Is there any point to it?

[Lars.Erik]

Hey there.

 

I've shot a lot with the P+S 35mm adaptor, but then only on HD and other 2/3" cameraes. I think it looks pretty good. It's a shame it eats up 2 f-stops though. Doesn't look like film, but hey, it isn't. So that's ok. Looks like very, very good video.

 

I know they make them for 1/3". Have any of you used it? Is it worth the cost?

 

I mean, you're still shooting through the 1/3" lens thats fitted to the cam.

[Tim J Durham]

Hey there.

 

I've shot a lot with the P+S 35mm adaptor, but then only on HD and other 2/3" cameraes. I think it looks pretty good. It's a shame it eats up 2 f-stops though. Doesn't look like film, but hey, it isn't. So that's ok. Looks like very, very good video.

 

I know they make them for 1/3". Have any of you used it? Is it worth the cost?

 

I mean, you're still shooting through the 1/3" lens thats fitted to the cam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since you've used it on 2/3" cameras and you know what it does (and presumably how it does it), You're the only one who can answer that. The mini35 rents for around $500 a day, I think which I think is ludicrous for something that costs only $9K. Supply and demand at work.

 

There is a new option coming to the market soon called the Guerilla35:

 

http://www.guerilla35.com/

 

It's about time. P+S Technic has had zero competition in this highly captive market (the depth-of-field slaves), and according to these guys at Guerilla35, theirs will SELL for around $1200, so less than the cost of 3 days rental of the Mini35.

 

Still, it's the only way to get that shallow DoF.

[David Mullen ASC]

In some ways, the P&S Technik approach makes MORE sense for 1/3" CCD cameras where depth of field is enormous; with 2/3" CCD cameras, you have the same depth of field characteristics of 16mm and simply shooting a wide apertures on fast HD lenses is often enough to reduce the depth of field to an acceptable level.

[Tim J Durham]

In some ways, the P&S Technik approach makes MORE sense for 1/3" CCD cameras where depth of field is enormous; with 2/3" CCD cameras, you have the same depth of field characteristics of 16mm and simply shooting a wide apertures on fast HD lenses is often enough to reduce the depth of field to an acceptable level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The dilemma is that for the daily rental rate of just the Mini35, you could rent a Panasonic

SDX-900 w/tripod and batteries and reap the benefits of having a really brilliant SD camera. 'course there will be those pesky insurance requirements. It's a tough call. On the one hand, you want to use your own camera (miniDV) and on the other hand you want the best result for a given amount of money.

 

Few seem to want to embrace the capabilities of the miniDV format. I would think it's the perfect format for webcasting, for instance. Especially the ones that will do 30p like the XL2 and DVX-100A.

 

You could also take great advantage of shooting in front of a rear-projected image (ala Zentropa). Just put the projector out of focus and there's your shallow depth of field (and make sure you are far enough away that you can't see the screen imperfections). There are also a host of other cool effects you could do with rear-projection but few are into embracing/experimenting with the format or employing the local high school AV squad. They just want it to look like a Panavision camera which is futile, but I understand the power of the Sirens song.

 

I just got an idea...

[Mark Sasahara]

The Mini35 looks really nice on a 1/3" chip camera. Or, as good as anything can on a 1/3" chip cam. You get 35mm cine DOF and the great 35mm glass. I gaffed a shoot where we used it on an XL1 and it looked very nice. I think we used Zeiss Super Speeds.

 

I'm looking for an excuse to shoot with one. There are a few little idiosyncracies, like the power and f-stop control, but the rental people can help. Get the model 400, which is the latest one with the oscillating ground glass. The 300 has a spinning gg, which is okay, but you can't really stop down much past around f/4.5 or f/5.6.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hello,

perhaps I have misunderstood but in the original post Lars Erik seemed to be reffering to using the Mini-35 with Fixed lens mini-DV cameras like the DVX100 "you're still shooting through the 1/3 lens thats fitted to the camera". I haven't used the Mini-35 with the DVX (only XL2 ) but know lot's of people who have, I am suspicious of using a system were you are focusing an already poor quality lens onto the ground glass of the adaptor and have had my suspicions confirmed by what I have seen and heard from shoots using the adaptor with the DVX. However when used in conjunction with any camera that has interchangable lenses the Mini and Pro-35 (the 2/3" version) are both extremley useful devices, that (for me) have allowed me to yield better looking results on Mini-DV and HDCAM than with standard 1/3" and 2/3" lense sytems. Always make sure you use the 400 model or series 4 (as it is also reffered to) as the earlier models had more problems than just not being able to stop down, I heard that they created strange refracted internal flares as well.

Cheers.

Tomas.

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

Hi Erik,

I have a few sample frames from footage posted here:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...opic=6524&st=60

(and on the previous page), and a lot more on my site.

I made an image converter that does not loose any light. (Check the "all tests" album please). I use a Fresnel focusing screen as "ground glass" since that is what all SLR manufacturers are using. End result:

the screen is bright from corner to corner (no vigneting) and as sharp as an image projected on a such surface can be. Check the hi rez stills 1760/1320 (as opposed to frames from DV footage 720/480) and some night shoots to see what you can not get using the mini or Pro35 (due to different screens used) and let me know your opinion please.

David, thanks for the comment on the previous thread.

 

Cheers,

Dan

www.dandiaconu.com

[Lars.Erik]

Hi Dan,

 

checked out your site. Interesting. You've made the adaptor yourself? Impressive.

 

Liked especially the shots of the eye (CU) and the ones with the roof of the car in front, with the lights out of focus in the back.

 

Will be interesting to see how it all looks in moving image. Let me know when you'll get some clips on your site.

 

It's also extremely good that you don't loose any light. As I said, the PS Pro 35 loses 2 f-stops.

 

Lars Erik

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

Thank you Lars,

(I am new to this forum and I do not receive "email up dates" when a member replies to a post, so... I have to get used to checking back). Wait! I found it! at the bottom of the page!!!! Eurica!

The clips (due to web compression) had to be posted elsewhere (my site does not allow more than 2M of data at one time) but I posted the links under the album "work samples" All you have to do is click on the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on "free" again. It will become available in less than one minute.

Also, due to "copy-cats" I did not post any more up dates on my site. It took me a while to get "there" and..... I saw people promoting facts beyond their knowledge. So... I will refrain from comments. All I can add is that I had a very successful test with Z1 last Friday and the device (as is now) is good for Z1-print on film (IMHO)

Resolution, light loss (actually gain! ! ! ! !) and vigneting (or better put the lack of) makes me happy. I would be delighted to offer one day trial free (based on a week commitment for drama/feature) for anyone interested to try it out.

I have two local rental houses (here in Vancouver) that will offer the device for rental (including all 7 Nikkors I have geared for FF) Basically, I use a Fresnel type focusing screen instead of an ordinary ground glass. The difference in picture quality (and the results) need no further comments for that is what Nikon, Canon, etc have been using for years for the SLR viewfinders. All I do is move it on a circular motion at the focal plane (to create the motion blur needed) so the individual grains (from the matte side) are perceived as an "even" field. The high no of hits on the site says more than I can. As David put it, it makes the most dramatic difference when used on smaller chip sizes, rather than from 2/3" to 18/24mm. (speciallly since I use 24/36mm screen and most tests were done on Panasonic GS200's 1/4,7" chips!)

If you want more details, let me know please.

 

Edited latter:

I have just checked the site and the clips is still there. Here is the link:

 

http://rapidshare.de/files/1230020/bshoot2.avi.html

 

Shoot with Panasonic GS200 and MPIC.

Edited May 22, 2005 by Dan Diaconu