P&S Technik Pro 35 Digital Image Converter

[racso]

Hi All,

 

I'm new here, and I am so glad I found this place.

 

Just a quick question... has anyone in here used the P&S Technik Pro 35 Digital Image Converter PL 35mm to B-4 adapter on the XL1s? Any stories on your experiences with it? I'm considering using that on my next feature, then throwing it out to AE with Filmlook plugs in.

 

Any ideas would be great. Thanks everyone!!

 

~KIROK

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually, it's the Mini-35 you would use -- the Pro-35 is for B4-mount pro video cameras, and the Canon XL1 does not use a B4 mount.

[racso]

Thanks for the info!!

[Tim Carroll]

David,

 

Have you used the mini-35 with the XL1s, and if so what was your impression of the results?

 

-Tim

[David Mullen ASC]

No, I've only seen the demo reel that P&S Technik shows everyboday.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've used the mini35 on a PD-150. That said, I expected to dislike it quite strongly and didn't. The focus falloff is nice, the slight halation and diffusion of the groundglass is similar to what some people always do to video anyway, and it does seem to somehow improve hilight handling. It is very, very soft, though. The non-removable lens on a PD-150 is not ideal since there's no way to mount the device directly; the PD-150 variant therefore ends up with more glass in the way, and probably produces a softer image than the XL1. Given that it's a soft camera anyway, the focus is suddenly as tricky as 35mm and the device introduces softness of its own, the resulting image is positively blurry even when you have everything optimally set.

 

Frankly though it just seems like an incredibly expensive way to get very low resolution images. The device itself is very expensive, the lenses it requires are expensive, and the results are soft as hell. Not attractive to me.

 

Phil

[racso]

Phil,

 

Thanks for the 411. Very helpful. What other equipment out there gives you depth of field for the XL1s besides the P&S Technik?

 

Have a great Thanskgiving!

 

KIROK

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

All cameras using glass lenses (as opposed to pinhole cameras) have a depth of field characteristic, so I presume what you mean is "how do I get -less- depth of field." The answer to that question has been covered on this board a few times, but the options are:

 

- Use longer lenses/longer zoom settings

- Open the iris

- Use a mini35

 

Until someone comes up with a bootleg mini35, those're the options. There are fiddles with putting a diffusion screen inbetween the subject and the background, but I'd consider that to be a pretty longwinded and complicated way to get an effect you can probably live without if you put your mind to it.

 

Phil

[thomas-english]

what lenses did you use phil on the front end?

[andrewbuchanan]

Just a quick mention of another (cheaper) option...

 

I had an Optex Nikon to XL1/XL2 converter I used to to stick my Nikon primes on my XL1. While this didn't make an image that was on par with a P+S mini35's ground glass (or at least what is on the demo, I've never shot with one), it did make the depth of field much easier to control (especially with very fast lenses like the 50mm f1.4). I always thought this was the main thing the mini35 was supposed to do - and this option is A LOT cheaper. I paid something like $300 for the adapter and already had the lenses (they are pretty cheap to buy and very cheap to rent).

 

Problems? Of course. The nikon lens make pulling focus a b*$# and since the CCD is a wee 1/4 inch you have a 50mm that suddenly looks a lot more like a 150mm or bigger, so you have to have access to a lot of WIDE or SUPER WIDE glass to shoot anything at normal perspective. But the nikons I have are also a lot faster than the XL1 zoom, so there were advantages too.

 

Also, have you ever tried to get shots of the moon or anything with an XL1... you can't make it fill the frame, not even with a century 1.6 tele. Well, put a 180mm nikkor on there with a 2x tele (making something like a 700 or 800mm on the XL1/XL2) and you can get a clear telescopic-like perspective on the moon (full frame) WITH NO GAIN.

 

I haven't seen one of these adapters in a while but that might be a option. Come to think of I still have mine... and no XL1/XL2. Anybody want to buy an adapter?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

What lenses did we use? Er, erm. Round ones? With glass in the middle? I don't remember; my entire chain of thought was something like "Aargh, I have to pull focus on this thing." Wasn't as hard as I thought, although I didn't nail everything.

 

Just mounting a very long Nikon lens on an XL1 won't do what the mini35 does; the entire point of the thing is to get shallow depth of field with short lenses.

 

Phil

[andrewbuchanan]

I didn't imply that it would do the same thing... if you are willing (and you apparently are) to spend all the money to rent a P+S and lenses to shoot miniDV video - great. I am not. 35mm SLR lenses (long or short) have a more shallow focus behind the lens than miniDV camera lenses - since the are designed for film (virtually flat) not 3 layers of CCDs (less than flat). Also these lenses are faster (meaning F-stop!) so you can use that to help shorten the focus too.

 

I'm not putting forth a $300 alternative that just as good. I'm putting forth an alternative that is better than the XL1 lens and cheaper than the P+S. You should try it some time, it might save you some money.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've never paid for a mini35 - I worked on a music promo shoot that used one. I thought it was OK, but a really expensive way of getting a pretty basic effect.

 

> 35mm SLR lenses (long or short) have a more shallow focus behind the lens

> than miniDV camera lenses - since the are designed for film (virtually flat) not 3

> layers of CCDs (less than flat)

 

What d'you mean by a "more shallow focus behind the lens"?

 

> Also these lenses are faster (meaning F-stop!) so you can use that to help

> shorten the focus too.

 

You sure about that? A lot of video cameras go down to 1.8 or 1.3, and I don't see many stills lenses that do.

 

Phil

[andrewbuchanan]

I was just saying that SLR lenses are designed for the image to converge on a single plane behind the lens (my apologies for being unclear), whereas a lens that is designed for DV has to converge on a 3CCD matrix - which is thicker than a thin peice of film.

 

Having more of a focal plane behind the lens, you have more depth of field in front of it. It was my impression (and I could be wrong) that this effect and the miniscule 1/4 inch CCDs are what make the focus so deep on these cameras.

 

I've tried a lot things to correct this (at least when I was shooting a lot of miniDV). The Century Optics 1.6 tele - is worthless, NDs are somewhat helpful, but the best was fast nikons in the adpater. They can be readily aquired at f1.8 and f1.4 up to 85mm which is as long as you'd want on a 1/4 inch CCD (I found the f1.8 20mm the most useful). The XL1 zoom in a f3.5-4.5 (I think). Plus the glass is really good (why else would Aaton still make A-Minimas with a Nikon mount).

 

I know it isn't a vibrating ground glass and adpater with a Cooke S4, but for less than a day's rental on P+S alone you can get a great effect. The Nikkors cause some chromatic problems (not fall-off, just the glass in general), but this can easily be fixed with WB or in post.

 

Seriously, try it before you knock it.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

OK, I get what you mean, but the zoom on my video camera goes out to 128mm (although it's rough beyond 80-90) and that's how I generally go for DOF. The thing is, that there are lenses optimised for the XL1's small sensor that go at least that far, so I still don't quite understand what you're getting by going for the stills lenses.

 

Phil

[Rik Andino]

W0W! I really walked in late to this forum.

 

I AC'd in feature that used the XL1 with P+S Mini 35 adapter two years back,

and was impressed with the sharpness and image quality of the Zeiss superspeeds.

But other than that didn't find the P+S Mini 35 adapter that spectacular.

 

It does provide a shallow depth of field--depending on f-stop and the other variants, you know...

But I still don't get the need for such a clunky contraption

When what you basically need is a simple XL1/XL2 to PL mount adapter.

 

The vibrating ground glass sounds like a good idea, but it's basically useless

I shot with the ground glass on and off and the image was almost the same

Just a slight softness when the ground glass is on

It can also soften the electronic image look that video usually has.

(But you can also do this with 1/4BPM or an Ultra Con filter)

 

I also found the P+S adapter to be clunky, heavy and not production ready.

It sucked battery power very quickly

And the backfocus of the contraption had to calibrated almost on a daily basis.

(And this is a tedious process)

It is a very delicate machine that can lose its calibration easily.

 

I recently used a simple $500 XL1 to PL mount adapter

From XL1 Solutions and it provided a similar image to the P+S adapter.

It wasn't heavy at all and there was no calibration and it didn't need batteries.

Just rent a couple of good Cooke or Zeiss primes

Add a good Matte box with some filters

(I recommend an Ultra Con or a 1/4 BPM)

And you can get really great video images.

 

 

 

 

KARMA bums

[Guest Robert Skates]

Hello,

One of the aspects of the mini-35 is to also provide a Field of View that is similar to 35mm motion picture lenses. A 50mm lens in the 35 format will give you a different field of view than a 50mm lens on a mini DV camera. The inexpensive adapters simply allow for the use of various SLR lenses on the XL2&2. A 50mm lens with one of these adapters become a telephoto lens.

 

The mini 35 will aproximate the Field of View and the Depth of Field of motion picture lenses on motion picture cameras. Cinematographers trained in 35mm know how a close up will look with a 85mm lens. The mini 35 with a 85mm ultraprime will give that D.P. a shot and look he/she is used to.

 

If you are approaching mini dv from a film background the mini 35 will provide you with a look that seems closer to film created with lenses that are familiar to you. If you are coming from a background in video the mini 35 most likely seems underwelming. Softer image, high cost, why bother. It all comes down to personal taste and perspective.

 

Robert Skates

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, with a straight adaptor, you'd have no depth of field advantage over DV lenses plus you'd find out that most of your lenses were too telephoto.

[David Glasgal]

how about going with the Red Rock Micro, (http://www.redrockmicro.com/) it's the same thing, but cheaper right?

 

too bad the XLs dont record to anything better than DV

[Guest david west]

hmmmm... shameless plugs?

 

 

i made an adapter for myself so that i could use arri std mt lenses on my xl1s.

 

works fine. i think that you do get a different feel out of the cinema lenses compared to the stock lens.

 

 

BUT- a 28mm lens now behaves like a 70mm+- so good luck EVER getting a wide angle shot with such an adapter.

 

the beauty of the glass that is not stationary is that a speck of dust on the ground glass does not completely ruin your whole day. as you enlarge the image the static vs moving glass differences become more appearant.

 

 

pulling focus takes a phd in math with the straight thru adapter as well....

[Guest AshG]

The best choice for the XL cameras is the Letus35XL Flip v2. It attaches to the body, you do not need to use the stock lens as a relay.

 

 

 

 

ash =o)

[Mitch Gross]

I don't think the Letus35 is a best choice for anything short of burning a nice hole in your wallet.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

 

I've used the mini35 on a PD-150. That said, I expected to dislike it quite strongly and didn't. The focus falloff is nice, the slight halation and diffusion of the groundglass is similar to what some people always do to video anyway, and it does seem to somehow improve hilight handling.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

I am glad someone else noticed how the adaptor/primes helps the camera hold highlights!!! I used the pro and mini-35 and noticed it with both, but people thought I was nuts "how can an adaptor increase highlight info" but it does, I noticed it multiple times!!! It is not just the DOF or softening/halation from the groundglass, the adaptor and film primes (more importantly the primes perhaps) do way more than people are saying on here, it does something quite unexplained or tangible but very beautiul to the image!!! especially the Pro35 on HD.

Cheers.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Tomas Haas

[Guest AshG]

I don't think the Letus35 is a best choice for anything short of burning a nice hole in your wallet.

 

 

Ever use one? At 1/10th the price the footage looks just about as good as the P&S. It attaches to the XL body so there is no relay lens. The Letus35XL v2 is a terrific unit and working great even with the XLH... you might want to research something before you blast it.

 

 

 

 

ash =o)

[Mitch Gross]

Ever use one? At 1/10th the price the footage looks just about as good as the P&S. It attaches to the XL body so there is no relay lens. The Letus35XL v2 is a terrific unit and working great even with the XLH... you might want to research something before you blast it.

ash =o)

I have used it. I have thoroughly tested it. I had it in a physical test environment up next to a P+S Techink Mini35 and a MOVIetube. I stand by my earlier statement.

 

It is a device for home hobby filmmakers at best. I would never make a comment about a device without first making sure that I know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should research back to the past 8-10 years that I've been contributing to this forum and then decide whether you wish to blast me.