Spot done on Mini 35...WOW at DVinfo.net

Kevin Martorana · June 29th, 2007, 09:38 AM

I rented the Mini 35 for a quick spot we had to do.

The spot was shot in 1 hour. Not pro talent....

Equipment was the Canon XL H1, Mini 35 and Zeiss SuperSpeed Lenses.

I was amazed. We shot it in HD 24f. The DOF is amazing...and exactly what we were looking for.

I have no concerns using this technique for larger budget productions...

This was a great test....

Go here to see the spot:

http://www.takeoneprod.com/Mini35/

Kevin Martorana · June 29th, 2007, 09:46 AM

I forgot...I wanted to post these grabs...if you don't want to download the movie.

Emre Safak · June 29th, 2007, 09:52 AM

Kev: It would be better if you posted the frame grabs in JPEG.

Glad you enjoyed the experience.

Oleg Kalyan · June 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM

Looks nice, one question, was it "no preset" or you used CP?

Kevin Martorana · June 29th, 2007, 09:33 PM

No custom preset.

Here are the JPGS...

Nate Weaver · July 2nd, 2007, 06:38 PM

Looks good Kevin,

If you're looking for the next step, some color correction could make "great" phenomenal.

Kevin Martorana · July 2nd, 2007, 06:44 PM

Very true Nate...

We had a $2500 budget for the spot. $500 plus $150 FexEx charges got us the Mini 35.

No lights, only some bounce.....

The jpgs' don't give the video any justice...they look washed out...and I don't know why. There is plenty of chroma on the video....

John C. Plunkett · August 29th, 2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Looks good Kevin,

If you're looking for the next step, some color correction could make "great" phenomenal.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Dale Stoltzfus · August 31st, 2007, 12:14 PM

That does look great. As for the color correction, it could use a little more contrast, perhaps a touch of curves (darkening the shadows and lightening up the highlights - just a tad), a a bit more saturation.

The depth of field is awesome (as could be expected). Your focus was sharp, as well, for all except the very last shot. I thought that one seemed to be having trouble keeping both the boy and the man in sharp focus.

Awesome stuff!

Dale

Robert Ducon · August 31st, 2007, 05:35 PM

For no extra powered lights Kevin, that really is wonderful. And, I wouldn't at all say it needed more light! Looks really good - thank you for sharing!

Matthew Rogers · September 2nd, 2007, 10:13 AM

Kevin, what MM lenses where you using to get that? The wide looked like more of an 18-30 and the closer shots looked more like an 80. Am I hitting anywhere close?

Matthew

Charles Papert · September 2nd, 2007, 11:13 AM

I would guess a 50 and an 85, possibly 100mm for the closest closeup...?

Nice work Kevin. As you probably figured out, pulling focus in the shallow end of the pool is a whole different ball game when using an adaptor (can't really be done well using just the camera's viewfinder). As Dale mentioned there is an issue with the last shot, but of course you wouldn't be able to hold both of them in focus and with the grandpa looking out in profile (and the little boy with his head down) it would have been a good choice to rack from the grandpa to the little boy, following their dialogue. Also as you probably know the first closeup of the little boy is a bit soft.

Regardless, you had a solid shotlist and compositions and enough different angles to keep things interesting.

Joshua Frye · September 2nd, 2007, 12:06 PM

Great work on the spot. The DOF looks excellent. Its always impressive to see what these cameras can do.

It looked like you have a dead pixel though. I see it in the bmps and the movie file you posted. Look for it in the top right hand area of the frame.

Kevin Martorana · September 4th, 2007, 10:48 PM

Thanks for all the great words...and advice.

The wideshot was the 18mm.

Cu was the 85mm but we also used the 50mm.

I purposely kept grandpa "out of focus" for the last shot....just a creative choice. Liked how the dof kept the boy "centered"....

As for the dead pixel...you're right...I'll have to look at it in edit tomorrow (still in our avid)....looks like a dead pixel...but we've never seen it before....wondering if it's something on the adapter glass...that looks like a pixel...

Interesting...I just pulled up some footage on my laptop from home...shot AFTER that shoot....no missing pixel. This might open up an interesting conversation...can you get a missing pixel anomoly like this using a 35mm adapter with spinning glass??

Charles...you are correct....shooting with primes like that and the adapter...a HD monitor is a must. We had our HDSDI Panasonic monitor along...and I had to constantly look to double check focus.

The first cu of the boy is slightly soft....and I decided to keep it...because it was by far the best "performance" by him. Remember....these aren't pro actors...and this was the first time the boy ever did anything like this...so directing him and getting him to do lines was a challenge.

Thanks again for everyones' input...I love this forum...and we're planning on doing some other kids spots early first quarter...so I'll be sure and post them here when they're done. They'll be shot in studio.

Kevin Martorana · September 5th, 2007, 12:22 PM

Just and update...I checked the footage and yes...there is a missing pixel.

But I also check footage shot AFTER that shoot....and it's not there.

Turned the camera on...and no missing pixel.

Ideas ? Can the 35 adapter throw a pixel like that ? Bizzarre !

June 29th, 2007, 09:38 AM	#1
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	Spot done on Mini 35...WOW I rented the Mini 35 for a quick spot we had to do. The spot was shot in 1 hour. Not pro talent.... Equipment was the Canon XL H1, Mini 35 and Zeiss SuperSpeed Lenses. I was amazed. We shot it in HD 24f. The DOF is amazing...and exactly what we were looking for. I have no concerns using this technique for larger budget productions... This was a great test.... Go here to see the spot: http://www.takeoneprod.com/Mini35/

June 29th, 2007, 09:46 AM	#2
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	I forgot...I wanted to post these grabs...if you don't want to download the movie. Attached Thumbnails

June 29th, 2007, 09:33 PM	#5
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	No custom preset. Here are the JPGS... Attached Thumbnails

July 2nd, 2007, 06:38 PM	#6
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	Looks good Kevin, If you're looking for the next step, some color correction could make "great" phenomenal. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

August 31st, 2007, 05:35 PM	#10
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	For no extra powered lights Kevin, that really is wonderful. And, I wouldn't at all say it needed more light! Looks really good - thank you for sharing! __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

June 29th, 2007, 09:52 AM	#3
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	Kev: It would be better if you posted the frame grabs in JPEG. Glad you enjoyed the experience.

June 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM	#4
Oleg Kalyan Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: MOSCOW Posts: 860	Looks nice, one question, was it "no preset" or you used CP?

July 2nd, 2007, 06:44 PM	#7
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	Very true Nate... We had a $2500 budget for the spot. $500 plus $150 FexEx charges got us the Mini 35. No lights, only some bounce..... The jpgs' don't give the video any justice...they look washed out...and I don't know why. There is plenty of chroma on the video....

August 31st, 2007, 12:14 PM	#9
Dale Stoltzfus Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ephrata, PA United States Posts: 257	That does look great. As for the color correction, it could use a little more contrast, perhaps a touch of curves (darkening the shadows and lightening up the highlights - just a tad), a a bit more saturation. The depth of field is awesome (as could be expected). Your focus was sharp, as well, for all except the very last shot. I thought that one seemed to be having trouble keeping both the boy and the man in sharp focus. Awesome stuff! Dale

September 2nd, 2007, 10:13 AM	#11
Matthew Rogers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 152	Kevin, what MM lenses where you using to get that? The wide looked like more of an 18-30 and the closer shots looked more like an 80. Am I hitting anywhere close? Matthew __________________ matthew@macvilleproductions.com http://www.macvilleproductions.com

September 2nd, 2007, 11:13 AM	#12
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I would guess a 50 and an 85, possibly 100mm for the closest closeup...? Nice work Kevin. As you probably figured out, pulling focus in the shallow end of the pool is a whole different ball game when using an adaptor (can't really be done well using just the camera's viewfinder). As Dale mentioned there is an issue with the last shot, but of course you wouldn't be able to hold both of them in focus and with the grandpa looking out in profile (and the little boy with his head down) it would have been a good choice to rack from the grandpa to the little boy, following their dialogue. Also as you probably know the first closeup of the little boy is a bit soft. Regardless, you had a solid shotlist and compositions and enough different angles to keep things interesting. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 2nd, 2007, 12:06 PM	#13
Joshua Frye New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Johnson City Tenn. Posts: 15	Great work on the spot. The DOF looks excellent. Its always impressive to see what these cameras can do. It looked like you have a dead pixel though. I see it in the bmps and the movie file you posted. Look for it in the top right hand area of the frame.

September 4th, 2007, 10:48 PM	#14
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	Thanks for all the great words...and advice. The wideshot was the 18mm. Cu was the 85mm but we also used the 50mm. I purposely kept grandpa "out of focus" for the last shot....just a creative choice. Liked how the dof kept the boy "centered".... As for the dead pixel...you're right...I'll have to look at it in edit tomorrow (still in our avid)....looks like a dead pixel...but we've never seen it before....wondering if it's something on the adapter glass...that looks like a pixel... Interesting...I just pulled up some footage on my laptop from home...shot AFTER that shoot....no missing pixel. This might open up an interesting conversation...can you get a missing pixel anomoly like this using a 35mm adapter with spinning glass?? Charles...you are correct....shooting with primes like that and the adapter...a HD monitor is a must. We had our HDSDI Panasonic monitor along...and I had to constantly look to double check focus. The first cu of the boy is slightly soft....and I decided to keep it...because it was by far the best "performance" by him. Remember....these aren't pro actors...and this was the first time the boy ever did anything like this...so directing him and getting him to do lines was a challenge. Thanks again for everyones' input...I love this forum...and we're planning on doing some other kids spots early first quarter...so I'll be sure and post them here when they're done. They'll be shot in studio.

September 5th, 2007, 12:22 PM	#15
Kevin Martorana Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 250	Just and update...I checked the footage and yes...there is a missing pixel. But I also check footage shot AFTER that shoot....and it's not there. Turned the camera on...and no missing pixel. Ideas ? Can the 35 adapter throw a pixel like that ? Bizzarre !