Mini35 + 35mm SLR primes good enough for HD?

[Matthew Wilson]

Technically, I think Graeme's point is a good one. I forgot that the smaller chip size would affect the resolving requirements of the lens; however, from a practical point of view, I think Ben is right, when using the mini35, you are not getting the image directly from the lens, but off the glass, so a good 35mm still lens is not the limiting factor. I don't have nearly as much experience with the mini35 as others here, but the real limit of the mini35 that I noticed right away is how much softer the picture is due to the ground glass. I think this was noticeable as well on Charles' tests with the JVC HD cam/mini setup. Some like it, I personally would like to see it a bit sharper(as it starts to really show as you blow the picture up), but it seems that it must be the adapter that makes it that way, not the lower resolving power of the lens. So from a practical standpoint, I still think 35mm lenses will get results as good as anything else.

[Graeme Nattress]

Ah, Ben, you have a point there about things being different in a mini 35 situation. At that point, the relay lens or whatever is the limiting factor, not the prime lens on the front!

Graeme

[Josh Brusin]

I've shot only with Nikons and love the results. With many lenses I've noticed that when wide-open they tend to soften. Apparantly cine lenses don't compromise when at their widest...

[Charles Papert]

The softest image from my tests was unfortunately the one that had a direct comparison to the non-Mini35 version--which was also the first shot we did, and I have always had a nagging feeling that we hadn't double-checked the front focus before rolling (i.e. rolled through it checking for "sharps").

My feeling is that the rest of the footage is plenty sharp and would look great blown-up--as I'll see in a few weeks when Andrew Young brings the print of that and his travel footage to LA.

Not to say that it's happening in this thread, but sometimes I think that resolution is sometimes confused with image sharpness, and while there is a crossover between the two, they aren't the same thing. You can diffuse a 35mm image and it will still have plenty of resolution, but look very soft.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

The softest image from my tests was unfortunately the one that had a direct comparison to the non-Mini35 version--which was also the first shot we did, and I have always had a nagging feeling that we hadn't double-checked the front focus before rolling (i.e. rolled through it checking for "sharps").

You're talking about the HD100 tests right? I noticed that. The fuji version was much sharper. Now I know why. ;)

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

sometimes I think that resolution is sometimes confused with image sharpness, and while there is a crossover between the two, they aren't the same thing. You can diffuse a 35mm image and it will still have plenty of resolution, but look very soft.

So Charles, you think a resolution chart test with the HD100+Mini35 would yield approximately the same lines of resolution as a test with the HD100+ Fuji zoom?

[Charles Papert]

As I recall, the test charts I shot showed comparable resolution.

[Michael Maier]

Cool. You're talking XL2 or HD100?

[Charles Papert]

HD100.

I watched the test footage via analog component output on a 42" plasma and thought it looked plenty sharp. The JVC folk screened it on their 720 DILA projector and said the same.

[Michael Maier]

Great to know that. Have you seen the footage projected? Did the image look much softer in comparison to the 42" display?
By the way, it would be interesting to have your opinion in this thread since you have used the Mini35 a lot. Actually I think you own or used to own one didn't you? This is the thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57879

[Charles Papert]

I've been reading that thread but I'm not sure what to say--I'd like to see the Mini35 with the XL H1 also. I didn't find the grain objectionable in my tests, which included wide open night work. I'm starting to wonder about the relay lens also, because we did see some CA in the resolution chart tests. But I don't really have anything to add to that thread at the moment. At some point in the near future I will probably be doing more HD work with the Mini (yes, I do own one, but I only have the DVX relay kit at present). Still waiting and watching to see which HD camera to buy--tonight's 4-camera shootout should be useful for my decision.

[Michael Maier]

4 camera shootout?

[Charles Papert]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57983

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Okay now that I'm back from the dead spending my whole life reading that post on DVX.... I'm wondering how people here feel any of these results would tie into practical use with the P+S mini35?

From readying Barry's write up determining a clear cut winner is near impossible. It's all going to depend on what you're after: for price/value the Z1... resolution XLH1 and HD100, light sensitivity HVX...

The funniest comment I read was that if you want to blow up to 35mm you need to go beyond 1/3" HD. But on what basis? The argument of what you'll need to shoot on to blow up to 35mm will never end. If you want film, then bloody well shoot on it. Realistically I'd say not many digital indie films end up going 35mm anyway, and the ones that do are were not indie productions to begin with ;) (For full list of video shot 35mm films go here: http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

Anyway back on track.... as mini35 users which camera seems most likely for you? For me it's a toss between JVC and Canon. I say this mainly because you completely eliminate the need to shoot through the Camera stock lens. Given however that the HVX is "faster" in terms of light, perhaps it doesn't matter? Still I'm partial to the non lens based cameras for use with a mini35, but that's just me.