I've been wondering about this combination for a long time now. Never enough details for me though - no matter how long or hard I search. Could I use my mattebox or will the lens extend as you zoom? Would the lens need additional support? Does the image look like it's two steps from hell? Depth of field? etc. etc.

Last night the adapter arrived. Two nights ago I got the lens. No images yet, but the two mounted up real well and a lot of my questions found answers. If you are curious about this as well, HERE YOU GO (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200/Zork_Nikon80-200/index.htm)

Hey Eric,
Quite the impressive looking rig - but what are you planning to use this for?
It's a pretty specific tool - not called for in most cinematography.
Having this powerful a telephoto has been applied for nature photography with the camera. I hope your tripod is extra beefy, and your touch is delicate!
There is an elaborate pun in here about having fluid in your head as well, but I'm too tired to finesse it.

I admit this is a tempting path - I've got a batch of Nikon lenses myself - it's just that I don't have the specific need for this - and there are a lot of challenges to getting a good image. Not just the stability, smoothness issues, but difficulty in tracking, atmospheric haze etc. I hope to follow the story, and see some results first hand though!

Sean, my first target is Elephant Seals fighting their way up the beach at Ano' Nuevo here in northern Ca. I went out today to try the setup only. I anticipate I'll be kept to a distance of 50-85 yards with the seals, so I found some horses today and kept them at that same distance, to practice. On my way I saw a hawk flying and was able to keep him framed well enough as he came from close to far and back again, but I was shot for accurate focus. I do have a monitor but I didn't bring it, purposely. That won't happen again.

The focus ring on this Nikon lens is also pretty aggressive. It takes a very delicate touch to dial something in perfectly when you're wide open. I can see now where a good follow focus setup would be real useful here especially - used WITH an external monitor.

Another difference here is how fast the lens is. Light pours through this thing at a pretty good clip when you open it up.

I'm sorry but I only had time to visit the land with no color for this test shot. Anywhere around here is so fried by the sun and no rain all year long that everything is brown. While you might see a deer with your eyes, all the camera sees is dirt and straw.

All in all I am very pleased so far. Very pleased.

Horses at 85 yards (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/DoubleDutch.jpg)

Yep, for nature photography it's definitely practical. Sounds like a good plan, although I expect there will be some challenges still to come.
Since I've already got a bunch of Nikon glass, I'm tempted to play with this stuff too. Where did you get the zork? How much was it?
Is mounting on the rails essential for the 80-200? I'm sure with smaller lenses it's no problem - but also less reason to use them, since there is no depth of field limiting with this type of rig at normal distances/ focal lengths.

I've been to the Zork website, but, they show no price or ordering info. The website is a dead end. How did you contact them?

I've been to the Zork website, but, they show no price or ordering info. The website is a dead end. How did you contact them?

I feel your pain Bill. How about when you find the pop up page that actually shows the HD100 with the Zork adapter mounted to it - but it doesn't tell you anything or lead you anywhere? Made me feel like a complete moron for missing something obvious.

I "think" I found the US contact info a long time ago in an old post here on Dvinfo.net, who I once mailed about whether an EOS adapter existed. The answer was no but at least I made contact.

Zoerk@Comcast.net is the address, Joshua is your contact. They're out of Oregon.


Sean, if you go back to the original link to the gallery, I wrote some notes above each image about how it all came together, and why. More answers than you asked are there, but YES, you need to support the 80-200. I remember reading somewhere here that you don't have to, and perhaps you don't, but once you get to hauling the camera from here to there and back again - you'll support it too.

You already know how the Fujinon mounts - real tight with lots of pressure. Well think about it, the Nikon simply twists on and clicks just like it's on a still camera. Then realize that while Nikon gives you a nice tripod plate about mid lens, without the use of rails you can't use that plate. I agree with Nikon, it needs support.

There are some links about the images in the gallery too. They bring you to Cinevate's accessory page, where you can get some some of the parts that I used. Chrosziel's website was down when I made the gallery.

oops, speaking of "feeling like a complete moron for missing something obvious."
I went to your gallery page before, and didn't bother clicking on the enlargements of the picture with all the information!

I'd participated in some of the early discussions about this converter, and have recommended it to some people with specific needs. Great to have all your background info here. I'd have some fun trying some long shots with it, but can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it now.

For some reason I thought the adapter was even cheaper than this (for some reason I thought just 75 euros). Then the rails are pricey too.... I keep thinking I'll find a way to mount my nice mattebox with 12mm rails on this camera, but I've only seen 15mm systems...

I've had the Zork adapter for a few weeks now. Only played with it so far, experimenting with different lenses. Found some interesting things (to me anyway) out:

The 16X allows a lot more light through it than either the Nikon 28-70 2.8ED, or the 80-200 2.8ED. Obviously at f1.4 it's brighter, but even when you match apertures - 2.8 for 2.8, or anywhere else, the 16X is considerably brighter.

*note* these shots were taken to show the differences in framing, NOT quality (it's a mug for Pete's sake).
Unfortunately I did not match apertures or exposure. Moron. I'll attempt good quality comparisons soon.

The 28-70 at 28mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_28-70_28mmf4-.jpg)equals the field of view of the 16X at @28mm. (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_16x-28mmf56.jpg)

The 28-70 at 70mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_28-70_70mmf4.jpg)equals the field of view of the 16X at @60mm. (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_16x-60mmf56.jpg)

The 80-200 at 80mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_80-200_80mmf4.jpg)equals the field of view of the 16X at 88mm. (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_16x-88mmf56.jpg)

Then the 80-200 continues on to no-man's land (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/LensRanges/CUP_80-200_200mmf4.jpg) from there.

Considering aperture, and depth of field, these different lenses produce very similar results. IE, f4 looks like f4, which looks like f4 - until you start zooming...

The Nikons produce colors differently. Not hugely different, but it will take some tweaking to get them to complimenting each other. A different memory card with separate settings would work well.

I got in touch with that Zörk company.
They are based in Munich Germany.
I'm in Munich next week for a job, if I have the time I'm gonna visit them to see what possibilities they have for Canon ES lenses.

I had asked them about E"OS" lenses a while ago and they laughed at me when I said I was prepared to set the aperture on the Canons, and then swap over. Sound desperate? Did to them, so they don't make EOS adapters. I hope for your sake that they do make the ES. Good luck.

By the way their customer care/service is quite honorable. I'd buy from them again easy.

I've had the Zork adapter for a few weeks now. Only played with it so far, experimenting with different lenses. Found some interesting things (to me anyway) out:...

It is interesting. Keep working.

Looks like you have a dead pixel in your shots...

Looks like you have a dead pixel in your shots...

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

Well, I don't have the camera ... yet. But, first you need to confirm that it is a dead pixel. Let the camera warm up and open up the iris against a dark background and you should see it in the viewfinder.

There is a pixel masking utility that you could do a search on in this forum...

Or someone who has the camera could walk you thru it. It's a common fix that you should be aware of...especially when travelling.

wow that stinks.. Thanks for pointing it out. What do you do for that?

It's pretty straighforward Eric:

Here's a good post running you through the process:

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=488626&postcount=5

I've had a couple (and missed one unfortunately during an earlier shoot.
I always check for these against a black background (lens cap on!) although it's tough seeing them on the small LCD monitor...all the better if you have a field monitor (which I don't).

Oh and nice set up there Eric.

Thank you guys, for the help. I know I can't add much here but I try any time I discover something that I used to be dying to know. My hope is it helps those near as green as me.

This weekend I'm heading back to that marina where I compared the 16x and 18x (http://www.gotagteam.com/16xVS18x/Fujinon16xVS18x_magnify.html) over a month ago. I plan to duplicate that same shot, only this time with the 80-200 set at 80mm (which equals the 16x @ 88mm), just to see the difference. Like always, because I'm so full of......... love, I'll post the results :-)

Thanks again for lookin' out..

My assumption Eric, is that you'll find this rig useful ONLY for extended telephoto shots beyond the range of your camera's native lens. It's true that the 16x loses quality in the telephoto range, but this rig will have it's foibles too, and isn't the quickest thing to change over I'm sure. You will be able to get some amazing long shots though, although steadiness and movement at ultra telephoto is a challenge. A very good tripod and head will be important for anything but a lock-off.

But, it is definitely best to learn by doing, even though a few assumptions to test out don't hurt!

This is getting interesting...

With a little help, the HD200 brings you.... Mars (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Mars.html)


0-db gain
1/6th shutter
f2.8

Mounted the 300mm and headed to the ocean today. Mavericks - which I don't know a whole lot about, is a "gnarly" surfing spot off the rocky shoreline of Half Moon Bay - about a half hour south of San Francisco. I wanted to see if I could follow a subject without shaking all over the planet. Climbed a cliff to get to this spot, with the tripod, camera, backpack, three lenses, etc. etc. Up wasn't so bad. Down was horrible - solo.

The day was hazy, dark, foggy, windy and cold. Definitely not ideal conditions to peer through a mile of air - which is about how far the subjects that I planned on shooting (fumbling) were. But then a hawk landed itself on a fence post about 35 feet away, so I swung the rig around and here's what we got. I thought 35' would be far too close, and a mile would be WAY too far. You be the judge (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/CLiff_Details.html)

Mounted the 300mm and headed to the ocean today. Mavericks - which I don't know a whole lot about, is a "gnarly" surfing spot off the rocky shoreline of Half Moon Bay - about a half hour south of San Francisco.

HI Eric, good work! I've done surf vids too.What tripod head are you using?

A bit south of Maverick's is a place called "Ghost Tree". Equally evil. A guy died there last week during the big swell we had. Ghost Tree however breaks much closer to shore. You can get much better footage there. Both spots are known as "tow-in" spots--when it's huge--really only surfable being slung in on a Jet ski and using a small board with foot straps--which would be kinda like you putting training wheels on one of your superbikes.

http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/cg2007

Brian, I'm using a Sachtler hotpod with an out-dated fluid head on top that does not boast it's model #. I'll attach a photo of it to this post. For the record the lens is out-dated too - as am I. Old, rules!

I have been expecting somewhat of a horror trying to steady the camera in fluid shots, and in tracking a moving subject, but I have to say it's not really so hard - with this tripod and head. I still need practice but I can tell this might work. Surely this is not the setup to use if you're doing what I'm trying to do because it'll break your back (ironically mine is already broken in three places) on a hike. But it is actually very easy to set up on uneven ground and it steadies the camera quite well (as long as you don't extend the neck too far). Plus, this is the only tripod that I own.

Thanks Brian. The journey continues

Hey just wanted to update you guys with the latest progress.

1 - In my first go at this Zork adapter/Nikons experience I noticed that the adapter-to-Nikons union wasn't so tight. This is why no doubt, I needed rods. There was slight play. When I mentioned this to them in my feedback, I was quite surprised at their reaction. They revised the adapter design and sent me a new one. The new one even fits tighter than my Canon to Canon still camera connections. Very nice work, and great customer care. No need for rods now, unless you're using heavy glass - in which case same still camera rules apply here.

2 - Color differences. I use Paolo's settings with my 16X and I love the color. But the Nikons produce color very differently. I spent three hours tweaking settings using two charts - one about thirty feet away, the other right next to the Marshall monitor. (I know this isn't the proper way to do it, but it's the best I can do right now, so I did it). I am very happy with the results. Now my memory card has Paolo's settings for daylight with the 16x, Dashwood's settings for low light, and now a setting for the Nikons. And by the way, each Nikon lens seems to produce colors very much the same (thank the lord).

3 - I also purchased an old 300mm Nikon AFI 2.8 ED. What a moose this thing is. I love how far it can see. But following while focusing on a moving subject takes practice. And I still need more. But it IS possible. Here are a few fun frame grabs to prove it.


4 - Happy New Year!!!


By the way, there's something I'm not getting right here (another thing I'm not getting right?). For some reason when I take a frame grab from my timeline and save it as a jpeg, the jpeg looks so much darker and duller than the same frame in FCP. Then compared to what the monitor displays? COMPLETELY lame in comparison. wtf?

did someone try a 20mm lens ? like the nikkor 20mm f2.8 ? is it the same point of vue as the fujinon set to 20mm ?

Eric, your observation about the lenses rendering color differently is another reason to own your own DSC chart. That is exactly why using the pre-made "recipes" found on the Net has limitation that should be understood and that is exactly why I didn't just post the numbers for TrueColor but explained the process so that anybody can reproduce it with their own chart.

The shift in the framegrabs is probably caused by FCP shifting the gamma settings in that occasion. You can try to use VLC with its own frame grab feature (ONG) or export a portion of the timeline to a sequence of Targa files. I think the majority of people here know how to handle TGA files.

Good shots BTW, I'm really getting tempted to get one of those adapters. If you had to summarize the downsides of the Zoerk, what would you say?

Paolo, you are right. I need a DSC chart. And you are why I understand that. It's coming.

As for downsides of the Zoerk adapter, I am currently still facing only one. There used to be two:

1 - (solved) - Initially the adapter did not fasten any of three Nikon lenses as securely as I had hoped it would. I actually sent Joshua (US contact) links to the posts I have put up here and he inquired about the issue of loose-fit. I had expected that the excessive weight of the 2.8s would stress any adapter ring so when I found play I was not surprised, but still I was a bit disappointed. Joshua asked if I could provide him with images and more detailed feedback, so I made him THIS (http://gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Adapter_Differeces/OrigZoarkPlay-12_01_07.html)

In less than five minutes from my sending him this, Joshua had already contacted Zoerk in Germany, and promised me that they would send a new adapter because this one must have been out of spec. He also said that not one user had ever mentioned a loose fit. In a week and a half the new adapter arrived with a note attached, saying this was their latest version made to much tighter tolerances. They weren't kidding either. This new adapter is actually a better/tighter/more solid fit than that of any of my original equipment Canon lens-to-camera mounts. I give it a stand out A+

So if you do order an adapter from Zoerk, Paolo, tell them you want the latest version.

2 - (not solved yet) - The Zoerk adapter is machined from aluminum which is coated with some type of matte black finish. This is fine, but as you will see in my attached image, not all of what you get is finished in matte black. The actual Nikon mounting ring, which quite nicely is replaceable, is raw aluminum. I took this shot of it using a flash, so you could tell how differently the two surfaces reflect light. It is this raw aluminum ring which I both have been told, and do believe, is the source of a reddish flare that shows up sometimes near the bottom of the frame. I'd say it shows up about 10% of the time on average - and only when you are shooting at a certain angle from your light source.

I remember reading on this forum, somewhere (but I can't find the thread), that another Zoerk adapter user solved this issue quite simply. Apparently there exists some matte black "metal dye" which is used in the gun world, that once brushed on completely eliminates this problem. I have been in contact with a gun shop near here and have not yet found this dye. By the way simply coloring the ring with a black magic marker doesn't solve the reflecting problem. I tried that on the original adapter.


Other than the red flare, I see only good things happening here. Since I got this adapter I have left this house every day of every weekend, hours before sunrise - and I like to sleep. For me, being able to capture images that we just can't see otherwise is completely thrilling. Email me Paolo, I'll bring down all the appropriate gear and you can experiment (and I can learn).

* Pelicans were shot at 150 yards, from the top of a cliff.


Eric, I have tried the Nikon 28-70 2.8 ED. And yes, 28mm on the Nikon equals 28mm on the Fujinon.

If that sounds interesting, you should see what the 105mm Micro looks like. Talk about shallow depth of field..?

Eric, great stuff...thanks for taking the time to post all of it!

I had asked them about E"OS" lenses a while ago...
The EOS back focus distance is too short for the HDxxx's. So, even they licensed (or reverse-engineered) Canon's electronic controls for the EOS lenses, a simple adapter wouldn't be enough to do the job. It would also require extra optics.

Earl, thanks for the explanation. Might you have any idea how to get the specs for the exact measurements of say, the Nikon lens mount surface to the Nikon sensor. And then perhaps the JVC lens mount surface to it's sensor? I have searched using my delinquent vocabulary but get nothing.

Flange to focal plane distance is 44mm for Canon EOS and 46.5 for Nikon, which makes it possible to create an adapter to mount Nikon lenses to a EOS body, for example. The adapter is a simple metal coupler with no optical element, similar to the Zoerk adapter for the HD100/200

What I'm after then, is to calculate an exact measurement from the JVC 'flange to sensor', plus JVC 'flange to proper distance of Nikon flange' in order to confirm that this Zoerk adapter is truly landing the Nikon's focal plane on the optimum spot for the JVC. I read a few days ago on Ken Rockwell's site that a Nikon to EOS adapter that he used was off .75mm and all his images were compromised as a result - until he caught on. I think there might be more in these Nikon lenses than I am able to capture just yet.

I read a few days ago on Ken Rockwell's site that a Nikon to EOS adapter that he used was off .75mm and all his images were compromised as a result - until he caught on. I think there might be more in these Nikon lenses than I am able to capture just yet.

One thing that helps to avoid that problem is to replace the EOS viewfinder screen with a traditional split-circle one, the style used by several SLR cameras in the past. In fact I'm going to order one for the 350D soon. I was used to it from the film days and I think it's still the best way to judge focus by eye on a still camera. Regarding the focus on the HD200, let's remember to test it on Thursday. I have a large Fiddleheads chart, that should give us a good idea if the lens focuses properly across the band.

One reason the EOS lenses are not used with adapters for other purposes of course is the lack of a manual f-stop ring (like newest nikon "g" lenses). I realize Eric and Paulo are on top of this, but keeping it in the thread here.

Surely you still have back focus adjustment behind the mounting flange on the JVC which allows room to adjust the equivalent "flange to film" distance?

The stills look great Eric! It sounds like your rig is capable of handling this magnification with stability. I'm looking forward to seeing some of these clips "in motion"! I bet the surfers would look great shot at 60p for 24p playback.
REAl slo-mo looks so much better than interpoloated frames, and this amount seems perfect for many sports activities.

Hold on to your pants, Sean. It's uploading now. I did not, however, overcrank the footage because it didn't fit the mood of what I was creating at the time. And believe me, I had planned on doing so. I'll post some raw panning overcranked footage tonight.

Yes, the zoom IS manageable (even the 300mm fixed - which all of those grabs were taken with at distances ranging from 1 to 200 yards). It is not impossible to pan/follow and it is not impossible to find your subject (although I plan to mount a scope shortly, to help when things get rushed - which they always seem to do). It does, however, take some pretty serious effort to frame the subject right. I'm the first to admit I don't have it down yet.

.... It is not impossible to pan/follow and it is not impossible to find your subject ...... It does, however, take some pretty serious effort to frame the subject right. I'm the first to admit I don't have it down yet.

God bless the editing machines! No one gets it right all the time. Perseverance conquers.
I think you'll appreciate this stuff though:
http://www.loveearth.com/uk/film
click on "making of" then "Blue water, white death"
Actually a great site to explore. It's the feature project for the team that did the Planet Earth series.

Hi Eric and others,

Thanks again for your excellent contributions on the topic. Most wanted.

Eric, you mentioned in an earlier post picture quality problems you noticed when using the Zoerk adapter with your Nikon lenses:

"2 - (not solved yet) - The Zoerk adapter is machined from aluminum which is coated with some type of matte black finish. This is fine, but as you will see in my attached image, not all of what you get is finished in matte black. The actual Nikon mounting ring, which quite nicely is replaceable, is raw aluminum. I took this shot of it using a flash, so you could tell how differently the two surfaces reflect light. It is this raw aluminum ring which I both have been told, and do believe, is the source of a reddish flare that shows up sometimes near the bottom of the frame. I'd say it shows up about 10% of the time on average - and only when you are shooting at a certain angle from your light source."

This reminds me this earlier comment by Andrew Young regarding the Zoerk adaptor with Nikon lenses (http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-91655.html):

"There is however one signifiant problem with this adaptor - it leaves the silver flange that surrounds the entance to the imagers exposed and this causes bad internal flares under certain lighing conditions (contrasty backgrounds). You may need to blacken your flange, or get Zoerk to modify the adaptor, or choose a different brand. The adaptor needs a black collar like the back of the Fujinon that keeps stray light from hitting the flange."

But as James Ewen then added:

"The Nikon-JVC adaptor that MTF (Mike Tapa) engineers is already blacked inside and doesn't seem to have a flare problem."

This would make Tapa's adaptor a potential valuable alternative to Zoerk adaptor. Would someone agree with that from practical experiences?

Also, Eric, how would you compare the picture quality out of your 80-200 2.8 ED at telephoto end (200 mm) vs. the 300 2.8 ED (besides the reach of course)?

Thanks.

Philippe, thanks for the research. I too remembered reading from this same thread but could not find it again. Nice work Hound Dog! Now if we could just find the thread where somebody had found the solution... I have been to the "Gun shop" but got nowhere.

I am finding no trouble with the 80-200 at full zoom. I'd say the two are pretty much on par with each other. One major difference is the red flare is more pronounced on the 80-200, but not necessarily at 200. It's more which direction you aim it, and at how much light. The other major difference is finding your subject. Once you get the hang of it, which does take some time, you won't struggle too bad with the 300. But Brian Luce and I shot a surf competition together this past Saturday and Brian's struggle with the 300mm "Rhyno Chaser" at first reminded me of how difficult I found it originally. I plan to mount a scope which should solve that problem. Already have the parts on order.

OK all, things are getting interesting. Thank you again, Philippe. In the interest of eliminating the red flare all together (with no black magic marker) I took Philippe's lead and ran with it - all the way to London...

I mailed Mike Tapa of MTF Services (http://www.mtfservices.com/products/lens%20adaptors/lensadaptors.html) and got a very interesting, quick response. I'm not sure if you are allowed to copy and paste entire email communication here, so I won't, even though Mike offered. Apparently Mike was working at Optex as a design engineer when he and Zoerk were "In a race to finish the JVC to Nikon adapter before the the HD100 came out." Apparently Zoerk beat Mike to the punch because Optex went belly up and Mike wasn't quite tooled up to finish the adapter on his own. But he finally did finish it, and apparently now this adapter is his most popular product. Mike assured me that not one of his adapter users has ever complained to him about any "red flare."

Mike then went on to add:

"One difference between the two adaptors that fellow forumers may be interested in is the orientation of the lens in my adaptor.
You will find the lens datum arrives at 45° towards the "operator" side of the camera ie, not under the mic !

Oh, and before anyone asks:

Canon EOS to JVC can't be done,
Canon FD to JVC can't be done.

But, I am working on a simple mechanical Arri PL to JVC, should have the prototype up and running soon."


We'll have a Mike Tapa MTF Services Nikon/JVC adapter here shortly, to test. So hold the phone Alice. Soon as Mike gets it here, we'll all have a much clearer idea of what our options are.

Very exciting. I'd actually gone as far as getting a quote from Mike before - the price appears to be almost exactly the same.
I guess one critical thing will be if the fit tolerances are as tight as you describe on the zoerk.

Sean, I just looked at MTF's webpage and the "Nikon to HD100" adapter is $185.00, Zoerk is $389.00

185 in £ Paolo, which makes 247.413 EUR.

Thank you Philippe, I didn't see any currency info.

right, plus shipping, came to basically the same.

Update, I heard from Mike Tapa that he's been run dry on his adapters. New shipment coming in this week, then he'll send one out. Other than that it's been raining like hell here for days and days so I've shot nothing - except for a quick hour today before the rains came again. Found some egrets and watched them through the 300mm. Couldn't figure out what they were eating exactly, until I checked the footage!

If you look closely you can see the trademark purple haze around the high contrasty edges of the egret on the right and the background. Being that every lens I have put on this HD200 gets that fringe in extreme conditions (whites on blacks, or darks), I am growing suspicious that perhaps this is not a lens situation at all. I think it's the camera.

Anyone care to share some knowledge on this?

FYI the guy on the right is worse because he was shot a bit overexposed. I took that shot down a bit in post, but included it here to show the struggle. Typically I'd try to shoot these troublesome snow white guys underexposed, then bring them up in post - which I did to the fisher king. Works out much better this way. As you can see the two shots look just about exactly the same in the end, only the one shot overexposed is pretty well screwed as far as the purple fringe.

Oh and good lord I thought I had ugly feet?

Still great shots Eric. I think you are well within acceptable technical specs for real world footage like this. Video has it's limitations, and I'd be very curious to see another camera perform better anywhere near this price range.
I might have missed it, but have you tried calibrating the HD-200's white shading for you nikons (and confirmed preset with your 16x)? It could factor in to something like this - I won't say likely, but possibly ;^).
There's a 3rd party fcp filter that detects and masks CA (by selectively de-saturating hi-contrast edges I believe). I haven't tried it, but I can look for it if you're interested. Processing footage is an extra hit of time, and can potentially degrade the footage, but some existing light conditions will stress the limits of any optics and camera. Even film and exotic glass can be pushed to it's limits. What we can do is learn how to extend the limitations, and know the range for acceptable results.
BTW - acceptable is a moving target. If the content is amazing, acceptable can be pushed quite far - if the content is mediocre, well....

Which brings me to a burning question.
What do you want to do when you grow up, GoGo? :)
I mean this is in the most warm and jocular way of course!
I think you have already established that you can get spectacular footage of wildlife and remote live action sports. Do you have a project with this type of material in mind? Plan to accumulate and sell stock footage? Hope to attract a producer/contractor? Probably deserves a new thread !

First off Sean, "GoGo" will never grow up. He'll look older and move slower, but he'll never grow up ;- )

You are right, it's a new thread - but a truly burning question. Where does all this go..

My Mom once told me, "Do what you love, and do it your best. Everything else will fall into place." I feel like calling her to ask, "What place?"


As of yet I have never used a plug-in filter for anything. When I was at Paolo's he mentioned plug-ins too. I don't even know where to look, but I'll start now.

Processing footage is an extra hit of time, and can potentially degrade the footage, but some existing light conditions will stress the limits of any optics and camera.

Processing the footage, in our situation, is something that I believe should be part of the "budget". Unless of course you are shooting something run-and-gun for the local newscast, CA would be the last of our concerns :)

If you shoot other types of videos I would suggest to include post-processing and color correction as part of the process. There is just so much be gained by doing so. If done correctly, CC can be a truly amazing tool and one that doesn't degenerate the image. The secret is to avoid transcoding. I posted here before that editing and outputting your clips in HDV doesn't prevent transcoding and recompression.
We know that the latest version of FCP Studio has Color built in but you don't need that in order to do CC without data loss. To tell you the truth I have been using AfterEffects for quite some time and the color correction tools that it has are as good as anything that is out there and the processing at 16 or 32 bits makes CC a perfectly safe operation.

So, instead of shelling out more money for an upgrade that I barely need, FCP Studio 2, I use tools that I can run from my MacBookPro at satisfactory speed and that can output my clips as well as any other high-end product.
The secret is to avoid recompressing. There is a great tool that can import an FCP sequence into AE: http://www.creative-workflow-hacks.com/2007/04/15/final-cut-pro-to-after-effects-scripting-without-the-hassle/
The script creates a comp that links directly to the original clips, similarly to what FCP does, but it uses AE layers. If you want to follow this path use FCP to do the editing, avoid transitions and CC or other effects. If you need to get crossfades and such in the sequence to get an idea of the timing then put the crossfade but then remove it before outputting to SE. Or duplicate the sequence before export. To export from FCP for AE simply use the XML exporter. Close FCP. Open AE and use the FCPtoAE script. Switch you AE project to use 16 bit, or 32 if you have the horse power. Use any of the plugins included in AE for optimal quality CC without data loss. Color Finess is great, Levels and Curves are excellent. Personally I found Magic Bullet Colorista and Looks the easiest and more powerful combination.

Regardless the tool, add an adjustment layer on top of your clip, add the CC tool of choice and tweak away. You will be guaranteed to preserve all your color information and by turning the adjustment layer on or off you can do a quick comparison with minimal if any rendering. Given that I often get to AE to complete my editing, the tools is just too flexible and easy to use, CC in AE comes basically for free and the 16-bit processing guarantees that I don't loose precious data. I found that the results are consistently superior to whatever I get from the NLE.