Jan Doggen

You should try to feed the viewfinder from the Y component of a Y/C output, which will avoid your seeing composite colour encoding artifacts all over it.

 

Phil

S-Video outputs are Y/C, right?

You know, I hadn't even thought about using the s-video output...

Might there be problems with the levels and/or impedance of an s-video output?

I guess I should just get a second-hand viewfinder and try to hook it up.

Jan

Hi,

I am looking for a way to connect an ENG viewfinder to the video-out of a vx2000/pd150 or dvx100 camcorder. (I know there is an adapterbox for the canon xl1 but i am not interested in that.)

I wonder if anyone can get me clued up about this.

If I find the pinout of a viewfinder-connector, will getting 12v into it (i know most viewfinders need 12v) and connecting the video-out to the right pins actually work? Or is some kind of signal conversion needed?

thanks for any info on this...

JD

...Because I've had three drives fail on me since 2002! Those are not very good odds!

 

DL-DVD is the way to go. It's what I currently use to backup my DV Projects. The drives are $60 and the 8.5GB disks are under $4 or even $3 in quantity. That's pretty cheap (although not necessarily very fast).

the question is: how long will those DVD's last? i've had cd-r's and dvd's losing information even after just a few months. others are still okay after 10 years (cd's) but i'm not taking that risk.

a study of a consumer organisation in the netherlands (i think) revealed that something like 30% of cd-r media failed after just 2 years storage in a dark and dry environment even though cd-r media are supposed to be safe for at least 25 years or something. the is no reason why dvd+-r's should do any better.

plus 8.5 GB doesn't hold many minutes of DVCPRO HD footage. it's okay for SD DV but even then if you are trying to backup concert footage you'll have to start cutting the files up.

DLT's sound like a very safe option. Make 2 copies and keep them in different places.

JD

Hi,

 

I paid $2000  for a Cooke 20-100 on E Bay, it had some cleaning marks on the front element, It was suposed to be perfect! The same seller sold a less clean one for $1600 . A couple of weeks ago a very clean one went for under $2300. People advertise them at 3K+ but nobody ever bids!

 

Stephen

hmmm

why don't i ever see them? ;)

i must be using a wrong search or something...

A Cooke 20-100 from Ebay for 2000 USD is a far better lens.

I've been waiting for one to pop up for aaaaages...

Some sites are selling them but usually at $4000-$5000 which is too much I think.

JD

I see. But with video lenses, is never good to shoot at the aperture limit/wide open. The sharpest point of the lens is about 2 stops down. The same apply to still film lenses?

yes it does, but keep this in mind:

1) one of the reasons why you would use a mini35 is to have shallow DOF so you might not want to stop the lens down too much.

2) I think there's a limit too which you can stop down lenses with the mini35 because above that the image gets worse or something... I wouldn't go above 5.6.

That?s a good point. If you set the light for f1.8 and your next lens opens only till f2.0 it?s a problem. Although if you have let?s say two f1.8 and two F2.0 lenses, you could just never set any of them wider than F2.0 which is the limit of the slower lenses. Couldn?t that work too, in case I can?t find all them at the same speed?

the difference between f1.8 and f2 is quite small so you could get away with lighting for 1.8 and fixing the f2 footage in post, or you could just stop the f1.8's down to f2 and light for f2.

if however you're working with f1.8's, f2.8's and f4's then you would have to light for f4 and stop the f1.8's down which brings us back to more DOF and so on...

How can I tell if a lens is consumer or pro? Pricing is very subjective. Any special details to make it easier to tell them apart.?

if the same focal length exists in a f2.8 and a f1.8 then the f1.8 is probably the pro version ;)

Which is the most common number, 5, 6,7 or 8 blades?

I don't know....

I think generally more recent lenses have more blades and those blades are curved a little to give more round out-of-focus highlights. The sigma's I have -which are very recent designs- have 9 curved blades and my old nikon 85 f1.8 has 6 which are very straight...

by the way, I hear there is a nice older 135mm f1.8 by sigma but it's hard to find.

oh, could you tell me where you can get your lenses geared?

JD

The Nikons are looking better abd better. I might just go with them. So, a should stick with F1.8 only? I have to confess that I know close to nothing about 35mm lense. So I have no idea of which F numbers to look for.

The thing with the f-number is that the lower it is the less light you need (and the shallower you can get your depth of field) so usually the better lenses (and more expensive ones) are those kind of lenses. In 35mm still photography f1.8 is about as low as they go (excepted for the occasional 1.0, 1.2 or 1.4 for a few selected lenses) over a wide range of primes.

It's always easiest to get a set of f1.8 lenses so that you can switch lenses within the same lighting setup... if for example you've lit a scene for f2.0 and you've got a f2.8 lens then you have to adapt your lighting just for that one lense, if you see what I mean.

So basically, as long as they are Nikons 35mm (not D-SLR) primes, all I need to pay attention then is focal length and F number? Every Nikon will be a F mount, without exceptions? They are all same quality?Same peformance? I see that not every Nikon mount is a Nikon. Jan suggested Sigma. Are there other brands which used the Nikon F mount? Or should I stick with Nikon brand only?

Not all nikon mount lenses are the same quality or the same performance. There are lenses aimed at consumers and pro's; both have a different price-tag and usually you get what you pay for. A 'pro' lens will usually be better mechanically, will open wider, use better glass and thus be better all around.

You can get lenses from other manufacturers with the nikon mount but I would advise you to stay away from cheap lenses. Those 3 sigma's I was talking about are good glass too, but I would say: always try to test a lens before buying it.

The problem with using still lenses is that theay are slimmer, and then follow focus and mattex boxes won't fit well.

You can get nikon lenses geared for use with FF (I haven't done it yet but it will probably set you back about $100-$200 per lens, i hear)

Jan, you lost me here:

 

"-still lenses aren't really matched up colorwise and lookwise"

 

You mean physically, like in the way they look like, meaning every lens will look different from each other and not like a lens set?

Or you mean the images they make will have different textures and colors?

Cine lens manufacturers usually design a whole set of primes at the same time, using the same optical formulas, the same type of glass and the same type of coatings for the whole range so the way they render the image is the same.

Still lenses are usually designed one at a time, possibly even by different teams within the company.

Theoretically if you're shooting DV or HDV which both don't have a huge exposure and color latitude, it's best to white balance the camera each time you switch lenses, even within a same scene or lighting setup. If you were using a matching set of cine lenses, you could bet on it that there would be no difference in color between lenses.

Besides color non-matching still lenses will also render flares and bokeh (out of focus image) differently... and when you're not shooting wide-open you will notice that some still lenses have 5 iris-blades, others 6 or 7 or 8 which will result in differently shaped out of focus highlights: wide open you will always have a nice circle but with 5 blades you'll get a pentagon shape, with 6 a hexagon, and so on... so if in the edit you jump for one to the other it might look really weird.

Though it's maybe only image-nerds who will notice it.

Also, what's a good source of used Nikon primes besides Ebay? Or should I buy new ones only?

I bought some older nikon manual focus lenses from the used department of www.bhphotovideo.com. I have already bought a lot of photo equipment from them and they are trustworthy. Their physical shop in NY is huge and carries an incredible amount of stock.

Newer lenses like for example the sigmas I would buy new so you have the warranty.

I hope this helps...

JD

Cool you talked about still Nikon lenses. I thought about them, but thought they would not be up to HD specs or be as good as the cine ones. So people do use them for motion picture photography? Are all Nikons the same quality of are there any special ones to look for?

 

About my options, I can get PL, OCT-19, Nikon F and Canon FD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still lenses are good enough for HD; after all they are being used on 16mpix dslr's... the only problems you might (will) encounter are:

-still lenses aren't really matched up colorwise and lookwise

-focussing is harder than with cinelenses as the mechanism often isn't quite as well made as on cinelenses and the distance markings aren't as precise, but it works nevertheless. focussing is also harder because still lenses are often designed to cover the focussing range within a 90-120 degree rotation (because that's easier when shooting photos) whereas the same range is spread over a rotation of up to 330 degrees on cine lenses...

-breathing: the 'zooming' effect when you focus is often more noticeable with still lenses as they are not optimised to reduce this.

if you have to choose between nikon and canon fd lenses, i would go for nikons as canon fd's aren't being made anymore and nikon has kept the same mount up untill now so new lenses will also work. I wish canon eos lenses would work on mini35/movietube adapters but they don't have manual diaph-rings.

when buying nikon lenses, make sure you don't buy those new lenses specially made for their d-slr's as they project a smaller image than standard 35mm-photography and only just about the size of 35mm cine size, so you might get vignetting but more importantly: they don't have manual diaph rings either and you can only set the iris electronically with a dslr body.

if you go for nikon still lenses, I can recommend the 20, 24 and 28 mm sigma wide-angles which open at f1.8 and deliver a nice image (they are hard to focus, though).

overall the nikon option is a cheap way to get started and when needed you can always rent cine lenses and decide to buy when you've found out which lenses you like most. there are a lot of good second hand f1.8 manual focus nikons out there.

you can get 20, 24, 28,35,50,85,100 and 135 mm lenses in f1.8 or f2 relatively cheap (check sigma for the 20, 24 and 28).

hope this helps; i'm no expert but this is what i've found out so far.

JD

The P&S loses 1 1/2 stops

The new tube loses ?

 

Mike Brennan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's about the same... haven't done side by side tests.

the official word is it loses 1 1/3 stop.

I read a post awhile back about some f0.7 lenses available, possibly in europe? Has anyone actually shot with these, and are they even possible to run on say a panavision or aaton 35 camera?  I was discussing this idea with my DP, and we are in agreement that we want to use them for a commercial. Is it even logistical to attempt it?

 

Anyone with any knowledge in this area that can help would be great, and I thank you in advance.

 

Thanks,

Jeremy Russell

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you might want to contact the people that have them:

http://www.joedunton.com/

it does say "available for selected projects" so I guess they will not rent them out to anyone for any project.

JD

Edit: Or, you could just google for "viewfinder pinout":

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks, i tried lots of different google seraches but this one seems to deliver.

i guess i should just try to find a second hand one on ebay and mess around with it.

Hi,

Does anybody know how you could feed the video-out of a camcorder to a ENG viewfinder? I am aware that an external 12V power source would be needed.

Do adapters exist? (except for the Canon one for the XL1)

Thanks for any info....

JD

Just wondering, is the light fall-off toward the edges of the frame in the second sample something that was added in post, or does this come from the movietube?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't speak for Christopher but from my experience with the Movietube I think it's added in post...

hi guys,

under the following link you can see the MovieTube in comparison to the P+S Image Converter.

 

P+S Image Converter with Sony HDV FX1:

- Color Correction: DaVinci

- Lens: Zeiss Super Speeds, Angenieux Optimo 24 - 290mm

some images are shots without P+S Image Converter, for example: the BBQ szene

http://www.ch71.de/clips/bosshoss-hotinhere.mov

( Artist Homepage: www.thebosshoss.com )

 

MovieTube with Sony HDV FX1:

- Color Correction: Final Cut Pro

- Lens: Arri Ultra Primes

http://www.ch71.de/clips/glashaus-version02.mov

( Artist Homepage: www.imglashaus.de )

 

best regards

christopher haering

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christopher,

Those are nice clips; I prefer the "Im Glasshaus" to the other one but I was wondering what your experiences are with the FX1. Have you had any problems with compression artifacts?

Also, which did you prefer, the P+S or the Movietube?

grts

JD

cheers for posting the video really nice DOF, cant find any information about the movietube's availability and their website is terrible. did you rent it and if so where from? do you know of any UK rental houses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The best thing is to e-mail them; they are most helpful people.

A first batch of Movietubes became available early june and it's a really nice product. I know some german rental houses have them for rent and as far as I know, there should be some outside of germany as well.

JD

Hi ,

 

I Have bought an Arg 20-120 T2.9 on E bay for £150  from Aardman Annimation, and also a Beautiful Cooke 20-100 for $2000 . The Cooke is a much nicer lens very sharp wide open, but this may not be an issue with the Mini 35. They are both quite heavy. Don't pay to much!

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow... those are good prices... I need to be on ebay more often!

I guess I'll wait for a decently priced cooke to come around.

Any tips for more lightweight 'cheap' but good zooms?

JD

If I were to buy a secondhand zoom for a Mini35/Movietube setup, would an Angenieux 20-120 T2.9 for about $2K be a good idea or should I rather spend more cash on it and go for a cooke 20-100 for about $4-$5K?

JD

the lens on the picture is a Sigma 20mm 1.8 Nikor mount. Excellent lens, we had a small budget but we wanted to be able to shoot as wide open as possible, that was the best choice, cheap, a bit soft but really solid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wasn't it hard to focus? I own a sigma 28/1.8 for my canon dslr and sometimes i find the focussing mechanism a little 'unsteady' if you see what I mean.

Something different... I thought there was quite some Chromatic Aberration-like color distortion on high-contrast edges in that video... maybe a problem a with your close-up lens (I assume you use a close-up lens to film the GG).

JD

We went trough a lot of degraining

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean by degraining? Do you mean getting rid of the groundglass-grain?

By the way, is that a Sigma lens on your adapter in the camera-setup photo?

grts

JD

When I'm only trying to help...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my point was that your reply was quite a useless answer to my question, i.e. suggesting a EF-adapter for a camera I don't have when I am asking about lenses for the mini35.

phil calling me insane was actually a more helpful reply.

but yeah i shouldn't have reacted that way.

i should not have reacted at all.

so, i'm a d1ck in your book, well i can handle that.

I'm aware that XL1/2 EF adapter doesn't change the Depth of Field of a lens

But the Mini 35 adapter doesn't change the Depth of Field of a lens either

 

The P+S Technik adapter is designed to allow you to use 35mm lens

The same way you would use them on 35mm cameras

Meaning you'll have the same angel of view as in 35mm

So most of your lenses won't look like telephoto lenses

When you mount them on your DV camera...

 

But the depth of field of a lens stay the same no matter what you mount it on

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really?

I didn't know that.

Really.

You saved me right there.

Duh!

Hi,

 

If I were hell bent on doing this, I'd definitely look at stills lenses. Even buying a cheap PL mount zoom is thousands; it's not worth it just to end up something that's still just miniDV. Better to put that money into a better camera, even if you still want to own.

 

I think people put far too much store in this stuff. You can achieve short depth of field on video with proper technique, and I find the results of the mini35 on a PD-150 to be horribly soft.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I'm thinking of buying the 'Movietube';I have gotten a DVD with some 'virgin' footage and it looks pretty sharp. Plus it has some other advantages...

I have also found workarounds for getting more DOF with my vx2000 by increasing distances between the in-focus and OOF objects but it just isn't always possible and practical.

I'm so used to having total DOF control with a pro SLR that I often find it so frustrating to have all that DOF in video.

The reason why I would like to stick with DV for a lot of smaller projects is that the editing is so fast and easy... I'm from the school of "film too much footage and make it in editing" which is not very compatible with film costwise... Though I fully aggree that film is film and video-with-and-adapter is not film. Each has its place.

How about getting the Canon EF adapter for the XL1s/2

 

You already have lenses you can use

 

Canon EF lenses are obviously not Nikkors but they're still pretty good

And are very useful for your purposes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm... because I don't own a XL1s/2... Why would you assume that?

Plus as you should know, that doesn't change the DOF which is what the mini35-type adapters are all about.

As for the Canon EF vs. Nikkor statement: both systems have equally good lenses these days but at least Canon has good Dslr's to mount them on.

Get your facts straight.

I was considering using still lenses but I'm reading about how they're not really suitable... but I reckon it's the best way to go for my personal projects.

But you know what sucks? I'm all kitted out with canon EF lenses and of course those have no iris-control on the lens itself. So I'll have to get some nikon lenses.

And yes, it's great that the $ is so low right now, but since both the P+S technik mini35 and the Movietube adapters are made in (or rather designed in and marketed from) Germany, that doesn't affect the price. For lenses etcetera, B&H is the place where I shop these days.

And yes, Phil was right in a way about being insane... but as I said before, I have no grasp of the 35mm cine lens market.

jd

$2,500 would rent a lot of lenses... and probably make you some good friends at the rental house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with rental is that IF I decide to get that adapter, it's because I want to be able to shoot when and where I want to and obviously if I have to rent lenses all the time then that won't happen.

I did hear some good things about that 20-100 cooke zoom but I guess I would have to test a T3.something lens on the adapter first to see how much light is left and how workable it is.

That adapter also works with photography lenses so I could just use good nikon glass for my own projects and rent when it matters... but obviously there are some trade-offs with photography lenses on a motion camera.

What (if any) are the downsides of using ARRI S lenses with a PL mount adapter?

JD