I have a quick question:
Why exactly is the mini-35 adapter an immediate throwaway because of the "type" of production? What makes a documentary different from a drama, in regard to image quality? All else being equal, I would assume that the more filmic a documentary appears, the better it will be received.
I guess I understand about having the 1st AC for focus needs, but not 100% of the time.
Take for instance stand-ups and sit-downs: the focus remains essentially the same, and I don't think anyone would argue that the film lenses don't make those particular elements much more appealing to the eye by eliminating distracting background elements and creating a more texturized image for long interview segments. No AC needed for interviews!
(Note that I completely agree that this would be impractical on a run-and-gun shoot, but even most run-and-gun shoots take time to interview their subjects, shoot establishing shots, etc. ESPECIALLY since you're not concerned with mixing different qualities of footage, AND that you want to acheive certain looks. Why just throwaway the wonderful opportunities gained through shooting with a decreased DOF and that sweet filmic look?)
Thoughts?
I guess I'm of the opinion that regardless of the "type" of project, the image should look as brilliant as possible, given the specific set of circumstances of course.
The EASY way would be to just say "don't use the Mini35 it because you're shooting a documentary and documentaries can look less than perfect as long as the subject is sufficiently intriguing," but why not try for both an intriguing subject AND brilliant cinematography, if at all possible?
Cheers!
Jim