I make and sell a static unit that competes with spinning/oscilating adapters and costs a bit less. No noise, no potential wear/tear, very compact and light, and while the grain appears under certain lighting conditions, for the most part it is invisible -- you'd only notice it if you knew what to look for, and the avg. viewer when I show them demo footage says "What grain?".

What can I say otherwise but it's an aesthetic choice, and where all aesthetics are concerned, technical setbacks are something you accept as a challenge and part of the tool's strengths or weaknesses. Sure, wouldn't we all love to shoot on film or with a Red cam (I'll take three, thanks), but then that's exactly the point -- adapters like these cost 1/100th and add a perceived greater production value when applied properly.

Right now, Marty Martin of Imagen Films ( www.imagenfilms.com ) is producing a indie horror under the aegis of Warner Brothers shooting with the XL2 and a beta unit of the adapter I produce, the Go35Pro. He chose to use it after comparing it against the Redrock M2 and deciding it was the better unit for his needs.

You can see some rough footage here:

www.imagenfilms.com/Go35Witches_03.mov

I'm making my living DPing and (sometimes) directing so i shoot tons of stuff that has to look better then simple vidoegraphy. 35mm are really cool. I had similar concerns farss has but most of them are unfounded.

I have worked with Mini35 and M2. Adapters are quite -- no noize issue.

The loss of light is significant but still not something of a huge issue something that you were lighting with 300 you need 650 (or less).

Bluring the background is such "easy" way to make any shot sweet that nowdays whenever i can i try to convince the production to rent one. I would rent rather than buy. Mini35 package droped down and can be rented as whole package with camera for about $500-700. I's totaly worth it.

Also the unit makes the image more organic by making it a bit softer -- not in out-of-focus way but rather more human/pleasant way.

I used to be a skeptic but nowdays i'm all the way convinced.

I was 2nd AC on a film shot in Madison last may and we use a Canon XL-2 with an Mini35 and 5 first class glasses and all looked
and worked great. We didn't have any noise issues that bob brought
up and I am thinking about a using the Mini35 with a Canon HXL-1
for a 6 month long shot next summer.

Terry

Sorry to jump into this thread but I was told by the seller of a used unit here in Sweden that the XL1 would accept ANY Canon lens. Is that true?

((Garo))

Have you tried them with HDV and looked on a big screen?

Bear in mind that shooting higher def and a larger screen size will give a shallower DOF, all else being equal.

Yes, they make it more organic, the GG is adding diffusion.

Bear in mind that shooting higher def and a larger screen size will give a shallower DOF, all else being equal.

Yeah, but saying something like this is only a few steps from saying "You want the film look? Shoot film then." No one would argue that there are other ways to get shallow DOF, but none of them are as cost effective or within reach for indie shooters as these adapters.

Depth of field is an artistic choice rather than a technical one. Like any other filming technique there are circumstances where shallow DOF is really effective and others where it is the last thing you want. Should you doubt that shallow DOF isn't the ant's pants for all occasions then you might explain why they make split diopter attachments. It's like saying that one should always hand-hold because that gives a more "truthful" look. Of course I don't think it does and I don't like jumpy camera-work, but there you are!
In the appropriate circumstances the ability to restrict attention by shallow DOF is a great approach, but you can do the same by a variety of techniques (lighting, for example). And there will be shots for which these gadgets for using 35mm lenses on DV cameras is worth the compromises involved. Which one? DSE has been using the Redrock Micro M2.

Well I wouldn't say a Z1 is a hugely expensive piece of gear compared to what a XL2 cost when they first came out and it's certainly capable of giving you a shallower DOF than the XL2.
Shown as SD it will not, it'll be exactly the same but on a bigger screen with higher resolution it will. Just look at the number of HDV shooters who are finding setting focus correctly to be quite an issue.

Bob.

garo:
The XL-1 will accept all Canon electronic lenses with a special Canon adapter, something like about 50 different models.

JJK

The focus issue on HD cameras is keeping me from jumping in.
My poor eyes would think anything in the viewfinder is in focus.

Going with a 1/2" or 3/4" pickup would be best solution of all but I just don't think
I can justify the cost. HD in that size......well might as well sell the house, car, boat,
stocks, etc.

Going to film.....perhaps an Arri?

We just shot a race promo using Z1, Nikon 28mm, Nikon 55, 105, and 300, all mid-grade glass. Light was no issue, we had a couple 5k's, and reflectors (nearly all of the promo was outdoors). Looks great. Where the noise really can come into play is if the cam is zoomed too deeply to the ground glass, or if the exposure is so low that the cam inserts gain. Otherwise, I really like the look of the 35mm adaptors for particular stylings. As Serena mentioned, we're shooting the RedRockMicro M2 over here.

Do you use the GG motor on or off?
The motor is to vibrate or spin the glass plate correct? This is confusing me.
Does that create color problems or a dark pin hole in the center?

If the adaptor uses a spinning disk then the things is more than twice the size of the image area, the motor and spindle is off to the side.
Another design basically uses the vibrating motor from cell phones to vibrate the GG up/dow/left right, probably the better approach.

Do a Google, somewhere theres a roll your own using one of those blank CDs you get as packing and a surplus CD motor. I wouldn't suggest this for real use but seeing how the guy builds it you'll get a clear idea of how the spinning GG units work.

All that needs to be done is make the GG move, fairly quickly so the 'grain' from the glass is blurred, just how it moves probably doesn't matter that much.

The other approach which is sort of the holy grail is to make the grain so small it doesn't matter, I think that's what the microwax concept aims for.

BTW there's a specific forum for these things at DVinfo.com

Bob.

i totally agree with Farss 100000000%
ther eis nothign worse than noise.. in addition to that, i also find that Vegas DOES generate noise on its own accord within its RGB filtering engine. Not that much, but couple it with the noise you would get from an adapter liek this, then ur looking for trouble.

IMO, there are options available to the DP to get the results of an adapter. They are the use of teh APPROPRIATE CAMERA for teh task.
You have an option, of JVC and Canon for HDV. If it was me making the decision, id be using teh Canon H1, with afew primes.. maybe a 10-22mm@ 2.8 <cheap, and for HD work, a necesity if you intend on shooting big arsed wide establishing shots... a 50mm @2.8 for the dialogue shots (shallow DoF so shallow, a baby could drown in it.. at f4 the image is stupidly sharp.. on a CCD on the canon, you might need to crank it higher, but the fast lens makes up for the loss of light.. then as a "must have" a 70-200L IS USM for everything else.
Couple the resolutions possible with these bits of glass and the resolving power of the Canon HDV unit, and you WILL get stunning results...

Despite the JVC option of interchangable lenses, im yet to see any which can offer this kind of versatility

I'd be surprised if Vegas is adding any more noise than any other NLE does. Certainly many FXs will make noise worse if they're adding gain.

sorry i should have been specific.. but yes, im refering to levels, curves and gamma (CC). moreso levels... gamma so so and curves are probably the cleanest..

Well yes but bear in mind that whenever you push up gamma you are pushing up the gain at the bottom end of the curve and that's where the noise from the camera is. Push it up enough and the quantization noise will also become visible.

Pretty much the same as happens in audio when you apply compression, you're potentially making the quiet parts louder and any noise along with it.

dont ge tme wrong, i never implied you were wrong.. what im saying is that vegas is a lil noisy on its own accord, let alone having to deal with an already noisy source
From what ive seen of premiere pro 2 so far, its only SLIGHTLY cleaner than vegas when it comes filtering.. not so noticable on the lower end, but when u start to crank things up, its where 10bit makes a bit of a difference.. not so much a difference to be detrimental to the work, but enough to look a lil more polished... Thats what i see anyway...

DJPadre, my man i'm not sure you understand the optics just yet. Canon has interchangable lenses but it will only accept the lenses for its ow small 1/3" chip. It won't accept 35mm lenses and even if it did those would still not generate depth of field of a 35mm lens with adapter.

This is true.
But what's also overlooked is this. Same lens, same 35mm adaptor. Project the result onto a large screen.
The XL-H1 will give a shallower DOF than say the XL2, resolution matters. Much of what you read and quoted figures in charts used by DOPs for generations are based on 35mm film projected in a cinema with a given viewing distance.
Take 35mm film, scan it and view it as SD video and the DOF changes. Put it back on the big screen from your SD video and the DOF is nothing like what it'd be from the 35mm print shown in the cinema at the same viewing distance.

Bob.

Yes, Bob & I have spoken about this on other threads where we got into the parameters determining depth of field DOF . The angle subtended by the viewed image is all-important.

Also note that while putting a prime lens made for 35mm cameras on a 1/3 inch chip will give shallow DOF, it will also give a narrow field of view. You achieve exactly the same result by zooming to the same FOV with the lens you already have. So if you want wide FOV with shallow DOF, then the adapter thing is about the only way to go.

Farss -
For the first time, if I understand what you wrote, I must take issue.
First I'll simply deal with what I understood you to say, and what I think - then I'll expand on the DOF issue for newbies.

"Take 35mm film, scan it and view it as SD video and the DOF changes."
Sorry Bob - this is simply not true.
Your DOF is determined at the shoot. Once you've got a 35mm print, the DOF is fixed whether you watch it on a huge theater screen or on the internet (or in SD).
What's in focus remains that way, regardless of the size or viewing distance. DOF is not a subjective issue.
It is a lens focal length /image size/ f/ stop issue.

I will grant you that how much softness you can "get away with" will greatly vary on projected image size and viewing distance. But that is not Depth of Field.

So...
Depth of Field is a quantifiable number that functionally defines how much is in focus in Front of a subject and how much is in focus in Back of the same subject (assuming the Subject is the prime point of focus). It is based on focusing standards long accepted and measured as "Circles of Confusion". I won't bother to define that here. Let's just say "everyone" agrees to agree that "this is in focus" and her'e it's not. But it is defintiely sort of subjective. That is, someone will always argue - that's not sharp.

These areas of sharpness are based on the lens used (in focal length), the iris setting (f/stop) and the point of focus (subject). You can find a depth of field calculator here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

As a DP; we have used DOF charts for years - even before me :>))
You used them a lot to see how much you could keep "in focus" at any given f stop and then you lit to that f stop.
In the "old days" of movie making, virtually everything was in focus, all the time - check the old movies from the '30s and you'll see that what I say is so. They used a lot of light and small f stops because the lenses sucked - and because that was the style. Basically you'd tell your gaffer, "I want to shoot this at f 8, and he'd light the whole movie that way". They'd measure every shot with a tape measure and no way was much ever out of focus. That made you a good cameraman.

But in the 60s cinematic styles changed with the introduction of coated lenses, better optics, MUCH wider f stops, and higher speed film emulsions. Suddenly cineamatographers began to light and shoot stuff at f2.8. - Guys took the cameras off of the dollies. You'd focus by eye. And the limited DOF shot became the new style. That's about when I got on-board the train. I HATED any shot where everything was in focus, unless it was dictated by the scene itself. All my close-ups separated the talent from the set with soft DOF, wide f stops and longer lenses.

OK - so why does DV have such a greater depth of field than 35mm?

Because each camera system has a different "field of coverage". The image size of a DV CCD is only 1/3". The image size of a 35mm film frame is around 1 1/4".
To shoot a "normal" head shot of a human with a 35mm camera, from a "normal distance" of about 5', you need a focal length lens of about 100mm. This has a fixed depth of field at f2.8 of 4.9 to 5.06 feet. That is - most stuff within those distances will be reasonably sharp. That's not too much - about his lips, eyes... that's it. Very sexy.

Now to shoot a "normal" head shot of a human with a DV camera, from a "normal distance" of 5', you will have to set your focal length to about 14mm -- [important NOTE here: my camera doesn't allow me to see the exact focal length of the lens - it's just a simple W to T indicator - but the example holds true - it's a WAY wider lens to achieve the same visual image] - Someone with a "real" camera lens, who can actually dial in the focal length will have to correct that 14mm figure. But I used it to illustrate my point.

So a 14mm lens focused at 5' at f2.8 will have a DOF from 3' to 14'.

One lens lets you have 4" in focus - the other lets you have 11 feet in focus. That's the difference of depth of field.

Yes, as Serena says, if you can zoom to 100mm (my DV camera stops at 72mm) you will have the EXACT SAME DOF. But you will only have the talent's eyeball in the shot (if that). So to duplicate the effect you back up. You finally get the whole head (at 100mm) in the shot at 30 or 40 feet away from the subject.
BUT - directing talent from 30 feet away is difficult and not only does the DOF change - the entire imagery is TOTALLY different when you shoot someone from 5' or from 30 feet. The juxttaposition of the talent to the background is entirely differernt. Heck - even the juxtaposition of the eyes to the nose is dramatically different when you shoot from 5 feet or 30 feet. It just ain't the same.

Now these 35mm adapters allow you to use your 1/3" imager (CCD) and they shoot a 35mm sized image (1 1/4") of the subject, OFF OF THE SPINNING ground glass.

It's like taking a picture of a picture. And the picture is a true 35mm image in every way.

This is NOT about resolution. This is not about sharpness. This is not about contrast. This is not about saturation.

All of the above matter A LOT to a good DP. That's why when you can afford to, you use Cooke lenses over Angenieux. They are just BETTER. But the depth of field of any lens is a fixed number based on focal length, f stop and focused distance.

Check out this site to see extremely good examples of the adapter and the DOF effects it can produce:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/mini35/

Hope this helps.
v