Ok, so I now own 2 HD200U's and I'm just now starting to consider using them for things other than documentary style stuff (the meat and potatoes of my business). I've done my search at DVi and still haven't found exactly what I'm looking for:

- I'd like to use prime lenses on my 200. If I understand correctly, I have 2 options: PL mount lenses or 35mm SLR lenses. Further, if I use 35mm lenses, I incur the ~7x lens factor introduced by differing imager sizes, correct?

So, what are my options if I don't want to try and track down 16mm lenses (harder to do here in the centre of Canada)? And feel free to point me back to the DVi forums, I just haven't found a Prime Lenses for Dummies.

I'm a little overwhelmed by the discussion of COPLA, RedRock, MTF et al. A simple explanation and some jumping off points would be VERY much appreciated.

Hi Shaun. If you want to mount cine or 35mm lenses on a video camera, you are getting into the realm of the 35mm adapter. It's a big subject, and there are many posts around on this. You might want to start here-

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/alternative-imaging-methods/18950-homemade-35mm-edited-copy-reading.html

Richard

Shaun,

You've basically got 3 options.

1: P+S Technik image converters. Broadcast industry standard tool, with price and quality to match.

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35-compact.php

2: JVC HZ-CA13U ProHD PL film lens adapter which will give you a 16mm DOF but the ability to use 35mm and PL prime lenses. No adapter needed, direct mount to JVC body.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101683

3: Low budget 35mm DOF adapters. Be careful here if you want a 35mm adapter for money earning work. There are many firms out there (Brevis, Redrock, Letus and SGPro to name a few) who offer a very cost effective adapter. Take a look at the Letus forum on this site for example and you'll read threads from a lot of disgruntled customers complaining about build and image quality etc.

You have to remember. Small companies charging small prices are never going to be able to offer you broadcast optical engineering and build quality at budget prices. So bear this in mind if you require an adapter for money earning projects.

However, that said, many people do obtain excellent images using low budget adapters.

From our own personal experience we found that the JVC is not really suited to a 35mm adapter which has no direct lens relay (everything except the P+S) mainly because you are always having to stick the adapter on the end of the stock JVC lens, which means losing light and fighting for focus. We also had other expensive disasters with a particular low budget lens adapter and have learned our lesson the hard way.

Ask yourself why you need it. if it's a product you offer on a commercial basis, don't stint and go low budget. It's just not worth the potential grief. We gave up on trying to get away with these adapters and now just hire P+S Technik whenever a client calls for this 'look'.

Hope that helps.

Shaun,

Here's the basic info on lens adapters, DoF and JVC's PL adapter.
Lenses, Adapters & Depth of Field (http://www.dvinfo.net/prohd/Sample3.html)

This segment can also be found on my DVD.

If you are interested in the JVC PL adapter HVS has a slightly used one for $3000 CDN. I can vouch for it as being in perfect condition.

Tim

Shaun, I've used both P&S Mini35-400 and JVC adapters. P&S for fiction, JVC for docu-style. Lenses were Zeiss or Arri 35mm primes and Leica 24x36mm primes.
Both do their job very well. drawbacks are t-stop-loss, weight and additional battery for the P&S; drawbacks for the JVC are 16mm/Digibeta-type image and, unless you have a perfectly matched set of primes (which are hard to find/rent outside main film locations) adjusting the white shading in the menu every time you change lenses (see cam manual p. 53), meaning lots lots lots of time lost on a film shoot. otherwise the JVC is an engineering wonder.
I haven't used the P&S Compact yet, and have not tried any other adapters.
The Movietube could be an interesting concept but it's not available for our JVC cameras and looks really bulky and odd for anything else but heavy 35mm equipment.

The other aspect of these adapters is focus pulling. with the P&S rack focussing is near imposible without a focus puller. the JVC with its 16mm-characteristics is a bit more forgiving but still... again, good camera assistants/focus pullers are not easy to find outside movie towns. this additional crew drives up the cost and organization considerably.

My guess is that the minimum camera support you need with the P&S is a steadycam (+the operator), as shoulder work is nearly impossible with anything above 25 mm. with the JVC's 16mm characteristics your shooting method is more flexible.

also, you need light just like on a 35mm /16mm set, even more of it because you don't have sensitivities/grain like Vision 250 or 500 film stock on our cameras

What this is meant to say is that many other criteria besides dof and lenses come into play, and while the mini-35 is a +/- € 10'000 item, the total cost of using it is much much higher in set time = cast/crew cost and equipment rental. because you need no film stock and processing, filming in 35mm is still a lot cheaper with the JVC, but crew and rentals are the same.
For images see http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-hd-acquisition-systems/129227-pictures-gy-hd251-cine-style-set.html another thread on this forum.

I sometimes wonder if the way Shane Abbess went on Gabriel (maybe with better Fuji glass or the JVC adapter and a good 16mm zoom) isn't a more adequate way of filming with our cameras. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857376/)

It's been previously discussed in this forum.

Thanks everyone. I don't mind doing the reading, I just wasn't sure where to begin.

Tim, where in Canada is a reasonable place to start looking for PL primes? I know you brought your Kinor in and had it modified. I'd LIKE to get a SMALL number of useful focal length primes to toss into my "yet to be bought" kit. HVS sent me an e-mail this morning about the JVC. Thanks. I'll get to him this aft.

Tim, where in Canada is a reasonable place to start looking for PL primes?
Good question. Personally I always rent because in Toronto there are plenty of rental houses for film gear. I prefer renting because the available variety and the fact that they are well-maintained by lens techs. I'm not sure what you have available in Winnipeg so I understand why you are interested in buying.

I would start by keeping an eye on the rental houses (PS, Panavision, Complete, Clairmont, etc.) They sometimes sell old rental lenses.
For example Clairmont (http://www.clairmont.com/sales/sales.html) keeps an equipment for sale list on their website.
Also, check the classifieds (http://www.csc.ca/classifieds/) on the CSC website. The ASC also has a classifieds section.
There are also some film gear liquidator sites on the web that ship worldwide.
If you are looking for reasonably priced but decent new lenses then RED has some interesting offerings.
Lastly you can search the websites of some Eastern European camera shops with PL conversions of various lenses.

Thanks Tim. We DO have PS here. Might be time to introduce myself again.

I sometimes wonder if the way Shane Abbess went on Gabriel (maybe with better Fuji glass or the JVC adapter and a good 16mm zoom) isn't a more adequate way of filming with our cameras. (Gabriel (2007) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857376/))

It's been previously discussed in this forum.

that's what I was thinking while reading actually. That and maybe pick up a MTF adapter to go with my Nikon & Nikor lenses for some nature doc telework. I like my camera and all, but at a certain point I question dumping too much money into a platform. I mean a 16mm or even 35mm Panaflex just doesn't rent to for too much money per day, (about half of what our JVC cameras do typically) it's just the film and processing that's expensive. I think of our JVC's as an inexpensive alternative to 16mm. It's not 35mm, it's not even 16mm, but it's a lot of bang for the buck, and it's the least expensive manual camera with removable lens out there. So I dig it, it's just the thought of a 18x lens or $6,000 35mm adapter seems odd to me still unless you are a working full time in broadcast network or local channel. I'm interested in docs, demos, indie pilots etc to get me work later using rentals of cinealta or RED or 16mm or 35mm . The JVC ProHD line is just as expensive as 1 semester at SDSU film department Masters in TV & FILM Production. Since i've got several BA's and SAG union card and 3-4 years full time Film/TV production in front of and behind the camera, I think it's a reasonable choice to do a JVC over the first semester of a Masters in film school.

That being said, I'm probably going to the bay area this weekened or next to look at a brevius (spelling?) adapter to totaly discount everything I just said. Just in case anyone was keeping track. Of course a used 17x or 13x would be sweet in a few months too. Sorry for getting way off subject on this post. I just think the trap for many of us is to keep getting accessories, when at a certain point, if you NEED a certain type of image, get a different platform from a rental house for the weekend.

I just think the trap for many of us is to keep getting accessories, when at a certain point, if you NEED a certain type of image, get a different platform from a rental house for the weekend.

I don't disagree Alex, I DO earn a living doing this so sometimes I have an extra couple of shekels to rub together to buy something for the business that has questionable value but makes me happy. As well, you mentioned the camera costing as much as a semester of film school. To me, that's EXACTLY the point: a new "toy" gives me a tangible return on investment and inspires me to do new things.

I'm not sure going to primes (PL or 35mm) makes sense from a cost recovery business model, but if it adds something cool to my arsenal and brings in new work because I have something my competition doesn't AND I have a blast at the same time, works for me.

Great way of breaking it down, though. I know that sooner or later I need to draw the line on how much I spend on what I always intended to be an interim step in my HD migration. XDCam HD 422 is still 2 years away for me so I need SOMETHING to keep me out of trouble...

that's what I was thinking while reading actually. That and maybe pick up a MTF adapter to go with my Nikon & Nikor lenses for some nature doc telework. I like my camera and all, but at a certain point I question dumping too much money into a platform. I mean a 16mm or even 35mm Panaflex just doesn't rent to for too much money per day, (about half of what our JVC cameras do typically) it's just the film and processing that's expensive. I think of our JVC's as an inexpensive alternative to 16mm. It's not 35mm, it's not even 16mm, but it's a lot of bang for the buck, and it's the least expensive manual camera with removable lens out there. So I dig it, it's just the thought of a 18x lens or $6,000 35mm adapter seems odd to me still unless you are a working full time in broadcast network or local channel. I'm interested in docs, demos, indie pilots etc to get me work later using rentals of cinealta or RED or 16mm or 35mm . The JVC ProHD line is just as expensive as 1 semester at SDSU film department Masters in TV & FILM Production. Since i've got several BA's and SAG union card and 3-4 years full time Film/TV production in front of and behind the camera, I think it's a reasonable choice to do a JVC over the first semester of a Masters in film school.

That being said, I'm probably going to the bay area this weekened or next to look at a brevius (spelling?) adapter to totaly discount everything I just said. Just in case anyone was keeping track. Of course a used 17x or 13x would be sweet in a few months too. Sorry for getting way off subject on this post. I just think the trap for many of us is to keep getting accessories, when at a certain point, if you NEED a certain type of image, get a different platform from a rental house for the weekend.

Please let us know how you get on with the Brevis Alex.

Really interesting thread Shaun. A little bit frightening due to the many tried and test options (and each with a multitude of subjective reviews). I've been ruminating over a 35mm adaptor for some time - I won't have much money to throw at it (and the extras such as focus puller, and a steadicam if it were the P&S as Claude mentions, might have to wait) but still, especially for more documentary/film style work (either commercial or more likely personal projects) I'd love to shoot with that look however.
But given the costs of these accessories against money being earned using them, then I have a bit more to think about.
I expect that renting a P & S (if you can get hold of these in the UK) is pretty expensive (and if I have to add up the costs of a focus puller and steadicam into the mix, it gets a little prohibitive).
Mind boggling :( !

I think this shallow depth of field issue is beyond frustrating. I've just spent three or four days reading about 35mm adapter and am more confused than ever. I had been thinking about purchasing a RedRock adapter for the JVC 200u, but after reading everything, and the complaints, I'm a bit frightened to actually use it. I fear it would fail at a really in oportune time.

So, I checked out Letus. More expensive, but people still have complaints. So I looked at renting them, to try it out, and it costs over 40 percent of the purchase price to rent.

Arrrggghhh!!!! I just want shallow depth of field!

Hmm.

Can some sage, wise, know everything person just give a declarative answer on what is best! And be right, of course. Is that too much to ask?

And I'm only partly joking.

So, as an update, my new JVC PL mount adaptor will be on it's way to me next week.
Thanks for all the help, folks! Especially Tim.

Jason,

You sound desperate to have a 35mm dof. Why?

If this is to earn you money don't bother with the cheaper alternatives.

If it's for tinkering and hobby work then they are great.

So, as an update, my new JVC PL mount adaptor will be on it's way to me next week.
Thanks for all the help, folks! Especially Tim.

I'm glad I could help. It sounds like you got a great deal.
May I suggest you get a UK UltraBox 408 for the adapter. It doesn't come with foam like a pelican case but it is a lot cheaper.

I'm prepping for another music video with my HZ-CA13U tomorrow.

Tim: I'm pretty thrilled and thanks for putting the bug in Pete's ear.

I you happen to hear of any reasonably prices (think "cheap"... <laughs>) primes or short zooms coming available that you can vouch for, please keep me in mind.

It's interesting you mention a UK Case: I bought one years ago for my road switcher (UK model 822) and I've had nothing but issues with the hardware and handles. One of the side handles has come loose (bad rivet) and 3 of the locking knobs have failed. Obviously you've had better luck with yours.

You can also learn to live with the DOF provided natively. Not too bad. No 35mm spoken here:

This is an excellent point Brian.

Given the right lighting, subject matter and technical ability you can create the look of 35mm with any TV lens.

General rules of thumb include things like using a wider aperture and shooting towards the end of the zoom. Always, when using techniques such as this look to keep your shots still and concentrate on framing rather than any fancy moves!

We've shot a couple of bits in the past where people would have sworn it was shot with an adapter.

However, that said, it's not always possible to shoot using such methods!

A little jewel from Ireland shot with Sony HDV, shows both how unimportant and important the 35mm dof is:

unimportant because story and characters are at the center of a film, not equipement - here the film triumphs

important because dof and other image aspects can convey so much additional subtext, and I sorely missed all this additional richness of expression in the film.

Nevertheless, "Once" shows again that "art" goes before equipment.

"Once" won an Oscar for the score/songs. Imdb: Once (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/)

Another update: The adaptor has arrived! Should be able to get down to our motion picture house next week to throw some primes and zooms on it. I'm pretty excited!

One thing I'm pleasantly surprised about is the heft of this thing. Significantly heavier than I thought and it seems to be incredibly well built.

For those of you who have already used it, any suggestions as I get ready to go in and try lenses? Should I limit my experimentation to 16mm lenses or should I check out 35mm's as well? Is there a significant quality difference between Century, Cooke, Zeiss and Angenieux lenses, either in primes or zooms? Has anyone tried the Canon PL mount digi-cinema lenses?

Yet another update:
Finally tried out 16mm and 35mm PL mount lenses on the JVC PL adaptor today. WOW. Everything I shot was just charts and my partner standing in front of them for DOF/FOV comparisons but what really surprised me is how bright everything was. I was expecting to lose a stop or two but I would suggest I was gaining a stop or two versus the stock 16x. The lenses weren't ridiculously fast either. Yes, they were primes and I'm sure that helps but absolute night and day performance. In light that I would normally agonize over gaining up to +3 or +6, I was shooting T8 or T5,6. In fact, I was able to dial in 1/4ND with the faster lenses to get even more shallow DOF. I cannot recommend this solution highly enough to anyone on the fence.

Yes you gain light, it's a law of physics (and optics) that "something's gotta give" when you optically change the size of the image. In the case of the HZ-CA13U it is taking an aerial image the size of 16mm frame and shrinking it to half of that size (1/3" CCD.) If you shrink it down that much the optical invariant says it has to be two stops brighter to balance. Full explanation here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/635500-post55.html) and here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/636277-post57.html).
Of course there is about 1/2 of a stop of light-loss due to diffraction and travel through the numerous optical elements, but the net gain is 1 and 1/2 stops of illumination.

Of course the optical invariant reveals a disadvantage as well. Since the maximum opening on the camera port is considered F/1.4, the optical invariant says that the maximum aperture on the entry side must be two stops smaller at F/2.8. This means that even if you are using high-speed primes that can open to T1.3 there is no depth of field or illumination advantage in opening past T2.8.

This means that even if you are using high-speed primes that can open to T1.3 there is no depth of field or illumination advantage in opening past T2.8.

And that would explain the lack of frame brightening during the first bit of iris on the T1.6 prime I tried. PS Prairies were absolutely fantastic and let me spend some quality time with S16 and 35mm lenses and explained when I would need 15mm rails for more sophisticated mounting, such as an Angenieux zoom or a ciné style follow focus.

Thanks again for everything Tim. Quick question: Where does one consider the focal plane to be for measuring focal distance (primarily so I can accurately set up back focus on the adaptor but also for more critical focus)? Coming from still photography, I looked for the circled-line but it does not exist on the adaptor.