Jason McKelvey

in answer to the question about why anyone would like to use PL lenses on DV cameras... I'll ask this question, have you ever tried to pull focus on a DVX100?!!? Have you seen the breathing problems with standard canon lenses? wireless FF on a steadicam using a PD150? Both of these problems are a pain when trying to composite creative shots but are limited by the lens. A lot of people say, just shoot film. Well, while some are saving and scraping to save up enough to buy 2 rolls of film (and processing), we are shooting things that look great on TV (our target) today. If it's for the big screen, that's a different story. Did anyone see 28 Days? They used an adaptor similar to the one we are talking about with an XL1... I think even from the same company. An SDX900 would have looked so much better, but the 35mm lenses did make an optical, visible difference. Jason

I think it's that the ccd only sees half the information. I'll try to post a crude pic. The black would be the 35mm frame, the white is what the ccd sees... meaning a tighter looking telephoto frame.

I can magically get a shallow DOF by going wide open on any lens, including video. We are talking symantics here... when you say,"DOF has a lot to do with medium" Your talking the format of the lens. You could record that information on cardboard, it wouldn't matter the medium (film, analog, digital). Glenn, true the focal lengths may be different. I don't know how the product in question works. That's why I used the P&S technic product for my example because it relays the whole optics to the CCD. All I'm saying is that you cannot change the DOF characteristics of any lens. It's corresponds to the physical dimensions of the lens, so you would have to change the physical dimensions of the lens to get more or less DOF at any given f-stop and focal length. People are constantly misusing the term DOF. They say that 35mm has a shallower DOF and therefore looks better (film medium arguments aside). Think about this, a 35mm frame with a DOF of 1 foot will look like it has less DOF than a similar frame of video with a DOF with 9 inches. But wait a minute, you say, the video actually has less DOF... but the 35mm frame background looks more out of focus? People need to stop saying "film has better DOF"... it makes no sense. It's all about the optics. Love y'all,

I don't want to sound argumentative, but I need to post a friendly response... Quote: "To the best of my knowledge DOF characteristics are NOT necessarily associated with the type of lens 16mm, 35mm, 65mm (other than specialised lenses like the Frazier lens). The DOF of a lens is affected by focal length, focal distance, iris and recording medium. It?s the recording medium of 35mm that has a shallower DOF to say 16mm at the same focus, focal length and iris." DOF characteristics have NOTHING to do with the medium that records the image... that it completely determined by the optics. That's why they created the P&S Technic device, to deliver 35mm LENS performance (DOF and such) to other formats. Quote: "So 35mm lenes DO have a shallower DOF, there is no such thing as focus fall-off because this excludes and assumes that there is no "focus fall up?" which is the second part of your DOF." Take a prime 50mm and use a P&S Technic adaptor on a XL1. Take a standard video zoom lens and set up the same framing on another XL1. Put something in the forground and something in the background of your subject. Using the iris/shutter on both cameras, set the DOF field to match each other. In other words, make both cameras have a DOF of... let's say 6 inches or whatever. The shots are framed the same, have the same DOF, what looks different besides the ground glass effect from the 35mm lens? The background and forground elements! These are the falloff (fallup?) "characteristics" I'm talking about. I'm working on getting an adaptor in the next few weeks, I'll post frame grabs of my comparisions. If I'm wrong, the pictures won't lie and you'll forgive me of my arrogance. :)

Huh?

A friend of mine was editing (out in Vegas) a commercial we shot together here in Florida. The owner of the large post house watched the rough cut and asked if it was shot on film. Anyone care to guess what we used? You guessed it -- the SDX900. PS I didn't put this in the SDX900 forum because I wanted to share this with all the video guys.

All below is based on the assumption that you are looking for filmstyle, non-newsy/sports looking footage: If you can't afford the varicam, and can't wait for Panasonic to come out with something else, get an SDX900. No, it's not HD, but are you doing film-outs? We couldn't be happier with the flexibility and beauty of this camera. 24P, 30P and 60i, cine gamma, what else do you need? My 2 cents. Jason

Assuming that the adaptor works and you put a 35mm PL mount lens on your XL1, how exactly would it change the DOF characteristics of the 35mm lens? To clarify, this adaptor allows you to use the center 1/2 of the original length of the PL mount lens... so it's not an optical 2x, it's just that the CCD will only see 1/2 the lens information. So, why would the DOF characteristics be different all of the sudden when you put it on a DV camera? My understanding is that you can't change the DOF characteristics of a lens short of redesigning/manufacturing it. By the way, 35mm lenses don't have a shallower DOF field per-say, the focus fall-off is greater, making the background more blurred. I'll submit that the DOF characteristics would remain intacted. Jason

my understanding is that it will be an HD camera, recording 1080i only. It's an entry level HD camcorder for "newsy" interviews and nature stuff... no progressive or 24P film-like looks. I don't think it would be wise for Panasonic (my opinion Jan) to come out with another film style SD 24P full size camera... honestly, how much could you improve that SD camera to make it worth buying a new model? As far as SD production cameras, in my book it's a 9.5, what are they going to do, make it a 9.7 with the next model? With so many productions increasingly using HD, I would think that they would simply lower the price on the Varicam in the retail range of $40,000 to $50,000. Someone said it, I plan to follow suit, the SDX900 is the last SD camera I will buy. (well, the last SD camera my church will buy)

Call xl1solutions and rent an adaptor and test it out. It's worth the few bucks. I think you will see a difference when using a PL 35mm lens with any video camera. It might not be what you expect, but it will be different and anything that can make people say "how'd they get that look?" is a good thing in my book.

I believe that shooting 16:9 native and using the automatic resize effect (avid) in a 4:3 timeline yields the best product. Like said above, you use the FULL resolution of the chip. Correct me if I'm wrong, but using the full resolution of the chip, then compressing that into a 4:3 timeline should yeild a slight oversampling, effectively making it look sharper. That's why when someone wants there footage to look good on the web, they stick it in a tiny window; wow, it all the sudden looks 10 times better than on a big monitor... instant oversampling. Jason

Hey, I've sometimes syncro scanned down to 1/40 or 1/36 shutter to minimize the strobe/flicker (whatever) if I can't slow the action down any. The trade off is a bit more blurinessOther than that, I leave it at 1/48th standard, unless I'm going to slow-mo it in post, in that case I go up to 1/100 to minimize seeing a lot of slow blur. I came to this practice by watching Panic Room in which there is some great slow-mo work that had no blur to it, which I deduced that with the increased capture rate, the shutter was moving pretty fast to keep each frame sharp. This might see elemetery to film guys, but I don't know how many of us video guys think about how to capture for slow-mo. I think the Goodman's Guide says that SuperV doesn't work in either progressive modes. J

You could get an SDI input card for your computer. Also remember that the camera VTR records at 8 bit and if you use the SDI output live to a studio or edit VTR, you get a 10 bit recording. Huge difference. I think it was something like 256K color versus 800K. Correct me if I'm wrong. J

http://www.xl1solutions.com/

I copied/pasted this from my other post: xl1solutions.com is working on a PL to B4 adaptor that has no optics... simply a machined adaptor. It is supposed to have a back focus adjustment. The only difference is that when using it, you can only see half the picture that the lens sees. It's not really a 2x... you are not magnifying anything... that's just the way it works. So, if you are using a 25mm prime (35mm format) lens, it performs like a 50mm lens. In turn, a 50mm prime lens equals a 17.6mm 2/3" video focal length. The only limitation to this adaptor is on wide lenses. The widest 35mm prime lens is about 8mm (?), so that will look like a 16mm lens when using this adaptor, which in turn equals a 5.6mm video lens. For me, that's wide enough, how often do you see anything wider than 5.6 even in video? The advantage? They claim that you only use the center of the lens, or what they call the sweet spot, best part of the glass, and, from what I read on this forum, if you take a 35mm prime film lens, and a 2/3" video lens of the same equivalent focal length, get the same depth of field for both, the background on the film lens will appear more out of focus. Even though the DOF is the same, the focus fall-off is harder on the film lens. Plus you get the asthetics of the film lens glass, much better focusing, sharper image, less breathing, accessories and all the other things that make film lenses an advantage. jason

If you are stuck with the DVX100A, why not shoot 30P instead of 24P... that's 6 more frames to work with... the same concept as real slowmo... the more frames you have the smoother the motion. Don't believe me? try slowmo-ing 60i 15fps time lapse footage and put it next to 60i 30fps footage slowed the same amount, see which looks smoother. Jason

I don't want to shoot 60i for the same reason that 90% of TV film dramas are shot in 24P instead of 30P... the temporal asthetics 24P - even after a 3:2 - gives you. We shoot the 24P stuff in true 16:9 to mimic more of a cinematic look. Look, I know I know... 24P video won't compete with 35mm film. But I'll put my SDX900 24P 50mbs 16:9 footage up against ANY standard definition 60i footage (and some HD stuff) and on a dramatic story telling level, mine will when every time... unless you are trying to look like a reality show... then I'll lose. I have had to adjust my style of shooting as far as pan and tilt speeds. But I knew this before I ever got the camera from doing research and finding out that there are ASC charts for maximum pans at certain focal lengths. I just need to know the best way to import, edit and output my 24P footage. Hey man, don't feel bad this is a brave new world for me as well, My buddy/colleague hates the way the 24p looks when we play it back 30fps

Correction... I ment CSI Las Vegas is using nets, I don't know if CSI Miami is or not. J

If you're building somethings on-set, you'll need a cinesaw. sorry. J

Did they give specifics as to why it's a bad idea? BTW: CSI Miami is using a LOT of net work this new season. I think it's because the 2 leading ladies have a lot of sun damage to there faces. Check out www.stockingshowcase.com for Dior and Vintage RHT hose. He sold me some hard to sell sizes (extra blimpy) really cheap, and gave me some with runners in them because he can't sell them. Jason

Right, that's why I said it's not like a 2x... it's that the 2/3" chip will only see the middle 50% of the lens' information, so your SDX900 viewfinder will show what a 50mm lens would show through a Arri 435's viewfinder. jason

I'm confused now. If I have 24P (not 24PA) footage that will end up for broadcast and maybe a DVD later, I should do what? Bear in mind that this 24P footage is a small part of a program that is mainly 60i. So my time line is mostly 60i. Is there a difference between deinterlacing and a reverse 3:2 pulldown? What about 30P material... doesn't need a reverse 3:2 pulldown, but does the SDX900 deliver true progressive footage when captured to the NLE? Ugh. Sorry for the lack of understanding,

Sooo, it wouldn't make sense to deinterlace it if you have to interlace it (3:2 pulldown) later. The footage is recorded to tape with a 3:2 pulldown in the camera so that I can play the footage right out of the camera on a regular NTSC monitor, or import it to a NLE for that matter. Thanks, Jason

Hey, me again. Our footage eventually ends up on broadcast TV. So, I've been shooting in Standard 24P, V. Res on INTERLACE. In post, should this footage be deinterlaced? Sorry for the 1st grade question... I'm not much into post. Just want it to look it's best. Sincerely,

xl1solutions.com is working on a PL to B4 adaptor that has no optics... simply a machined adaptor. It is supposed to have a back focus adjustment. The only difference is that when using it, you can only see half the picture that the lens sees. It's not really a 2x... you are not magnifying anything... that's just the way it works. So, if you are using a 25mm prime (35mm format) lens, it performs like a 50mm lens. In turn, a 50mm prime lens equals a 17.6mm 2/3" video focal length. The only limitation to this adaptor is on wide lenses. The widest 35mm prime lens is about 8mm (?), so that will look like a 16mm lens when using this adaptor, which in turn equals a 5.6mm video lens. For me, that's wide enough, how often do you see anything wider than 5.6 even in video? The advantage? Well, from what I read on this forum, if you take a 35mm prime film lens, and a 2/3" video lens of the same equivalent focal length, get the same depth of field for both, the background on the film lens will appear more out of focus. Even though the DOF is the same, the focus fall-off is harder on the film lens. Plus you get the asthetics of the film lens glass, better focusing, less breathing, accessories and all the other things that make film lenses an advantage. jason