Has anyone out there in Digital Video land used the Mini 35 with anamorphic primes? If so how did you decompress the image? Would this be an after effects thing? Also How would the image look?

I.E. if I took some 2.35 superspeed primes and tossed them on a mini 35 shot some stuff on my pal XL1 and then tried to import it all into my computer would I go insane trying to get the picture to look right? Or would I be ok would it be jsut a huge waste of money?

Anyone? Bueller?

Nick,

Anamorphic lenses have been very succesfully utilized on the Mini35.

If you have the Demo DVD or CD, Projekt Mini35 was shot with the Hawk V series anamorphics. This cinematographer has used anamorphics on all of his productions and the footage is always spectacular.

As far as I understand it, any of the current DNLE systems will do an unsqueeze for you on import.

mizell

Hi Nick,

Anamorphic has a great look to it, but be advised that there are some hardships involved!

The lenses are generally quite large. Depends on which manufacturer you select: the Hawks are great modern lenses, but are going to cost more as a rental item. There are some oddball Russian anamorphics out there also. There really isn't a "superspeed Anamorphic", superspeeds are nominally Zeiss, and they don't make anamorphics. In fact, most anamorphics are on the slow side exposure-wise, something to keep in mind.

Another factor is the decreased depth of field. Everyone using the Mini 35 loves how shallow you can make it, but you are looking at half the depth of field of spherical 35mm, and that means serious attention to focus is required. Plan to be using an experienced focus puller, or plan to have a lot of soft shots! I just shot a PSA with the Mini 35 and spherical lenses, and even with a great focus puller who works in 35 all the time, some shots required multiple takes for focus reasons.

Also, be aware that you will be composing with a squeezed image, which is disconcerting.

So why shoot anamorphic? It has a unique look all its own--there's a cool distortion as things go out of focus in the background, especially highlights which tend to go oval. Flares look great also, sending horizontal streaks across the frame.

hey guys,

quick note on shooting with Anamorphic lenses.

Charles is astute in mentioning the composition issue. It is very true that using the lenses on a Mini35 will result in a squeezed image in the viewfinder.

I've met a couple of people of who claim they love, and have mastered, composing in a squeezed image. I tend to just bow slightly at these guys and commend them on a tough job well done :)

Most others don't like this, so what are the options?

2 that I know of. The first is that if you output the video to a 16x9 monitor then you will get only a semi-squeezed image, as compared to the viewfinder, which will at least give you a more recognizable aspect ratio and aid in composing. The second option is more expensive, but if you have the money to rent the anamorphics, then you prolly have the cash to rent one of these. Transvideo makes a box that you install in-line between your video output and your monitor. It will take any aspect ratio and unsqueeze and letterbox it automatically on your screen so that you can see the true image.

BTW - Besides Hawk and the Russian anamorphics, of note are the availability of anamorphic leses from Panavision (and the Panavision mount for the Mini35 at $180).

great weekend all,

mizell

Yup, I didn't mention the Panavision lenses; actually I was unaware that the Mini 35 had the option of a Panavision mount. Thanks Mizell!

FYI, if you go this route: the anamorphic Primos are beautiful, but massive (some get up around 10 lbs)!. This can cause a strain on the lens mount, some of them allow for a lens support but not all. Other options are the E series and C series. The C's are the lightest. You'll get more funkiness and flares with these older lenses, but that may be part of the look you are going for!

Nick, seeing as you are local (I'm just next door in Los Feliz, howdy!), I have an 8" Sony monitor that has been modified to unsqueeze an anamorphic image. We could talk about a rental if you were interested, carried insurance etc.

Rick Fontanez of Emerge media (rfontanez@emergemedia.com) loves the Panavision lenses. I'm not sure if he's shot with the Anamorphic lenses, but I don't think he's ever used his PL mount either :) If you have the right connections at your local Panavision you can get some great deals.

He was also talking to me yesterday about prolly posting his current unit for sale here at dvinfo.net in expectation of his purchase of a PRO35 so if either of you are looking for a deal, keep your eyes out for his post.

Have a great weekend guys,

mizell

Hey thanks everyone for the advice.

Charles what kind of mod do you have to your monitor, I've got an 8" that does 16:9 do you have an even more accurate conversion?

LUcky for me I work for a rental house so I'm trying to find out if they can get me a mini 35 to demo. (keep your fingers crossed for me) Also does anyone in the L.A. area know of a place besides birns that rents the mini 35? I know of a few places that rent the 35 pro -which I hear is a waste of money- but the only place I could find that rents the mini 35 was birns and they're a little steep.

Hi Nick:

We rented the Mini35 at Birns but only after trying several other places. I think we were originally going to get it at Keslow Camera if I recall? I can get you more information when I talk to the production manager this week if you like.

What have you heard negatively about the Pro 35? I've been hearing good things.

I had Videorama on Cole Ave. put in a switch at the back of my 8" monitor that, in conjunction with the 16:9 squeeze, squeezes the image additional to 2:35. Give them a call at 323 466 7232 and ask about the anamorphic mod.

Which rental house do you work at?

I'm over at Sim Video off melrose.

What I've heard about the pro 35 is that when used in conjunction with an HD cam (we have the sony f900/3) you're forcing yourself to use lenses that aren't as good. I.E. take your pick from any lens on the market currently and put it on the prop 35 now compare that image (and lens) to the zeiss digiprimes. The image on those primes is SUPPOSEDLY better then any thing else you could try and get. The other down side is the f-stop loss and the noise that the pro 35 spits out. Both of those are acceptable (for me) on a mini dv cam but when you start getting into HD you should demand better quality. The pro 35 also makes doing shoulder mounted shooting a big pain. At least this is what I've heard.

I've also discovered that the only people that I could find renting the pro 35 only have 35mm lenses and aren't as likely to carry HD lenses.

Hmmm.

I can't bring myself to believe that the Zeiss Digiprimes are better than any other lens on the planet, especially the Cooke S4's or Panavision Primos. I CAN believe that the Pro35 will affect the resolution and image quality, since you are shooting a projected image off a ground glass, not that desirable a concept. I agree that this is acceptable for DV but may be an issue for HD. I've seen the system at trade shows but haven't had a chance to use it in the field. Personally, I find the sharpness and pristine quality of HD to be a little too intense, so I'm not ruling out that a little grit might be good for it...!

<<I've also discovered that the only people that I could find renting the pro 35 only have 35mm lenses and aren't as likely to carry HD lenses.>>

But you wouldn't put an HD lens on the Pro 35--the target size would be wrong.

<But you wouldn't put an HD lens on the Pro 35--the target size would be wrong>

Yeah totally, I'm sorry what I meant was it seemed TO ME that a lot of the places that rent out the pro 35 tout it's abilities because it beats buying a set of good primes or even some HD zooms. I definitly understand what you're sayinf about sharpness, I've heard that a 1/4 promist will have the same effect as shooting on the ground glass (softening) with out the stop loss.

I also have never used one these are just stories I hear at work when people come into rent.

<I can't bring myself to believe that the Zeiss Digiprimes are better than any other lens on the planet, especially the Cooke S4's or Panavision Primos.>

P.S. IT was difficult for me to believe to but if you get a chance to compare the cooke's with the digiprimes (perhaps I will) then we can put it to rest.

Good Morning Nick,

The full list of participating rental houses is available at our website. In LA right now it's Birns, Keslow, Camtec, and Otto Nemenz. Be advised that Otto's units are modified and while are excellent devices, don't truly represent the current state of Mini35 technology. One of his mods is a frame line generator which people really seem to like.

As fas as the PRO35 and DigiPrimes go. The DigiPrimes represent prolly the best glass ever manufactured directly for the video (HD) world. They are wonderful lenses and are sharp as hell. The reality is that they are too sharp, especially for the already harsh realm of video. This is exampled in our soon to be released PRO35 comparison DVD. The DigiPrimes showed flaws in the set unlike anything we've ever seen before...but who wants to see the flaws. Something that the Mini35 and PRO35 brings back to video is the filmic ability to fudge sets i.e. they don't have to be hyperrealistic as they do for an HD shoot.

What the DVD helps to show is that, as far as an audience is concerned, it's really the aesthetic you achieve rather then how sharp you are. If you put the PRO35 with a Cooke S4 (or any Zeiss prime for that matter) through standard lens testing it fails, especially when compared to the DigiPrimes. But guess what...so do Anamorphic lenses and I've yet to see an audience complain about their widescreen presentation at a movie theater.

There is a minor resolution loss when capturing the image through the PRO35, but the filmic lenses were designed to resolve an image much greater then video lenses so the playing field is relatively level.

I will post a notice here at dvinfo.net when the PRO35 DVDs are available. If either of you would like to drop me a line at mizell@zgc.com with your postal addresses I can send you a copy of an excellent piece shot with the PRO35 and Varicam.

Mizell

ooppss, Nick posted before I could, now I've got to write a second...

Nick, you're are correct to a point. One of the biggest benefits the PRO35 provides to FILM rental houses is that they are able to take advantage of moving to HD without giving up the 100s of thousands of dollars they already have invested in film glass.

Even with video rental houses, the trick is to always make sure your inventory is going to be making money for you.

The best example is this:

The original set of 6 DigiPrimes retailed for $120,000. Once purchased, these lenses can only be used for HD (or SD of course). For the same price, I can sell the rental house the PRO35 with 7 Cooke S4's. Once the rental house owns the Cookes, they can rent them with their video cameras, their film cameras (if they have them), and if need be, Cookes can be sub-rented out across the country and around the world. So if we look strictly at ROI, the PRO35 with a set of films lenses makes more sense.

mizell

I'm not one to make definitive statements about the future (e.g. "Film is Dead!") but it seems more than likely that the 2/3" chip size as seen in most of the current HD cameras will not last long. Already there are high end HD systems that use a chip with the same target as a 35mm gate, so the existing lenses will be interchangeable. This is only logical and solves many problems. Chances are the 2/3" cameras will be around for a while as the digital equivalent of 16mm (low budget and series work) but I don't see the lens manufacturers pouring a lot more R&D into that format.

Charles,

It's an interesting sub-topic. As I understand it the "video" industry is working towards 1" chips, which technically is not the same as the Acad35 taking frame...close, but no cigar.

That being said, the Dalsa Origin is a new digital cinema camera that is in the pipe that does have the full size frame (actually larger) and will take PL lenses natively. It is single chip though. This will be a high end camera i.e. expensive!!!!

In general, from conversations I've had, the 2/3" isn't going to go away so quickly. From discussions with Canon, on why they haven't done 24p 16x9 yet, it seems that all the issues with syncing 3 chips together becomes exponentially harder as the chip size grows and you want it do more things i.e. the aforementioned 24p 16x9. That's why we have multi-mega pixel single-chip cameras and no multi-mega pixel 3 chip cameras.

So while they are working on larger chip cameras, they are, for the moment, going to be specialized and rather expensive beasts.

There is a new technology in the pipe, CMOS I believe, that is intended to replace CCDs but can do more in the same space, so as these chips become readily available I think we'll see cameras with larger and larger chips.

Mizell

Mizell thanks for entering into the discussion, I do feel like a hypocrite talking all of this up without having used the pro 35 first hand.

I have definitely heard that HD is so sharp it's almost unforgiving, but that's where I believe that using filters (both in production and post) come into play. I have heard of the Dalsa cam and some of my coworkers have seen it first hand (ooh ahh) I think the downsde to it was that it was a collossol piece of equipment, The funny thing was in order to actually view it you have to downconvert everything. But that's off topic.

I think i see where you're going with the advantages of a pl mount, but I don't know enough about the future of HD cameras and ccd chips to contribute to it. And I was trying to make that same point as far as the pro 35 is concerned that your older film based rental houses have everything to gain in renting out the pro 35 where as the ones that are more video based -like us, sim video located convinently across the street from paramount;), would be more likely to carry the hd lenses. I think that the pro 35 provides a much needed bridge into hd for people who are used to shooting 35 and just can't imagine using anything but the old cooke primes they had grown so fonf of. But I still believe with a 1/4 promist in front of an HD lens you'll have a softer more forgiving image if that is in fact what you're looking for.

As far as rental houses making money, the people at birns I was talking to said they've been renting the mini35 non stop for the past few weeks., at 900 bucks a week it seems like that might be a good investment!

and one more thing, would somebody(like myself) be able to achieve as shallow a depth of field with a pl mount adapter and some primes as he or she would with a mini 35? Or is there just something about that marvelous ground glass that brings out the depth in the lenses? Forgive me if this is a stupid question.

Nick,

Please forgive me, but I feel like you have been fed information and opinions from people who are invested into a single technology and are predjudiced against another. This happens both directions: there are plenty of film folk ready to embrace negative mythology about HD, and HD people who see anything film-related as hopelessly old fashioned.

The Cookes are not "old". They are maybe five years old in general release. They are fantastic, modern lenses.

The PRO35 is not merely a stepping stone to keep the "film people" happy, it's a conduit to allow every cinematographer to use decades of available lens technology regardless of their shooting platform. Cinematography is not just about using the newest, sharpest glass, or even the highest resolution. It's about finding the right tool for the job, the best brush for the canvas. That may mean 30 year old lenses with the coatings stripped off to allow for amazing, organic flares that would be hard if not impossible to create in post. Or it might mean using a snorkel lens, or swing-and-tilts, or a mesmerizer, or anamorphics as you originally posted about. Most of these things will never be built specifically for a 2/3" HD camera, and even if they were mechanically adapted, the field of view would change.

Speaking of which, and regarding the depth of field issue--with the 7.2 focal length magnification in DV, it's a wrestling match. The ground glass is not what creates the depth of field, it's the target size and corresponding field of view of a given lens. You have to use a wider lens to get the same field of view (same image size) on the much smaller DV imager, and wider lenses inherently have greater depth of field.

So (I know this is confusing), using the exact same lens on a PL mount adaptor as well as the mini35 will deliver the same depth of field, but a much different image size. A 50mm lens on the mini 35 will deliver a "normal" field of view, which will magnify 7.2x with the PL mount adaptor, simulating the field of view of a 360mm telephoto lens. You'd have to use a 7mm lens on that PL mount to get you back to the field of view of the 50mm on the mini35 (whew!), which would be a near-fisheye.

Charles I appreciate your reply, I definitly think taht I've been fed one sided information, but everyones opinion is going to be slightly biased. I didn't ean to discredit film lenses or film at all. As it is I think it would be great to shoot on film, unfortunately I don't really see that in my future. That doesn't mean film is better or worse then HD, at least not to me.

I think as far as lenses are concerned that the zeiss ones are really freaking awesome, perhaps as Mizell pointed out a little too awsome, I think this is a good problem too have as I think it's much better then the opposite. Of course this is again my opinion, I believe that these ae both comparable in price, personally I'd rather rent a set of digiprimes and some softening filters over a set of (old, well at least relative to me, though since the world doesn't revolve around me-yet- I should say newer) cooke primes and a pro 35, of course this is only dude to the type of lok I typically go for. Don't get me wrong obviously some people really like the pro35 and perhaps if I see it up close and personal then i'll like it to, but until thaty day comes I'm jsut going to go off what I've heard from teh folks that've used it.

That being said I'm still slightly confused about depth of field. I'm often confused about it though so it's not to big a deal. I finally am beginning to understand why the ef adapter gives me a magnified lens, does the p+s effectively reduce this? I thought that pl mount would magnify the lens by a less extreme number. I think as soon as I get my hands on a mini 35 I'll be able to answer a lot of my questions, in addition to trying to establish a some what accurate asa, I've wanted to try something like that for a while so maybe it'll be a cool thing to try.

Finally does anyone know a good place to get a cheap PAL version fu1000?

so.....two of the most difficult questions to answer without diagrams.....and i'm sure it's been covered somewhere here at dvinfo but I'll give it a quick shot. I do know that there is a post that goes super technical into depth of field but I'll try a simpler answer.

first off...angle of view:

Focal length is focal length is focal length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what format it's placed on. What we have to consider, and the current subject, is the relative angle of view of that lens as interpreted by the taking format.

Now you will hear people talk about a 50mm for 35mm and a 50mm for 16/S16. They are both 50mm lenses, there is just a "shortcut" taken in the S16 lenses to make them smaller.

So try this exercise. Draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Now draw the biggest, approx 1:1.85, rectangle you can without breaching the borders of the circle. This represents the image circle of our imaginary lens with the rectangle representing the 35mm film frame. Go ahead and compose a shot i.e. draw a subject matter. I tend to use just a stick figure or a stock person in powerpoint. Once you have your shot composed, in my case it tends to be a person shot from waist up with their face in the center, draw in a smaller rectangle, approx. 7.2x smaller then the original rectangle, centered on the circle. This represents our 1/3 CCD. As you can see, the composition within the smaller rectangle is vastly different. In my slides we go from a medium shot to a close up of the face.

The image circle of a lens remains constant no matter what format it's put on so as we can see from our example, if a 50mm lens was put on an Arri 35 and put at a given distance we get one composition but if we took that same lens at the same position but used a mechanical adpater on an XL1s we would get a vastly different composition, having to either move the camera back or switch lenses to get the same frame as that of the original camera. This represents the "conversion factor" that everyone talks about.

second off...Depth of Field:

There are many factors that control depth of field and much physics and mathmatics involved. I think it can be agreed that most of us got into film to avoid those two subjects :) so the easiest thing to say is that the greatest factor in creating a shallow depth of field is the size of taking frame.

It's not impossible to create a shallow depth of field with the XL1s or other 1/3" CCD camera, it's just so difficult to do so that you've often degraded your image significantly once you've done so.

The 35mm frame is so large, compared to other formats, that it's quite simple to create a shallow depth of field and in many cases (Charles can verify this) you're often doing something to increase the depth of field in 35mm.

Where the Mini35 comes into play is that it is an optical adapter rather then a mechanical adapter. The ground glass is placed at the film plane so that the lenses are throwing their image circle onto a true 35mm frame size, and then optical transferred and reduced to the 1/3" CCD (or 2/3" in the case of the PRO35). This allows us to maintain all the 35mm filmic characteristics of the given lens, including the angle of view and the corresponding DoF.

So, now that I've written that epic post I'm not sure if I answered all the questions that are on the table. We can start here and move forward :)

ps...used will be only place to get a PAL FU-1000 cheap. I can get them for you out of England, but they are the same price as the NTSC.

Nice explanation Mizell!

Mizell that was an excellent description, of how the 35 works, and cleared up all the thigns I was asking.

As far as the fu1000 I'm not to worried about getting it used (I kinda figured I'd have to) but I would like for it to be in good shape. Short of that I think I have nothing else to add.

Oh off the top of your head does anyone know what the fastest anamorphic primes available are? Would we be talking soemthing like T4 or T2.3 I don't have nearly enough light as it is and I want to see how much more I would need to look into getting. Also does anyone know of anyscreen samples available of the mini 35 with anamorphic lenses? I want to get the sample DVD I'm just in the midst of moving ad don't know where the shiping address is going to be.

Thanks
nick

Nick,

You can see web examples of the Mini35 demo here on dvinfo.net at http://www.dvinfo.net/media/mini35/

Projekt Mini35 was shot with Hawk V series anamorphics. These anamorphics are T2.2 through 100mm, T3 for 135,180, and 250mm and T4.2 for the 350mm. You'd have to check Panavision's website for their anamorphics, or Charles might know off the top of his head.

I could always send the Mini35 DVD to you at work. Drop me the address to mizell@zgc.com if you'd like. I'm in the middle of burning new copies so you'd get it some time next week.

mizell

The Primo Anamorphics, which list for $135 a day each, are T2's. There is a high speed series which range from 1.4 to 1.8, but I've never used them myself--they are more like $92 a day. There are other series like the C's and E's which are slower.

You guys are talking so easily about T2's, T3, slower, faster...
That's really hard to follow in my brain. I'm just not used to
thinking in those ways. Especially the slower/faster thing with
lenses. I need to network more! <g>

T-stops can be thought of as another way to say f-stops. T-stops are an accurate calculation of the lens's actual light transmission factor, so a T2 lens transmits light at the rate you'd *expect* an F/2 lens to do so. (f/stops are the actual mathematical ratio of aperture to focal length, but t/stops take into account light losses within the lens itself; t-stops are always the same or slower than their corresponding f-stops).

"faster" means able to admit more light, "slower" means not so capable. So a T2 lens is "faster" than a T3.

Thanks Barry!