's not that you couldn't extract a usable-shaped image, it's that you're going to have to seriously crop and compromise your image to get it that shape. There are no 2.66:1 TV's out there, so to fit your image on even a 16:9 TV will involve a lot of cropping and squeezing.

February 10th, 2004, 09:49 PM	#11
Peter Richardson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 608	Barry--I'm excited to hear about your results with the mini35 on the spec. I'm am gearing up to shoot some specs with the mini35 as well. When you get a chance I'd love to hear more details and tips about the shoot, as well as what your plans are for the spec. Can we see it online anywhere yet? Thanks! Peter

February 11th, 2004, 12:45 AM	#12
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Hi Peter, I wrote up a fairly lengthy post & responses about the experience on this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/Y...num=1069887552 It's not online yet, I still am working to see if I can get it sold to a particular client... But the system works excellently. Highly recommended.

February 11th, 2004, 11:24 AM	#14
Peter Richardson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 608	Thanks Barry, I will check out the thread. Who are you going to sell the spec to? Peter

February 11th, 2004, 06:13 PM	#15
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It was done for a specific client that I've done work for before. I told him about the script, and he wants it, but "doesn't have the money" yet. I had the sets, and I had the mini35, so I shot it anyway, and it's one of the best-looking spots on my reel. Once he sees it, I know he'll buy it... :)