Jump to content

SDX900 to Film Feature


Jake Kerber

Recommended Posts

I plan to use the SDX900 on a feature--destined for a tape to film transfer--early next year and would appreciate information regarding the following: **Note: I will be doing some limited testing before the shoot, but would like to eliminate some of the variables beforehand.

 

? Lenses - I plan on using low detail settings to take some of the video ege off, but to avoid an image that just looks soft I'd like to use the best/sharpest glass I can. I'm drawn to Cine-style lenses for numerous reasons--DoF characteristics, sharpness, contrast, less breathing, etc.--but truth be told, I have no firsthand experience with THIS camera and cine-style OR ENG lenses, so I may be just as happy with an HD ENG lens that negates lens changes and speeds up set-up time a bit. Actually, are there cine-style zooms that work with the SDX? We will be doing in-shot zooms. How about the Pro35 with a set of 35mm lenses? Or PL to B4 adaptors? These are combinations I'm playing with and would appreciate feedback on.

 

? Screenings/Examples - Does anyone know of any places to view examples or tests that were executed with the SDX900 and transferred to film?

 

Thanks,

 

Jake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> I'm drawn to Cine-style lenses for numerous reasons--DoF characteristics

 

Cine-style lenses, such as Zeiss digiprimes, may be better optically than an ENG zoom but will not have markedly different depth of field characteristics.

 

> How about the Pro35

 

Now that will get you different depth of field characteristics.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Cine-style lenses, both zooms and primes, will have a longer barrel rotation, allowing focus marks to be spaced more conveniently. You'll note on an ENG lens that all the marks are rather close and hard to differentiate.

 

DOF characteristics are the same for cine and ENG lenses. Mainly the cine-style zoom lens will be lacking the zoom motor attachment with hand grip, auto exposure, and a macro capability at the rear of the lens. You'll need an external zoom motor control. They tend to be a little larger than thier ENG versions, some with less breathing problems. Otherwise, optically, they are similar if made by the same company and having the same zoom range and speed.

 

The SDX900 uses the standard B4 video lens mount that all 2/3" CCD pro video camera use, including HD cameras.

 

You can get closer to a shallow-focus look by using faster prime lenses like the Zeiss Digi-Primes. Basically 2/3" CCD cameras have depth of field characteristics that look like 35mm stopped down by 2.5 stops, so if you shoot at an f/2.0, it would look like shooting in 35mm at f/4-5.6 split. So ideally you'd shoot no more stopped down than a f/2.8 lest you get too much depth of field. With the primes, you can shoot at f/1.6 or f/1.9 or so, getting even less depth of field.

 

I've generally been shooting HD at f/2.8, which is an optimal f-stop for many zooms (wide-open at F/2.1, they get a little soft.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Points well taken. I guess I was thinking of a difference in DOF more with the Pro35 adaptor and film lenses, but mentioned it when talking about the cine-style lenses.

 

David and Phil (or anyone else), have either of you used the Pro35 adaptor with the SDX900 or a similar camera? If so, what were your likes and dislikes? Or, has anyone seen footage shot with this camera and the Pro35 (please mention which 35mm lenses were used) and how would you describe the look? Does the oscillating groundglass introduce artifacts that when finishing to video might be considered more 'filmic' or a nice unvideo-like texture, but when applied to something shot for a film finish (which obviously introduces film grain) might be a bit much (subjectively of course).

 

And David, do you know of any SDX900 originated to film examples/tests that are available for viewing in the L.A. area? I do plan on contacting transfer houses, but thought you might have a lead.

 

-Jake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The closest example I can think of is the indie movie "Best Thief in the World", which was shot on the Sony IMX 25P camera (MSW900) using the Pro-35 and 35mm cine lenses. The IMX camera produces a similar image to the SDX900 (IMX and DVCPRO-50 are both 50 Mb/sec; the MSW900 is basically shooting 560/25P and the SDX900 is shooting 480/24P.)

 

The movie played at Sundance in January but I did not see it. I don't know who did the film-out, but if you can find out who, I'm sure they can show you some footage. Or contact P&S Technik and ask them where you can see some footage.

 

As for SDX900 footage shot using B4 video lenses and transferred to film, I know that Laser Pacific did some transfers for DP Dave Klein. You can call them and see if they can show you any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I've only ever used the mini-35 on a proper shoot, which should be comparable. I was expecting to loathe it and didn't; the already-soft PD150 was made to look extremely soft by the slight diffusion effect, but this is less of an issue on the pro35. It's certainly a look. Also seems to help hilights, but I'm not sure if that's to do with the DOF meaning more hilights are out of focus and therefore softer; the diffusion softening hilights and the transition into them, or whether there really is something else odd going on with the groundglass diffusing hilights more than it diffuses anything else.

 

It's certainly a look.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last summer I tested the Pro-35 on a Varicam for a feature. We eventually decided to go with Zeiss DigiPrimes for a number of reasons including a deal offered us from one company that simply couldn't be beat. I liked the look of the Pro-35 but did find that there were a number of odd adjustments and limited ranges within various adjustments before I saw objectionable artifacts. Look back in the archives here or at cinematography.net for a fairly in depth description of what I found at the time.

 

Also FYI, many of the cine style HD zooms are simply rehoused versions of the ENG lenses. Exactly the same optics, but the barrels are larger and rotate more for better delineations of focus marks. The cine style lenses tend to breathe less and do not have the zoom rocker control box mounted on the side. They are also usually much larger and heavier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the replies.

 

I spoke with Laser Pacific today and apparently Dave Klein's footage isn't available anymore.

 

I found Mitch's comments on the Pro35 on the cml:

 

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/D...imesvsPro35.htm

 

Mitch, your notes were quite informative. More and more I'm leaning towards the Digiprimes. The light scattering and softening effect of the Pro35 is not something I neccessarily want. I'd rather selectively filter for that. And the fact that you were unable to open up the superspeeds all the way without encountering problems is unfortunate. I believe you mentioned a Pro35 w/superspeed working stop of T2.8. It seems that with the Digiprimes open at a T1.6 I'd be close to the DOF created with that combination (minus the compression effects of a 35mm lens) and I know I'll be working with longer lenses on this project, so longer lenses opened up wide should work out. Also, knowing that the Pro35 sucks up 1-2 stops of light and knowing that I'll be working with a limited lighting package assures me that working with the Digiprimes at a T1.6 will be more condusive to my overall shooting approach.

 

I'm happy to hear that the Digiprimes were sharp, contrasty, had limited breathing characteristics and handled light hitting the lens or large bright sources fairly well. All in all, they sound like the lenses to use for the look I'm going for.

 

Thanks again for the responses and I plan on posting my adventures with this set-up sometime early next year.

 

-Jake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> xl1solutions.com is working on a PL to B4 adaptor that has no optics

 

Several things worry me about XL1 Solutions. The mount adaptors look fine, but I don't think they really understand their own products. They offer a Nikon to XL mount adaptor and cite images as "clearly shownig depth of field". Hang on, this is a purely mechanical adaptor - the DOF will be identical to the standard Canon lens at the same focal length. Now, in general you might find that a Nikon lens would be comparatively long and therefore reduce depth of field, but this is misleading.

 

Also, they advertise a follow focus complete with add-on gearing for the standard XL lens. Okay, in a pinch there's nothing inherently wrong with that idea if you were to focus visually, but they've included the white drywipe area to set marks - which you can't do on the standard XL lens.

 

Oh, and by the way, they advertise a PL to B mount adaptor. What kind of B mount? I presume 4, but they don't say.

 

Phil

Edited by Phil Rhodes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way, they advertise a PL to B mount adaptor. What kind of B mount? I presume 4, but they don't say.

 

Phil

 

Actually, I think it's an adaptor to use Arri Bayonette (aka Arri-B) mount lens on a PL mount, which would allow people to then use said lenses on the XL-1. I agree that they don't really sem to know what they're talking about. I suspect it is a machinist who knows just barely enough to make himself dangerous. Sort of like a lot of film students I know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...