If you REALLY want something good...

BarryGreen wrote on 5/28/2005, 1:12 PM

The mini35 is indeed an amazing tool, I've used it on the DVX/24p and been extraordinarily pleased with the results.

There are some commercially-marketed "indie" adapters now becoming available; one is the Guerilla35 (www.guerilla35.com), another is the Micro35 (www.micro35.com).

All three employ similar overall designs to accomplish the same goal: mounting a 35mm lens, projecting its image onto ground glass, and then using the DV camera to photograph that projected image. The mini35 is vastly more expensive, but it's a very, very professional system, exquisite in design and manufacture. The G35 and Micro35 are going to be much lower cost, and accordingly there will likely be compromises you'll have to accept (such as the image being recorded upside-down/backwards, and needing to be flipped in post).

The G35 and Micro35 differ in one major way: the Micro35 uses a spinning/moving ground glass design (like the mini35), where the G35 uses a static ground glass solution. No motion, no spinning, no noise and smaller. I've been beta-testing the G35 and am quite impressed with the image quality it delivers. However, I haven't had a chance to compare the static system directly against the moving-ground-glass systems, so I can't say if there's a quality difference.

rmack350 wrote on 5/28/2005, 4:04 PM

Period? Film look is all about depth of field, "period"? Come on, now. You know that's not all it is. I readily admit that depth is a huge factor but there's much more:

1. Latitude: you can capture more detail farther into the whites and blacks
2. color rendering: if nothing else, film just has a different color look. Better? Maybe. Distinctive? Yes.
3. color density: film can have much richer color, and I've noticed that the density of color in 35 looks a heck of a lot better than 16. When a DP friend of mine started shooting things in 35 I was just blown away by how much better it all looked than 16. I had lit about 20% of everything he'd shot and had seen much of it so I had a lot to compare with. I could see why he never wanted to shoot 16mm again.
4. Resolution: 16 and 35 have a lot of resolution but there's more to it than that. Unlike video pixels, film grain is never in the same place from one frame to the next. This gives a bit of an illusion that the resolution is even higher than it actually is.
5. Analog power: Not only can film resolve details farther into the bright and shadowy areas of an image, the range of values between black and white are huge. You're not seeing 256 levels of luma, or 1024 levels of luma. You're seeing a continuous range.

Okay, that's all I can think of regarding film itself, but of course there's also the really good lenses, the experienced DP, the professional lighting crew guided by the DP, and the general exceptional skill level of a good production crew. It's a level of professionalism that I've seen brought to bear on film productions more often than for video.

This is not to belittle video. It's a fine format and I think it's got a lot more unrealized potential than film (or you can say that film has realized an awful lot of it's potential). Nor do I mean to belittle this optical film-look device. It's very clever and you have to wonder if video cameras could just be built this way in the future.

This widget is more than just a way to use film lenses. This is essentially a filmless film-to-tape transfer strategy. Kind of an optical printer that can be used as you shoot. Really clever and it takes the camera's depth of field right out of the picture because you're just shooting off the ground glass.

Definitely a way to get a really good look out of a video camera, that's for sure. Is it the one key to getting a film look? Not exactly, but it's probably good enough for many applications. Oh, and in spite of my sounding like a curmudeon, this adapter is actually pretty exciting and I'm forwarding the link on to some DP friends who'll appreciate it.

Rob Mack

farss wrote on 5/28/2005, 4:29 PM

I've seen the Mini35 on a DVX100 with some expensive glass in front of it. Next to it was a DVX100 sans the expensive glass / Mini35 and that blew the Mini35 right out of the water. Sure you couldn't rack focus but the overall difference in image quality even on the tiny monitors they had was very noticeable, heavens knows how much worse it'd look a big monitor.
Reason is simple, even if the ground glass screen is perfect the light still has to go through a cheap set of glass on the DVX100 (or whatever). That's not a sleight on the DVX100s or any other prosummer cameras lens, but it's being asked to work at the very limits of what it's capable of and no lens designer optimises their lens to work at the point.
Worse still as Victor notes you're loosing 2 stops of light, so the lens on the camera is wide open and probably the cameras gain is cranked up as well, neither of those factors produce optimal video either.
Bob.

vicmilt wrote on 5/28/2005, 5:46 PM

another dream dashed...

:>))

v

apit34356 wrote on 5/28/2005, 6:48 PM

Bob is definitely right about the optical issue. A number of people have remodeled dvx100 and the fx1 with pro 35mm lens and the results are great. There has been posting here about the custom design for the fx1.

garo wrote on 5/28/2005, 11:16 PM

so it IS possible to thread on 35 mm SLR lenses? One can also wonder why someone doesn't make a DVcamera with that capabitlity.

//Garo

rmack350 wrote on 5/28/2005, 11:32 PM

Seems like if you really wanted to design a lens system like this you'd have to control the entire lens chain. You'd want to install your own fixed lens on the camera that was built specifically to shoot off the ground glass. Of course this limits you to cameras that will accept lenses but the system is expensive enough to begin with so reliance on higher end cameras doesn't seem too much to ask.

The more I try to picture it, the more this sounds like a modified optical printer or film/tape transfer rig.

Rob Mack

farss wrote on 5/29/2005, 6:56 AM

You can roll your own Mini35 for under $10, use the motor from a CD drive with one of those clear packing CDs that come on the spindles of CD/DVDs. There's a web site somewhere with diagrams on how to do it.
I was just thinking you could rub the plastic screen with some steel wool to add a film scratch FX while you shoot, might save some time rendering :)
Bob.

GlennChan wrote on 5/29/2005, 10:12 AM

35mm SLR lenses have even more depth of field and the lenses are fairly cheap, so it seems to me that might also be an interesting adapter. Perhaps some concerns would be that the focus and iris controls may not be suitable for video.

rmack350 wrote on 5/29/2005, 10:38 AM

The lens isn't really where the shallow depth of field comes from. It's a physics thing and is directly related to the size of the image receptor. If you can get a video camera with chips the size of a 35mm film frame then you're set.

This is this lens apparatus is doing-focusing the image onto a larger target and then the camera shoots the image off of that. More like a copy stand, or shooting off a rear screen projector.

Rob Mack

rmack350 wrote on 5/29/2005, 10:43 AM

Hmmm... maybe you could put a bit of a warp onto the plastic as well.

In a film/art class in college I saw something out of the 60s that was shot entirely offthe reflections in chromed objects, Very psychadelic, very cool.

Similarly, we would project films into storm window frames and reflect them around the room. You coulds twist the frames or poke them with your finger to distort the image as you bounced it onto the walls of the room.

Great fun!

Rob Mack

mark2929 wrote on 5/29/2005, 1:25 PM

Sony's new HVR-A1U Has a "Tele Macro", which lets you grab a macro image from a distance to throw backgrounds out of focus for a more filmic look.

I dont understand why NEW Cameras cant have a "Tele Alpha" that throws the background away and replaces it with an Alpha Channel ! ;0)

Regarding the Mini35.. I reckon by the Time you buy all kit you would need.. It might be better to buy a sony 450 with 2/3 chips.. Unless of course You are filming in HDV.. But then I would maybe wait for the new HVR-A1U..

jaegersing wrote on 5/29/2005, 5:22 PM

"I was just thinking you could rub the plastic screen with some steel wool to add a film scratch FX while you shoot, might save some time rendering"

LOL

jlafferty wrote on 5/30/2005, 7:47 AM

I've built a great static adapter, similar to what the G35 people are now doing, and the footage has a very unique look -- somewhere between Super8 and 16mm. You really have to have your film geek/armchair DP goggles on to complain about the final output, as the average person (i.e. most of the people you'd be targetting with a narrative film shot with the adapter) is none the wiser.

I had full res DV up for a while, and if there's anyone insistent on seeing it, I'll post more. But in the meantime, here's an interview video I shot with my adapter. Images of the adapter can be seen here: Off camera | Looking down | Front

edit: oh yeah, total cost of mine was about $500.

- jim

mm2k wrote on 5/30/2005, 2:35 PM

Hey jlafferty, the images in the interview look good to me. I would really like to know what the formula is for this 35mm look. You can tell me via email or in this forum.

proshotdv@hotmail.com

Thanks

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 5/30/2005, 3:27 PM

If you look at movies say by Polanski: Knife in the Water, Frantric, Repulsion, all those are shot with wide lens (no shalow DOP) and still they look much better then typical TV drama -- he accomplishes it not with shallow DOP but the way he frames the actors. Playing with Mini35 i realised something -- forget all those tricks you got MiniDV camera so learn to work with its strenghts (wide DOP) and limitations (wide DOF).

mjroddy wrote on 5/30/2005, 4:04 PM

I just dug up the OLD thread about putting a 35mm lens on the FX1. What a sharp looking rig.
http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/

farss wrote on 5/30/2005, 4:09 PM

Very good point. If you want a photograph you start with a camera, if you want an oil painting you start with canvas and oil paint. Trying to make an oil painting with a camera just doesn't work nor does making a photo with paint and canvas. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, you start with whatever medium you are comfortable with or which one tells the story best.
I've never understood this obsession with trying to make something look like what it isn't, I've never had an issue with well shot video that doesn't try to be anything other than video, try to make it look like film and it just looks like bad film that was transferred very badly.
Same goes for film, try converting it to video and put it up on a big screen and it looks woefull, oddly enough it looks worse than video shown the same way. I've been there and done just that. The audience thought the video was fine, they all thought the movie was horrible.
All that aside, even though we don't have all the creative latitude that film offers, humble video is capable of audio that's every bit as good as what's on 35mm, you can't make video come even close to how good film loooks but you can make it sound every bit as good and that's more than half the overall impact.
Bob.

jlafferty wrote on 5/30/2005, 9:09 PM

Speaking for myself, I'm not shooting for "the film look". I'm looking to give my footage a unique look, and enjoy using -- in some instances -- full manual lenses with shallow DOF to get there. The point is, I'd never insist you've GOT TO use shallow DOF to be legitimized, but it's nice to have more options than less (especially where aesthetics are concerned).

Here's a thread on dvinfo where I provide links to the parts I used. Ultimately ground my glass with 3 micron aluminum oxide -- smaller grades are available, but they won't work beyond 3 micron I'm told. I've personal experience with .3 and .05 and they're absolutely useless so I suspect people who say sub-3 micron won't work are right :)

I've got a much much older building guide that details the ground glass workflow. It's here. Whoops, looks like my total costs were closer to $400 :D

- jim

vicmilt wrote on 5/30/2005, 9:17 PM

Have been out of touch for a week or so, and am feeling a little philosophical and "chatty" about this whole dilemma of "film look'" and my recent discovery (still theoretcal, based on demo footage only - see links above ) of the mini 35 lens adapter.

First - with all due respect, depth of field is directly related to the focal length of the lens, the f/stop (or iris opening) and the image size to be covered.

Now some of what I'm about to write about is strictly from memory, so the numbers may be a little off, but the therory is correct.
When I started as a still photographer, I was shooting a lot of 8x10 film (that's 8" x 10" originals). The "normal" lens for that image coverage was about 200 to 300mm. That "normal" lens would give you a full figure head to toe shot at about the same 10 to 12 feet from the camera distance that a 50mm lens with give you on a 35mm camera or that a 10mm (not exact here) will give you on a 1/3" CCD. So the "rule" is that the bigger the image recording size (16mm, 35mm, 8x10) the longer the lens required to cover and the more light you need and the smaller f/stop you need to maintain sharpness. That's one of the main reasons you can shoot video in near darkness, and also one of the reasons you've got such huge depth of field in video.

The difference is that the "depth of field" varies dramatically in these lenses. In shooting the old 8"x10" stuff, we'd normally stop down to about f16 to f22 just to keep the entire image sharp. A portrait taken by moving in closer might be shot at f32 or even f64 to keep the nose tip, eyes and ears in focus. At f 5.6 with an 8x10 camera you'd only get the eyes sharp and everything else would be out of focus (see Yusuf Karsch for some extraordinary portrait work maximizing this minimal depth of field).

BTW - for those of you that don't know what depth of field (DOF) is - it's the amount of stuff that you can keep in focus at a given distance, and it's totally controllable by the iris opening (f/stop) and/or the lens focal length. A full body shot of a person with a wide angle lens will have WAY more in focus (front to back) than a full body shot with a telephoto lens. Likewise the same shot with a very wide open iris will have LESS in focus than a tiny f/stop or iris opening.

Practically speaking you need more light to get more depth of field.

Creatively speaking (and now THIS is entirely subjective) the less depth of field (in many situations) the more compelling the shot. I always would shoot with a medium length telephoto to soften the backgrond in any shot I did, and this at the widest f/stop available. That was my style and is what most top DP's in Hollywood are still doing to this day (and NO I did not invent that style - but I sure as heck helped to make it more popular in the hundreds of commercials that I shot and that most of you have seen).

Now.... the problem is that the smaller the image size that you are capturing the wider angle lens you need (see above). The good news is that in your prosumer cameras, you will hardly ever be out of focus, unless you are zoomed in a lot or in very limited lighting situations. The bad news is exactly the same. This overall sharpness is one of the major distinguishing elements of the "video look".

THAT'S why I was ( and still am ) so excited to discover this mini 35 solution. The adapter does NOT allow you to screw 35mm lenses into your existing camera. Rather, it puts an adapter in FRONT of your camera and lets the adaptor use the 35mm lenses on a bigger screen (like a ground glass) which in turn your camera shoots.

I guess you could say I know the difference in color, resolution, contrast, gamma, knee, toe and all that other stuff, but since EVERYTHING you see on TV is transferred to video before it's broadcast, all those elements are really sort of moot. No ( super subjective here ) the main thing graphically and aesthetically that separates is the correct use of lighting and depth of field. Heretofore we were limited to lighting only, in video. From what I've seen, this has changed.

Now, of course they (film and video) are not the same... duhh.
And definitely you utilize the medium to it's fullest for what it can give you. But you also take advantage of every trick there is to make your imagery more beautiful and (in my personal case) romantic.

Ever since Sony came out with their version of the CCD, I have been in love with the color and resolution available (old tube style 2" video sucked). The new HDV blows me away - but you are still married to that teeny 1/3" chip. Even the "good" cameras only have a 2/3" chip - that's like shooting 16mm film.

BTW - one of the reasons that the HDV cameras seem to have more "pop" and separation in their imagery is that the chips are 2 stops SLOWER! So you've sort of GOT to be wider open with your lens. There's a big difference in depth of field between f4 and f8, and right now that built into the camera.

Since this very system was used a year or so ago (I read this) on a series of commercials starring Jerry Seinfeld, done for American Express - I've GOT to assume the end quality is there. Trust me, whatever the reason was that they shot that way, it wasn't to save money! Time yes... money... NO.

This mini 35 works based on a full 35mm frame. I can't wait to see it in action for myself.

Again, I will be reniting one of these units soon and giving her a whirl...
more to come.

v

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 5/30/2005, 10:24 PM

I shot this little clip (with pretty average lighting) using Mini35 and Zeiss primes mounted on XL2:
http://patrykrebisz.com/angels/angels_bar.html

busterkeaton wrote on 5/30/2005, 11:49 PM

Hey, I've been there. They have good coffee at BreadStuy.

jlafferty wrote on 5/31/2005, 9:27 AM

Yeah, they do -- tanzanian peaberry is my favorite. Say 'hi' to Lloyd and Hillary next time you're in for me :)

jlafferty wrote on 5/31/2005, 9:34 AM

"This mini 35 works based on a full 35mm frame. I can't wait to see it in action for myself. "

Actually, it doesn't. It works by projecting a full 35mm frame onto a glass surface, a portion of which is then captured by the back-end camera's CCD, relative to its imaging area size. There's no such thing as an adapter that magically utilizes a full 35mm frame on the CCD of a prosumer cam -- it is, by the laws of physics, impossible to do so.