Hi.

Eric Gulbransen and I today spent a day testing and calibrating his camera, which is equipped with Nikon lenses and the Zoerk adapter. The results were pretty interesting. One thing is clear, the lenses all focused on the subject, a full-size DSC Fiddleheads chart, without any issue. This is a proof of the high level of accuracy of the Zoerk adapter.
We then worked on the color configuration in order to get the lenses and the camera as close to 1:1 reproduction as possible, the stated goal of all my configuration settings. Eric had loaded the TC v1.0 for the HD200, tweaked it a bit on his own and then I did the fine tuning using the DSC ChromaDuMonde 28-color chart.
This configuration works pretty well for the combination of Nikkor lenses and this camera, your results might vary.
Anyway, I decided to post the resulting settings so that others can test them and possibly report about the results. Remember, different units can and will give different results, that's the reason why, if you want to calibrate your own camera, you should egt your own chart. Anyway, here is the full configuration, which from now on I will call TrueColor HD200 v2.0:

Master Black NORMAL
Detail MIN
Black NORMAL
White Clip 108%
Knee 90%
Color Matrix Standard
Values
R GAIN 1
R ROT 1
G GAIN 3
G ROT 2
B GAIN 2
B ROT NORMAL
Gamma Cinema
Gamma Level Normal
Color Gain Normal


Enjoy!

Thank you for yesterday, Paolo. I had to take three Advil last night to reduce brain swelling. That was like eight hours on spin cycle of the knowledge washer...

It was great to find that it was me who was screwing up the Nikon image, and NOT the Zoerk adapter (detail, minimum, detail, minimum). I guess my photoshoped "DSC chart" wasn't so accurate after all? Hey you can't knock a guy for trying. Or, maybe you can.

Anyone who can survive eight hours with me, has the patience of a saint.

Thanks Paolo

Eric, it's been great to work again on the HD200 and with such fine glass, the Zoerk adapter seems to me one of the best, for the price/benefit ratio, way of mounting alternative glass to the HD100/200. It's also fairly practical to use, the setup doesn't require to be careful with many moving parts, the fit is perfect, it's really a nice adapter. I will definitely consider getting one in the future.

For the benefit of the people reading this and considering mounting Nikkor lenses to the ProHD cameras, let me summarize the main facts. These lenses have a rather pleasant look, IMHO, you can get very nice zoom, macro capability and pretty shallow depth of field and, depending on the lens, very good quality of image with no noticeable CA. The downside is that the lenses have a "discreet step" ring for the iris. If you are used to the continuous shift of the stock lens or other video/cine lenses, the "click click click" movement of the iris ring going directly from f2.8 to f4.0 with no "in between" can take a bit to get used to.
In addition, the focus ring requires very fine turning, while when shooting movies we are more comfortable with wider movements which make following focus easier.
On the other hand this is a great way of connecting high quality glass that you can buy for a few hundred dollars per lens, a really good option for many of us on a tight budget.
I really think that with a HD100 or 200 and the Zoerk/Nikkor combo there is nothing stopping you from shooting a feature film and making it look good.

Sorry for the "information overload" Eric but, as you saw, it's hard for me to stop talking about this stuff. I always tell myself to slow it down but I rarely succeed :)

BTW, Eric, please check the shutter speed on you camera, I moved it quite a bit when testing the backfocus. It might be as high as 1/250.

Hi.

Eric Gulbransen and I today spent a day testing and calibrating his camera, which is equipped with Nikon lenses and the Zoerk adapter. ....


Enjoy!

What were you using for focus? I assume something other than the on board viewfinder?

I really think that with a HD100 or 200 and the Zoerk/Nikkor combo there is nothing stopping you from shooting a feature film and making it look good.
:)

Not that I plan to make a feature but are you saying the zork is an alternative to the Letus/Brevis/Ps adaptors? In regards to shallow focus photography? I would think this set up would really limit your field of view--I've been under the assumption this rig was niched for nature photography.

Also, does this thing use any kind of spinning/vibrating glass?

p.s. I perused their website and it looks like Zork also makes endoscopic adaptors in case anyone is interested in that...

Brian, the depth of field is not as shallow as with adapters that use a ground glass, the Zoerk coupler does not replace the fact that the image sensor is 1/3" and so, by nature, the DOF is what it is. The fact is, you can use some zoom lenses that will help you achieve DOF more easily than the stock one, the selection of lenses, both primes and zoom extends a lot and the results for DOF can vary enough to make this system very viable. The Mini-35 is definitely the best in the range as it allows you to mount cine lenses (Cooke, Zeiss, etc) which are designed for feature work, they are different from ENG lenses. It's great but at +$10,000 it's best suited, together with the lenses, for rental, not ownership.

My comment is based on the cost/benefit ratio. The Zoerk adapter costs a fraction of the others and so it make ownership of it much simple. This in turn makes it approachable for and indipendent/amateur shooter to have a piece of gear with which experiment and study the field of cinematography. In addition I like that it doesn't need, unlike the M2 and others, to use the stock lens. The advantage of this is two-fold. First the camera is kept at a manageable size and there is not coupling of the adapter to the stock lens, something that is always pretty delicate to maintain. Second, the quality of the image, IMHO, is nicer because the stock 16x is not used.
DOF is not everything. Several movies have been shot in Mini DV with long DOF. Of course we can't forget Citizen Kane where they actually worked extensively to get long DOF. Shallow DOF can be achieved, with limitations, with the Zoerk/Nikkor combo and can be obtained with other tricks. The fact is, with +$5000 for an HD100, ~$350 for the Zoerk adapter, you can add good lenses for a couple of thousand dollars and have a setup that can produce beautiful images. To me this is one of the best price/benefit ratio in the market today.

$350 for the Zoerk adapter, .

Joan Wilder? Deed ju say Joan Wilder? $350? Did ju say $350? Dang, Okay...this sounds too good to be true...Why aren't people talking about this thing?

Clarification.. $389.00

No ground glass. The adapter is a tiny piece. The JVC gets light quick (unless you go stupid like I did and throw a telescope on it). 28mm on the Nikons is 28mm on the Fujinon as far as field of view. 88mm is 88mm. DOF is different in more ways than simply DOF. I'll shoot some comparison shots to show DOF differences. Probably not what the ground glass adapters can get, but with them you've got a freight train of a camera. Believe me, I've got a Brevis here and I'm scared I'll turn too quick and knock someone's teeth out so I don't use it. Camera's almost three feet long. Supposedly Dennis has a relay lens in the works. I'm boycotting till one shows up.

The 16x Fujinon's bokeh in high contrast areas turns green and looks fugly (to me). And in order to get great DOF with the Fuji you have to zoom like crazy, along with being wide open. And we all know what happens when you zoom like crazy with the 16x. With the Nikons you don't leave the lense's comfort zone. Like Paolo says, all lenses struggle somewhere. But I have to say that my worst nightmare, CA, is not so much a nightmare anymore. Now it's that mini skirt that my girl runs around town in.

I can see I've got some homework to do here. We've got the 16x, the Brevis with Canons, and the Zoerk with Nikons all right here which we could compare all back to back. Anyone feel like helping? This stuff takes forever.

Brian, you're nuts. In a good way. Check your email

I can see I've got some homework to do here. We've got the 16x, the Brevis with Canons, and the Zoerk with Nikons all right here which we could compare all back to back. Anyone feel like helping? This stuff takes forever.

Brian, you're nuts. In a good way. Check your email

Count me in Eric. Love to help.

ps didn't get any email...

Brian

Maybe I missed it, but did you lose or gain any sharpness?

You didn't miss it Brian. Paolo glazed over your question about focus. No he did not use the lcd to judge focus. He had a pc connected to the cam via firewire and used a monitoring program called (Paolo, help!) I don't know what. But it was pretty cool looking and broke the captured image down into a few different critical windows - wave form, vector scope, and then the image. It was fascinating to see what turning the detail up did on the wave form monitor. Good lord do yourself a favor and leave it at min. All the Nikons shined bright on the fiddleheads chart, getting the center of the swirl sharp as a tack. Both the 28-70 and the 80-200 maintained proper backfocus, and neither breathed.

Sorry Brian, I missed the question about focus. We used a full size DSC Fiddleheads chart, see the backfocus video on my website, http://www.paolociccone.com for more information. The size of the chart and the configuration of it makes it very easy to judge focus even with the LCD display. Use the peeking at about 60-70%
I also had the camera connected to a laptop running DV Rack (now Adaobe OnLocation ) to verify image quality on a larger display.
As Eric mentioned, he was able to see the effect of the detail circuit on the image. I'm preparing a page with the screen grabs from a similar project, the TrueColor config for the Canon XH A1, and the result is quite dramatic.
Anyway, the Fiddleheads is really the secret to verify that all the lenses were focusing properly. Which is a very good things since, unlike video lenses, the Nikkor don't have any backfocus adjustment.

Great to have such precision reporting on the setup of this unit guys. I think I've got one in my future too...
I always saw the Zoerk and similar non-optical mount converters as one-trick ponies. But, it's very heartening to hear of some additional benefits.
Regarding it's application for reducing DOF (depth of field - that range of "acceptable" sharpness around the point of "Critical focus" - 1/3 is in front of CF, 2/3 behind)), I'm going to get a bit obsessive here for the record.

It's all over the forum, but I think it's important to have in this thread too. The ultimate way to get better glass on the JVC is with the HZ-CA13U and 16mm PL movie camera lenses. This is rental territory for most of us. What you get is a solid, compact mount, with appropriate lens construction for follow-focusing etc, and reasonable DECREASE in DOF - AT THE SAME EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. It's really a remarkable item not available on any other camera in this class. I plan to rent one when I have a creative, dramatic project with some budget (funny, those things don't come together that often for me....)

I'm surprised that some people buy the 35mm lens adapters without really understanding what they are trying to accomplish. It's a very specific look and feel, only appropriate for some things. DOF is our friend in many situations. Limited DOF shooting often requires another person wholly dedicated to keeping the shot in focus - and this is with the best camera operators around. If it's an interview, or your subject or you aren't in motion, then you'll be fine. Going verite, be prepared to face your worst critic when you see playback on a big monitor....

Changing the size of the resolving image plane is just one way of manipulating DOF. Our JVC's are 1/3" at the chip resolving plane, and this doesn't change with the Zoerk. This is the factor that more expensive system DO modify. The HZ-CA13U does this very elegantly, with price the only real complaint. Contraptions using a ground glass resolving plane can get an even stronger effect, but start to get unwieldily and fragile to handling.
Larger apertures, and longer focal lengths also accomplish this limiting of DOF. The standard lens does start to get a bit strained in the extremes of these settings (wide open at full zoom is ugly, especially for contrasty subjects). My 17x has a modicum of improvement, but still gets strained. But, a real issue is that longer telephoto is not always practical or appropriate in situations where you want DOF. Interiors often just run out of space, and keeping motion in frame is much harder. Telephoto perspective is often simply not what you see, and the lens perspective is for me, a often overlooked and more important element than DOF. It's the zoom lens syndrome. People frame with their zoom, rather than moving to the ideal position.

That was more of a lecture on basic optics than I planned, but hey, hopefully it helps someone. (Paulo and Eric already know this very intimately).

The Zoerk gives us this clean extended range of hyper-telephoto very successfully when coupled with good Nikon glass (Nikons because they have a manual aperture ring which Canons do not. This is focal lengths above 85mm where most our native lens zooms end. For our 1/3" cameras this is already a narrow view of our environment. Truth is, I don't go there that often, but here in NYC we don't have that many open vistas, and when we do, the haze sometimes wipes out the fun.

It's been a long time coming, but here is my question (finally I here them groan). Is the Zoerk really practical to use in focal lengths covered by the native zooms? Would I put my 35-70mm f2.8 Nikon lens (a fine piece of still glass) on this unit for some advantage? Maybe the 50mm f1.4? These lenses are optically fast for their length, but would they really have optical advantages, say when opened up wide? The fast focus barrel and stepped aperture stops would be a compromise in a fast moving situation.

There simply won't be any DOF limitation advantage at the same distance/focal length as far as simple resolving detail. It seems controlling CA (chromatic aberration) is a real motivation. That is a comparison I'd like to see... My lens is a bit better, but some situations are just really harsh, and knowing that envelope is expanded would be great.

One of the first runs I did with my camera last year was in a local manhattan city park, where a juvenile red-tailed hawk has made a home (yummy pigeons and squirrels). Shooting against a bright sky with bare branches on the trees yielded NOTHING useable. Maybe some CA could be removed in post, or some of the underexposed shots brightened, but I just wrote it off as "not a good situation for video".

The quality of the bokeh (shape of out of focus highlights and blur artifacts, nothing like a woman's bouquet!) could also be motivating. The green is from CA, so a separate issue, but there can be real differences in the beauty of the soft out of focus areas in a shot. It's one of the things people like prime lenses for, and can fall apart with zoom lenses trying to do too many other things.

Here's another question. How about DX Nikon lenses for digital APS framed SLRs? I assume these are fine to use, since the effective resolving plane is only using the center of the lens with the Zoerk.

Since I already have the Nikon glass, I am getting really tempted here. I just want to make sure I'll really use it. I have to keep saving money for the glass I KNOW I will really use - the 13x wide angle which has dropped in price!

It's really a remarkable item not available on any other camera in this class. I plan to rent one when I have a creative, dramatic project with some budget

Sean, all good points, I just wanted to add one thing. You don't buy a camera like the HD100/200, IMHO, to obtain shallow DOF. The size of the sensor prevents this. This is a camera that has a lot of applications, can get a reasonable shallow DOF but if selective focus is the name of the game for you, you are better off with something else... when those creative, dramatic projects come by. There are several tricks that can be used to fake shallow DOF so the above statement can be reconsidered based on a given situation.
To me, spending thousands and thousands of dollars to get shallow DOF with the HD100 is a questionable investment. It's much easier and cheaper to rent a 1/2" or 2/3" camera when the project comes by and use the the lenses for those cameras. For example, a Sony F350 (1/2" sensor) can mount 2/3" lenses with a mechanical adapter similar to the Zoerk and the results are quite amazing. Way better than anything that the HD200 can do and in a very manageable format. My point here is that we have to make a clear distinction between ownership and rental. Owning a camera like the HD100 is a great way to learn about cinematography first hand. The stock lens, with all the limitations, works like a cine lens. If you learn to use it you will need just a few minutes to get acquainted with something like the Fujinon 10x10, a lens that cost nearly $70,000 and that gives you absolutely stunning images.
Trying to get the same result with any 1/3" camera can be just too much effort. That's why I like the Zoerk approach. It allows you to experiment with many different lenses with a very small investment. It's all experience that you can transfer to other cameras and lenses when the occasion presents itself. I believe that once you have mastered the HD100/200 you can easily walk inside your local rental house and spend a few hours getting familiar with an XDCAM or a F900 and rent it with confidence. You will not be an expert of that camera but you will be able to use it to a certain degree of success.


It's been a long time coming, but here is my question (finally I here them groan). Is the Zoerk really practical to use in focal lengths covered by the native zooms?

Absolutely. The quality of the Nikkor lenses, to me, makes the combination appealing. It's a very subjective matter but I find the look very pleasant. The sharpness is really nice and the minimal CA makes that combinational really useful. Lastly, the ability to have the same f-stop across the range is very useful. You spent a lot of words talking about zoom. Well, we know that the stock lens, like many others, looses light as you zoom in. I have a Sigma zoom, 70-200 that is f2.8 all the way. If you are moving away from the subject and zoom in, wide open, in order to get shallow DOF, having the ability to keep the aperture constant helps a lot.


Shooting against a bright sky with bare branches on the trees yielded NOTHING useable. Maybe some CA could be removed in post, or some of the underexposed shots brightened, but I just wrote it off as "not a good situation for video".

Seems like "not a good situation" period. I don't know exactly what made the shot unusable but I guess that the subject was underexposed because of the bright sky. Of course you could decide to expose for the subject and let the sky being blown out. Later in post you can re-add the sky by adding a blue gradient, lower the transparency and select the blend mode of "darken". You will be surprised how effective that technique is. If you had shot the clip with a polarizer, in order to get the sky as blue as possible, even overexposed the sky will have enough detail to cause the gradient to pick up the clouds. Short of shining some light to the subject, the other "trick" that I can thing of is to use a grad ND to knock off the sky while keeping the subject in the clear area of the glass and the expose for the subject.

Good questions Sean. Hold on I'm going for more advil..

Originally I did a few primitive tests shooting the same shots with the different lenses. We had no color profile for the Nikons, and my original Zoerk adapter was "out of spec." Surely that fact compromised the image (See Rollover Image) (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Adapter_Differeces/OrigZoarkPlay-12_01_07.html). I will shoot more comparisons.

As for there being advantages in using your 35-70 2.8 over the Fujinon, I think it depends on the range of the shot, and the contrast (hawk, bright sky, branches). I think I remember your frame grab from a hundred years ago with the branches against the bright sky with even the 17X (pardon me if I'm remembering wrong. It was a while ago right?). From what I have seen so far the Nikons are pretty clean when it comes to CA. As for wide shots with the iris in it's friendly zone, I think your 17X would be one tough cookie to beat. Even the 16X looks great in my opinion (the marina shots in the DVinfo valentine video are remarkable I think, and they were shot with the 16X).

I once posted a question about CA on this forum. Simply, what is it? What I got from all the answers was that it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to make a relatively inexpensive video lens that can manage the different colors of light properly throughout such a broad range of zoom - 5.5mm to 88mm (16X). My response was, "Then why make it? Then why sell it? Then why not make three lenses, all much more accurate, and sell each one for $2,000?" It was explained to me why it was not appropriate for me to be thinking this way, and I did see the point - "We need to follow a moving subject and can't ask the subject to stop while we change glass." Still though, I was left feeling that while we do have a "16X" lens mounted to the camera - we don't really have a "16X" mounted to the camera if we can't use the footage captured with it (Hawk, sky, branches), so we can't follow the subject effectively anyway.

To me, the test shot that I took a while back which compared the 18X to the 16X (http://www.gotagteam.com/16xVS18x/Fujinon16xMarinaZoom.html) - with both at full zoom, did two things for me. One, it showed how much better the 18X was, and two, it sucked the life out of me because I did not own the 18X and therefore would be left to go shoot the zoomed world through what looked like a dirty fish tank.

I have spent a great deal of money, for me, getting into videography and at this point I simply cannot justify dropping another 9 grand so I can shoot the 33mm that the "16X" can't (and it wouldn't even be 33mm because the 18X doesn't reach 88mm). Surely my education and experience here is lacking, but in my monkey brain with a usable safe shooting-zone of 10mm to 55mm, I consider the 16X to actually be a "5.5X" effectively).

Since I purchased this Zoerk adapter and the Nikons, I don't have that fish tank feeling anymore. In fact I feel quite the opposite and guess what -

Zoerk adapter - $389 plus $12 shipping
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR Micro $600 (used)
Nikon 28-70 2.8 ED (used) $800
Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED (used) $850
Nikon 300mm 2.8 ED (used) $1,800
New life breathed into my HD200 - $priceless$

So far with the adapter and four great pieces of glass I'm at $153 more than just the HZ-CA13U with no lenses yet. I believe this is why Paolo suggested that at the price point for the Zoerk adapter and some very affordable Nikon lenses, this is a great option for those of us who are budgetless.

*This is a missing point that neither Paolo or myself have mentioned: According to Paolo, the HD200s render color differently than the HD100s. I have seen this myself as I used both side by side on a wedding once. They are different, and from what Paolo showed me on the wave form monitor, the HD100s render blues more effectively. On this HD200, though, with the Nikons mounted via the Zoerk adapter, Paolo felt that this camera rendered blue better than any HD200 he had seen. Maybe it's a rogue camera? Or maybe it's some complementing coincidence in how differently the Nikon lenses render color compared to the 16X Fujinon. Because believe me, they do.

It is my gut feeling right now that the different lenses, 16X VS Nikons via the Zoerk adapter, will complement each other well - but neither will cancel the other out. I think the 16x will reign superior in it's range. And where it falls off we will use the Zoerk/Nikons.

Consider yourself lucky Sean. You're already a Nikon man. I am Canon but slowly changing over. The real beauty of this is that now the two very different worlds of still shooting and video, for me, are both enhanced because the money is not separated with a big ugly axe anymore. When the Nikons are not in the video bag, they are in the stills bag - and one or the other, if not both, is always in the truck.

Lot of info in this thread.

Did the set up give a sharper image?

The fact that CA is reduced and color rendition improved is great, a sharper image would give the hat trick.

my .02$. I'm the guy who modded a canon 50 1.8 to mount directly onto the HD100. after shooting with the 50 a bit, its basically softer and less contrasty then the stock 16X lens. in fact the stock lens really kind of blows it away, even for CA. what the 50mm does do is focus from infinity to 1.5ft. without breathing very much. its a handy macro lens. I have a canon 50mm1.4 which I want to mod, but its got the older lock ring mount which is completely different internally and so modding it much harder. Still I have hope that I can pull it off and get images on par with the 16X stock lens.

as far as the click stop thing, its easy to fix. take the lens mount off, and usually the iris control ring is right there. remove the iris ring and you'll find a small ball bearing between it and the lens body. remove the ball, reassemble and now your iris ring will move smoothly. at least on FD glass this is pretty trivial to do. never taken a nikon apart, but I doubt its much harder. its also possible to re-wire the iris springs in a canon FD so the the iris always follows the iris ring rather then stopping down, but if the lens it mounted to a FD receiver, you don't need to make this mod.

What I'd really like is something wider. a 3.5-10 or 15mm lens would sell like mad if the price was right. give me a short wide zoom. canon did this with the XL1 with their wide angle 3X. lets face it, if you are shooting really wide, long isn't important, and you can always switch back to your standard lens. even a 3.5 prime would be welcome.

I'm surprised that some people buy the 35mm lens adapters without really understanding what they are trying to accomplish. It's a very specific look and feel, only appropriate for some things.

Telephoto perspective is often simply not what you see, and the lens perspective is for me, a often overlooked and more important element than DOF.

I

Regarding lens adaptors, couldn't agree more, they have their place but I think way too much money and effort is spent achieving Shallow focus. It's almost become the holy grail of the 1/3" cams.

I want to dogpile on that second point too, so many people shoot shallow focus or 60p or crane or go super wide for no other reason than they *can*. Purely unmotivated photography--and often feels like a cover for weak content. In most cases, creating shots that more or less recreate what the human eye sees gives the most immersive viewing experience.

Thanks for the acknowledgment, Brian. It's a pet peeve of mine, when important things are neglected to force some unnatural thing in. Shooting like editing is usually best when it's transparent. You don't see the cuts or the blurred background, you are just drawn to the subject without overt effect.
Problem is, it's often more challenging to achieve. Also, to have a palette of useful tools, we have to practice (and sometimes purchase) so we can deploy the right things at the right time.

Paulo, I'm totally with you. I think the search for narrow DOF is a totally overblown issue. People even use these clumsy long adapters with SD! I shoot verite docs and events where I bless the EXTENDED DOF of this camera. In fact it's still challenging keeping a subject in sharp focus without an external monitor say when it's a little darker and everything is moving. HD raises the bar for critical focus already.

I'm an old dog, with a handful of the usual tricks for limiting DOF. I do lots of interviews where I like that look, so I know not to overlight, and get the camera back as far as possible to optimize the aperture and focal length variables. I rearrange seating to get more depth behind my subjects, which is probably the most important thing of all. Most of all, I'm realistic about not compromising other aspects of my shoot. I've also done some very effective masking and blurring in post where it's really called for.

I'm also totally with you re renting. Back in the day when I started, virtually no production companies owned a complete set of production equipment. "Reasonable" quality gear was very expensive compared to now. Renting the right equipment for the job is a factor that isn't weighed in properly by many newcomers to production. It's simply bad economics to buy expensive tech equipment that you won't be using regularly for paying gigs. OK, there are some excuses, and learning the ropes is a reasonable one. Getting great results with a package you can afford to buy is completely possible today with the additional investment of patience and ingenuity (not sure if the latter is an acquired trait, but it can be shared!).

I'm guilty of a few of these impulse buys. My lectrosonics wireless I bought in a fit after blowing a corporate shoot with an inadequate unit. t I can rent this $2,800 kit for $75 a day, and I still use a cable whenever I can...

Most of my shooting career was on betacam SP and some DV-cam with 2/3" lenses. My SD camera is a 1/2" lens. I've shot a 16mm feature, assisted with 35mm cine (pulled focus!), and shot stills with multiple formats - still own a great 6x7cm system. I know that DOF is a double edged sword, and that resolving image size format is only part of the game. For the record, a 1/2" camera with a 2/3" lens on a mechanical adapter gives 1/2" lens DOF characteristics. Expensive glass has many advantages from subtle to obvious (like expensive red wines). Unfortunately, they are used more for daytime game shows than they are on personal docs, but that's economics for ya.

I'm also a long time proponent of JVC for their cameras that have ergonomics and features like the real pro gear. This is a big advantage for people moving in BOTH directions. I had a client stop renting my 1/2" JVC DV camera when they bought a panasonic to shoot 24p (don't get me started...). I can wrangle embedded menus and balance compromises, but there was really more lost than gained. I've owned these small cameras, and they are great for some things (say following a hip-star in a crowded party, or trekking at 13,000ft elevation...), but much harder to get consistent results with in other situations that come up more often (variable lighting, stable handheld shots etc). I've been watching the dollars melt off my unused JVC 1/2" DV since I don't want to sell it for less than the popular minicams out there.

Yeah - the hawk was simply not a good situation for video. Too far away up in the tree, overcast white sky. Even polarizers or grads wouldn't help here (I have them, although they weren't with me this day). I think that's an important lesson in itself. I did try different exposures, and could have improved things considerably in post, but it was just testing. It was handheld at too long a lens too, but that's another thing... Some things are just best not even attempted. I could tell you about repeated attempts to do a long rack focus along with a camera move by myself on 16mm film....

There is a fcp filter to reduce CA that specifically looks for and de-saturates the color from edges. Handy for sure. Underexposure with post correction definitely helps in many situations too. But it's best to find a way to avoid the problem areas. Truth is, I'm very comfortable in the telephoto range of my lens in most situations. It's only real contrasty hard edges that I have to avoid.

I really appreciate the detailed reporting on the Zoerk mount with nikon lenses. I will definitely be taking this path, thanks to you Eric. Maybe not right away.... I'm not Mr. Moneybags either, with a kid to feed and a manhattan mortgage WELL in front of the list.

The HZ-CA13U is really a completely different animal, with different advantages. It gives 16mm DOF characteristics, and an awesome selection of high end glass to our modest cameras in a standard focal length range. I'll be renting it when the project warrants it (eg pays!). The Zoerk does not modify DOF at the same focal length. There are some compromises involved with shorter focal lengths. It's a simply great tool for extended range though. For outdoors nature and sports shooters it's a major step at a quite affordable price.

Back to the grilling of you testers....
I didn't see any mention of adjusting the White shading control of the HD200. The HD100 series doesn't have this control, which works to minimize color imbalances introduced by different lenses. I tuned this very carefully for my 17x, and I'm away from the preset. I stretched the recommended procedure to make lens characteristics obvious. This deals with a specific type of chromatic aberration, and will help overall quality. You might have to make a new color preset with the DSC chart though (hehe - sorry - back to the advil!) I recall you having problems with a color shift at the bottom the frame with one of your tests Eric, and this might be the key for that.

Lastly, how are these Nikon lenses behaving as far as breathing characteristics? That is, do they zoom a little when racking the focus? Minimizing this is one of the highly desired aspects of cine lenses, so that a rack focus keeps a stable frame. It's a non-issue for still photography, so the effect can be very strong sometimes I've heard (like with the ground glass rigs). An all-in-one video zoom lens often has this compromise to a distracting level, and even in cine, it's one of the reasons people prefer prime lenses. Of course, it's only a factor when dealing with narrow DOF work, where follow focus or a rack between subjects is called for.

after shooting with the 50 a bit, its basically softer and less contrasty then the stock 16X lens. in fact the stock lens really kind of blows it away, even for CA. what the 50mm does do is focus from infinity to 1.5ft. without breathing very much.

Thanks for sharing Steve. Maybe the 1.4 will be better, but improved breathing is a small benefit for the compromises involved with the 1.8. Lens design has a lot of variables and compromise, so it's hard to keep expectations up when using them for very different ways than intended.


as far as the click stop thing, its easy to fix.

This makes sense. At least with FD lenses which are pretty reasonable these days. But I'd be a bit reluctant to mess around with the $800 glass...



What I'd really like is something wider. a 3.5-10 or 15mm lens would sell like mad if the price was right. give me a short wide zoom. canon did this with the XL1 with their wide angle 3X. lets face it, if you are shooting really wide, long isn't important, and you can always switch back to your standard lens. even a 3.5 prime would be welcome.


These is the recent thread asking for the same thing. I agree a really short lens would be great. The 13x lens is really sweet, but I also would like wider and cheaper, with magnification factor least important of all.

This is something I can use lots. Handheld, in small rooms, everything in focus. That's NYC compared to the wild Pacific coast right there!

Sean, are you in competition for the longest post in this forum ;)
Just messing with ya.

In fact it's still challenging keeping a subject in sharp focus without an external monitor say when it's a little darker and everything is moving. HD raises the bar for critical focus already.

It definitely does. I had to do Steadicam work with this camera and no remote follow focus, not pretty. But when the image is sharply in focus, man, it's a pleasure to watch it.


I'm guilty of a few of these impulse buys. My lectrosonics wireless I bought in a fit after blowing a corporate shoot with an inadequate unit. t I can rent this $2,800 kit for $75 a day, and I still use a cable whenever I can...

Are they working for you. I'm asking because I used them and I wasn't impressed at all. It's not a matter of the Lecsos, it's just that wireless mics don't seem to be reliable. At all. Used the Lecsos with some Countryman lavs and the best sound I ever got was from using my Rode NTG1 on a boom. Much cheaper and simpler to use. I know that lavs have their place but man, wireless technology has a long way to go.


I didn't see any mention of adjusting the White shading control of the HD200.

I did some tweaking with that when I designed TrueColor 200 v1.0 and I didn't see much improvement for the "skewed" color matrix, or better, I saw the improvement but also a pretty visible color cast so I stopped using it. It probably has its place but for TrueColor I didn't need it.

I did some tweaking with that when I designed TrueColor 200 v1.0 and I didn't see much improvement for the "skewed" color matrix, or better, I saw the improvement but also a pretty visible color cast so I stopped using it. It probably has its place but for TrueColor I didn't need it.

White shading is specifically to adjust to a specific lenses Chromatic properties. Specifically the color tinting that shows up at the top or bottom of the frame when mismatched. The preset (as on the 100 series) is supposed to be right for the 16x, but by having this configurable you can make this compensation for other lens situations on the 200 series. It isn't a uniform effect on the whole frame, it equalizes purple or green that transition on the top or bottom. The correction I've made is subtle, but I suspect also helps minimize CA by balancing out these colors.

Sean, I apologize. I owe you info on whether or not the Nikons breathe. I updated to FCP 6 and effectively took myself out of the loop because 6 wouldn't work with my decrepit video card. All better now though. My gut says no they do not breathe, at all. Now that I finally got a new card and I'm seeing green lights again I will shoot a test and post it. ;- )

OK Sean, the 300mm 2.8 ED does NOT breathe. I'll test the 80-200 tomorrow evening.

Rack focus sample (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Breathe.mov)

Eric, thanks for posting the test! You really are a mighty contributor with your web publishing links.

However, and I'm reluctant to go here, I don't think this is a conclusive example. The rack focus on these small, close items is so strong, that I can't see the frame edges, and the out of focus blobs do seem to be a bit shifted.

What will show this more clearly would be an outdoor rack from infinity to closest focus, with some obvious markers on the edge of the frame (like uh trees?). Or just racking focus in more normal shooting scenarios, where the edges of the frame can be tracked for creep. It's an iris independent thing, showing if the focus mechanism and optics shifts the effective focal length.

But don't feel obligated to post video for every little quibble I bring up!
I'm happy with your typed report from experimentation in some different scenarios.
Breathing is not such a vital day to day issue for most of us, and it's only particular situations where it raises it's ugly head.

But getting back to the truecolor preset a bit... Did you run through the manual's white shading procedure for adjusting lenses to the camera with any of your Nikon's? Don't go making me guilty with web video, but I think it might be worth the few minutes to you to see if there is any optimization you can make. It's a great pro feature of the 200 series. I pushed the recommended settings a little to make the changes clear on my 24" (dell) monitor hooked to the camera.

You're right Sean. I keep getting home after dark so I'm left to shoot inside tests and this house is not very big! I'll try again before I head out. And no, I have not played with white shading yet. You've got me curious now though. I'll hit that one tonight..

Alright brother try this long outdoor shot instead. For reference the street is about a mile long. I know that because I ran it last night and it took me half an hour to get to the end, which is about my pace these days..

Don't mind the shakes. It was cold as a witch's....... purse, this morning and the new tripod is not here yet.

Street Rack Focus, Nikon 300mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Street_FOCUS.mov)


I'll do the others tonight, some of which operate in the 16x range.

Bokeh is very different isn't it.

in your TrueColour, or any calibration? As I believe the 50/60p is a 3:1:1 compression. I did a couple of shoots and I'm getting a purple-ish cast to things? I did change the black stretch just by 1, but I wouldn't have thought it would throw the colour out that much?

Thanks in advance, and once again thanks for all your hard work transforming our cameras!

Regards

Adam

As I believe the 50/60p is a 3:1:1 compression.
Adam

Really? First time I heard this...

in your TrueColour, or any calibration? As I believe the 50/60p is a 3:1:1 compression.

Adam, to add a color cast would defeat the whole purpose of TrueColor and would make it a misnomer. Please read the description about it on my website, http://www.paolociccone.com , the stated goal of TC is to give you the closest way to record neutral images with your camera. On my cameras, with a calibrated chart, with controlled light, TC provides neutral color.
Please double check the parameters in your camera and the white balance. If a color cast is still present it means that the color matrix of your camera is different from mine, something that is pretty common. That's why it's advisable to calibrate your camera with your own chart. The articles that I published on my website can help you perform that task.

BTW, with HDV you have 4:2:0 compression, regardless the frame rate.

Hope this helps

your TC is legendary stuff, I know that the intent is to add no colour cast, I've been using it on the HD251 since June 07, I just couldn't figure out how this colour cast had come into my work, the only thing I could think of was that I never shot in 720 50p before, I wondered whether it was possible that the colour matrix changes, and I vaguely remembered somewhere on this forum when the camera first came out, said that it used a 4:1:1 compression to be able to fit all the information in the same bandwidth.
I've seen it in my DV stuff now as well which is why I wondered that might be the case.
I'd love to be able to do my own matrix, but I've only got a little DSC camette chart which I would imagine isn't no where near enough to do the job. The only other thing I could think of is my tiffen polarizer has reacted to a cleaning agent or something and adding a colour cast. I know, I'm clutching at straws.

But anyways onward and upward...

ps : anybody other than me find that the 50p has more artifacting and noise compared to 25p?

Thanks
Adam

Adam, like with many things, "debugging" something like this is usually done with a process of elimination. Start with the "naked" camera, no filters on the lens, no ND, check the shutter (1/100 in this case), check the white balance, lights etc. Remove all elements one by one. The camera doesn't change compression because of frame rate. 4:1:1 is the DV compression. When the camera is set to record in DV format it does use 4:1:1 but that's expected, that is part of how SD DV is encoded on tape. Any of the HD modes use 4:2:0. The only difference is that when the HD200/250 records at 60p it uses a long GOP. 15 frames instead of 6. The color space and the color encoding remain the same.

Good luck.

I knew there was some difference between the 50/60p and 24/25p, and the GOP was it then. Thanks as always for you prompt replies. I hope you current ventures are going well.

Regards

Adam

no gloating here Paulo, ;^)
but be aware that although DVNTSC is 4:1:1, DV PAL IS 4:2:0.
4:2:0 is better for progressive material. Here's a ref:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#colorSampling
more than most of us really need to know about this...

In case I've injured your pride, here are some props: The testing routine is simply the best approach, even though it can take a lot of time. The lessons stick and apply to new situations much better. Just look at Eric taking this approach and trumping all us old-timers.

Makes me guilty here posting test videos online just for my whimsical queries.
Yes, the 300mm has minimal breathing issues for real work. The limited DOF and blooming from blur makes it hard to track - BUT, in the 2nd clip, I can still see the size of the rear view wing mirror change noticeably. It's cropped when in focus, and smaller in frame at the long focus at the start.
Prime lenses are generally much less subject to the problem. The 80-200 I suspect will be more noticeable. But hey - this is such quibbly (sp?) stuff. Good to be aware of, but even the significant breathing of the standard zoom is rarely a distraction to me.
Ah yes, the bokeh. A rich, luxuriant spread, with a peachy texture, typical of the California coastal regions. 8.6 points. Highly recommended. Ready for immediate consumption.

I'm such a chump. SO used to the 16X breathing somewhat like I did the first time I saw my wife - I considered the 300 breathless. That thing basically zooms when you focus.. I see what you're saying though, the mirror does distort. I promise I'll test the 80-200 today. I've been neck deep in a new project that's really got me consumed.

Dude - don't test it for me! Take your time, and check for yourself when your using it for something else.

Sean, this is how I learn. And I need to learn.. Don't fret yourself. It's all in a day's (year's) work.