About shots taken with and without P+S adapter

[Pekka Uotila]

Hi,
As we know sometimes big depth of field is what we want, sometimes it is just the opposite even in the same scene or sequence.
I would like to here experiences about how difficult is it to match those shots that are made P+S technik's adapter to the ones that are made without it ?
Have you been using any filters or/and different settings in the camera ?

[Eric MacIver]

If you keep your camera settings the same, and pay attention to matching the amount of light hitting the CCD's, it's fairly easy to match up in post with minimal color correction.

I've done this on the XL2 with and without Zeiss Primes.

[Pekka Uotila]

Thank you Eric for your simple answer that includes everything I really wanted to know.
Actually I just wanted to ask "again" how good is it really, and your answer tells me that it is like it should be !
After reading your answer I remembered that I have seen P+S technik's own demo DVD, where the image with and without converter can be seen as a splitscreen and the feeling that I got from it was very much the same. But I felt very unsure, because I watched it from normal home TV, and when this kind of demo DVD is made, they must have a real bugdet for grading and matching the shots as well. I could not find any info about this matter.
I have once tested myself this image converter briefly in our local rental house (Thank you Artturi and Tuomas), but at that time my idea did not turn in to production, so I was not able to go see the results in a reasonable conditions.
I guess my question started to bother me when I followed one link from your site where independent people did the test with Cooke S4 lenses. There they mentioned something about black promist filters. Propably they had an older version of Mini35 (I could not find the date when the test was made).
In general, it has been a great pleasure to follow the discussions at DV Info, the athmosphere is very nice ( Great part of it must be because of you Chris, and your regular crew). I've found so many interesting opinions, informative links, funny video clips etc.
To be here with real name feels very odd (and scary for a shy person like me) but I believe it helps us to focus on what ever we want to say and of course it helps to estimate more realistically other people's opinions.
Things are so subjective and relative when we talk about live pictures with words. And everything depends so much about the fact where the final result will be shown.
Keep on trucking...

[Charles Papert]

Pekka,

Glad you are enjoying the DVInfo.net!

If you haven't seen this already, you might be interested in the article and images (click here) that went up this week which include the same shots with and without a P+S Technik.

I recently did a shoot with the Mini35 and DVX100a, and as the sun was going down I made the decision to pull the Minin35 to gain the extra exposure for our final day scene. It cut in seamlessly with the other footage. As Eric points out, any small variations could likely be covered with color correction.

[Pekka Uotila]

Hello hello hello,
I went to see your article immediately and swallowed it so fast that I had to re read it after a while to be sure that I got everything right.
Your article is very informative, it seems you have had good time there aswell.
The solutions you have designed and made to make a MiniDV camera reasonable tool seem very very professional and helpful. No doubt an other article about them will be indeed interesting.
They also show to me that if you say that my first question is quite simple to solve in the post, then it is so. Two testimonies from guys like you and Eric really turns opinions into fact to me.
Ocourse it does not change the fact that I have to test it myself when the time comes.

The stills that were available were a real moment of "understanding it again" for what this kind of adapters really are made.
Forexample, I am talkin about the mediumshot of her:
Without an adapter the very first impression is that the focus is at the backgound, I know that it is almost impossible to do this with purpose with “normal” MiniDV focal lenght , and to avoid it aswell. The director who wants this effect has to be real naturefan/humanhate type...
Propably this happens because the forms in the vegetation are so much sharper than her face. In the vegetation there is bettter color contrast etc.
The camera really is ignorant about what is important... and human face is "really a problem" because it's forms are so soft... and to make it sharper digitally leads easily to other problems, specially without proper monitor and testing.
Anyway, in your picture I wanted to look at her... and with the shot taken with converter she is very likely still as soft/sharp than in the other shot.... but now when the vegetation is softer I get her (she is the sharpest) as a main subject in the shot. Yes, the result is very pleasing.
Your photo's are the best ones I have been able to see recently, to see this thing clearly.They are made so neutrally (knowledge is needed to do that) and with latest equipments.
If this is for somebody still unclear I highly recommend to use (click here) possibility Charles Papert's reply.
I loaded also one of those liveshots to my computer but I could not open it yet with my Final Cut Pro ( it is quite new for me aswell, and our reality is normally PAL) , I guess it needs certain presettings in the “newproject” to be able to watch it, can you say in “Final Cut menu setting terms” how they are viewable?
Thanks

[Charles Papert]

FCP is unable to manage the 24p output of this camera at present--that will likely change in an update in the near future. In the meantime, try downloading the free app VLC (www.videolan.org) to view the clips on your desktop.

[Pekka Uotila]

Thank you, Charles. It works.

I noticed that there is an interesting and very lively debate about your article inside the thread Chris started... also about hd and what is good enough if anything etc.
Here I have been thinking all the time SD which seems to me normal working reality today.
(I just wonder why the developers of these converters stay in the size of 35 mm cine square, when people are planning to use photography lenses. Why not use bigger negative size like in normal 35mm photography or even bigger . Very likely there is somebody already developing this and the discussion is somewhere here aswell. I will find it, no problem.)
I've also noticed that all the info I wanted in the beginning is there in DVinfo already in several ways, this is a huge place! .... and many interesting discussions about these converters in general are in many threads, so maybe it is time to close this thread.
Moderator, could you please turn lights off and close the door when you leave.
(I just don't know how to do it myself, yet.)
Thanks

[Charles Papert]

Hi Pekka,

FYI, a regular member cannot close a thread by themselves.

You can look through the unbelievably massive "Alternative Imaging Methods" section here at DVInfo.net for information about other varieties of the Mini35 concept. Some do in fact use the entire image area of the 35mm still camera lenses.

The Mini35 was designed as a way to emulate the 35mm motion picture look, and was really intended to be used with 35mm cine lenses, although various still camera mounts are available as well. Cine lenses are designed to be used to capture live action, and great care and expense is taken to ensure that they have minimal breathing (i.e. rolling through the range of focus does not create a slight magnification of the image). Still camera lenses do not have the same requirement, although they may offer comparable resolution.

The 35mm still image field offers an even shorter depth of field than 35mm cine. This may be desirable, but it also presents an even greater challenge to the filmmaker to maintain focus with a moving subject.

[Pekka Uotila]

Yep,
I have been using sometimes Nikon lenses 35mm T:1,4 and 80-200 T:2,8, with my Super 16 set, mechanically mine was just good enough in most cases and the 80-200 has been behaving very well.
Breathing is serious problem to my taste too, but what makes Nikons more difficult is that the focusing scales are so short, something like half turn is from minimum to maximum distance, one really have to have not only professionality but also luck to get everything sharp when the object is moving in depth. Also in a documentary situations the "mirror focusing directions" were a disaster, my short focal lenghts were Zeiss.
Yes, cinelenses are made for cineuse and that matters....
The question is very simple: One can, or one cannot afford to use them.
Thank you Charles, it's been a pleasure for me to get your hints and to clear my thoughts (and practise my english) and if somebody new will ever get so far with this thread I just hope you've got something....