Hi Everyone,

I'm finally preparing my first look article about the P+S Technik Mini 35 Adaptor that I just purchased. Fame and fortune right Chris? ;)

So here's where you come in - If you have any questions or thoughts, or experiences that you wouldn't mind me including in my write up please send them to me. Thanks.

justin@monsterrocket.com

Cheers,

Justin,

What lenses are you using with the rig?

I quess what I don't understand is way is there the need for the rotating class plane - because, I take it that Canon's lens adapter does not incorporate this type of technology - am I correct in that assumption?

And you lose about two stops of light, correct? Not that this should be an issue by any means though.

With my Zeiss super speed primes I think I'm losing 1, to a maximum of 1.5 stops. I still haven't gotten to do my battery of tests but that will be this weekend. Mizell at ZGC is sending a chart over so I can do some comparison testing.

I'll also do a gray card test and check exposure levels.

All these tests are pretty complicated and I'm probably going to get another XL1 to simplify the comparison tests.

Randall:
The mini35 uses a spinning glass plane so the grain of the ground glass doesn't show up on screen. The adapter glass has 3 settings, low, high and stopped. You can definitely see the grain of the glass when it's stopped. Most of the time the low setting is enough, but sometimes a higher speed is necessary if you're stopped down to T8 or more.

As for the Canon adapter, I believe it doesn't use ground glass.

Hi Justin,

I'm curious of frame grab comparisons between 4x3 and 16x9 settings in frame movie mode. I love the P+S Technik invention. It outsmarts all high end SD solutions but I have to produce in 16x9 (cropping degrades the image too much). I'm ordering the mini35digital but have not desided on the XL1 (with it's unusually low pixel resolution count) and the PD150. As i hear it the PD150 has a no good faux 16x9 setting (but on the other hand a higher pixel count). Since you would be shooting of an even smaller part of the ground glass in faux 16x9 I think this is a relevant issue.

Martin,

I can't give you the exact tech specs, but the reason for the XL1's apparently low pixel count is that the pixels are larger than those you'll find in similar cameras. This allows more light to enter the CCD block and also allows for the extended green colour space.

Thanks for the input, Adrian :-)

Do you know the purose of having a larger green space? What is it you are gaining by this technique?

I'm aware of the pixel shift technology but I don't quite follow on the "green space" thing. Does other CCDs have limited green space? And if so; why?

The original XL1 brochure had an explanation of extended green space. Mine is back in Australia, but some one might have one handy.

I seem to remember something about rendering richer sharper colours or truer colours, something along those lines.

Hi Justin,

I have a question. Since we all know the PD-150 does not have a removeable lens <g>, I kind of question the effectiveness the Mini35 would have on a PD-150, i.e., having the light go through a ARRI prime, via the relay optics, then through the Sony's on-body lens, before reaching the CCD, as compared to the XL-1 solution. Just a thought.

I may be wrong here, but I think the glass on a ARRI lens (or Zeiss or Angenieux) is part of the elusive film look most videographers are pursuing.

I dropped by my local rental house yesterday to take a closer look at the Mini 35. While I didn't run any tests, I did try it out for a while with my XL-1s, along with 50mm & 85mm primes, and a connection out to a field monitor. I was very surprised at the depth and density (for lack of a better word) of the image. I switched back to my standard IS II lens and the image just looked different. Bleah.

Again I may be wrong here, but I think that film lenses and video lenses simply render different images. Why is this so? Is it because of the glass, or something else? I'd like to hear the opinions of those here who have had extensive film experience.

I will be taking the Mini35 out for a test run sometime next week. Will post more details then.

Hey Justin,
After testing the Mini 35 on a couple of commercial shoots in the last week or so, I ordered one for my studio...it should arrive this week. I had a chance to work with Cooke and Zeiss Super Speed primes and found the Zeiss ideal (and about 35k less for a set). Everyone at my shop (mostly experienced with film work) that saw the footage thought it was shot on film. Mizzel is shipping me the system with a Nikon adapter so I can do some side by side comparisons with footage I shot with the adapter and cine's, and with a set of Nikon primes of maching focal length (AI-s 1.2's- 1.4's). I actually shot some comparison footage straight thru the 16X Canon under the same circumstances, so it should be interesting.
Personally I think the XL1 and Mini 35 setup has the potential of exceeding Super 16 (thanks to the 35 lenses and the XL1 in Frame), but certainly doesn't have the richness/detail of 35. That said, looking as good as it did after 5 days of shooting, It's only going to get better with use. Guy at ZGC has been a gas to work with in my research, and I'm looking forward to ongoing feedback both ways, especially if the Nikons work as well as they should (and have in limited tests). Sure, no follow focus, but what a cool way to pull together a run and gun "film" set up with 2k worth of new Nikon 35's.
I look forward to hearing more of your experience with the setup.
Jim, creative guy
The Imagination Company

To Claytonl:

I wonder if a certain amount of what you are noticing as a difference between the stock lens and the 35mm lenses has to do with the adaptor itself. Since the image is being relayed to a ground glass inbetween the lens and the body, it takes on different contrast characteristics. An interesting experiment would be to use the Mini-35 with a still lens adaptor and shoot some footage with a given lens...then use the Canon EOS adaptor and use a still lens from the same family but of a focal length that will deliver the same field of view (which means it would be 7.2x wider than the one on the Mini-35). So the major difference between the setups is that the image is going through the ground glass on one and directly onto the chips in the other, removing the variable of the lens itself as much as possible. That would be a good indicator of what the Mini-35 is adding to the image.

I'd like to know the breakdown of what the setup costs.
Just so I can decide which car I have to sell to get one. ;)

To Steadichupap:

For the sake of this discussion, let's discount the optical relay characteristics of the Mini 35 for now; indeed, I'm sure the ground glass in the Mini 35 modifies the resulting image on the CCD.

What I was trying to describe is this:

The image that one sees from the viewfinder of a 35mm SLR camera is immediately different to that as seen with a video camera. I could be barking up the wrong tree, but I'm very, very curious as to why lenses manufactured for motion picture (or even stills 35) renders images that are so different as compared to lenses for video.

The test you suggested, i.e., between the Mini 35 and the EF adaptor, is an interesting one. I shall try it out soon.

But back to my question: the image that one sees on a, say, Arri 435 viewfinder is the result of a purely optical process; light comes in thru the lens, and relayed to the viewfinder via the mirror shutter. That's fine, since the situation is essentially WYSIWYG, and that goes for a SLR camera too.

My confusion begins when I think about how a video camera forms an image; what one sees in the viewfinder is relayed from the CCD (and further prior, the lens). Since there is a limitation to the amount of detail a CCD can resolve, the image is somewhat lesser; is this correct?

Now bring the Mini 35 into the picture: the image is formed via light coming into a lens designed for 35mm motion picture photography and onto a ground glass. This is in turn relayed to the CCD. And as I've seen with my own eyes, the resulting image is *so* different. Exactly as though I'm looking thru the viewfinder of a SLR or an Arri. But considering that a video image is the result of the CCD, why is the image from a Mini 35 unaffected, even after being resolved by the CCD? Is this where the Mini 35's function of preserving a 35mm frame comes into play?

How is this possible? What are the characteristics of a motion picture lens (or, simply, lens for 35mm photography) that lets it resolve such an image? Construct? Type of glass? Or some optical principles that I've yet to grasped? Could it be that lenses for video and lenses for motion picture are generally the same, and that they would render similar images, type of medium notwithstanding? (A note here: the film image and the video image I'm trying to describe is that of one single frame, not motion. It's solely the lenses I'm asking about here, not the characteristics of motion picture in general.)

Lately I've been guessing that the physical size of a CCD, as versus the physical size of a 35mm frame, may have something to do with it. Any enlightenments?

This is a complex question. A couple of things to think about:

If you are working with a 16mm camera equipped with PL mount (say, an SR3), you can switch between lenses designed for the 16mm format and for the 35mm format without seeing a major difference between them. Presumably this would be the case with the Mini 35.

Some of Canon's Super 16 zooms were based on their broadcast 2/3" zooms (virtually identical target area). They were rehoused and some of the optics tweaked for the new format, but they are extremely similar.

Angeniux (I think) just came out with two new zooms, one built for 35mm and the other for 2/3" broadcast. They appear to be very similar from the pictures and information I have seen on them.

I have used the Panavised 24p camera with their lenses (which have double the resolution of their previous 35mm lens sets) and the unmodified 24p camera with a standard Fujinon lens. Not having shot tests running both cameras side by side, I can only say that the images shot with the broadcast lens were fairly comparable. The Panavision lenses are ultra sharp from corner to corner and offer great contrast, flare resistance etc., but the image is still a 24p image, i.e. the lenses did not transport the results into a whole new dimension.

My personal feeling is that the depth of field characteristic is providing much of the psychological effect of the Mini-35 system. (And I'm sure Justin will back me up on this!). It is such a different look than the "endless focus" of the DV format. After that, I remain convinced that the ground glass significantly alters the color and contrast. I wish I had the opportunity to perform the test I referred to earlier. If you get the chance to do it, please post the results so we can gaze at them!

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I'd like to know the breakdown of what the setup costs.>>>

If you go to the ZRG website: http://www.zgc.com/html/p_s_technik_mini_35_adapter.htm
you'll find the PS Technik price they list is about $6500. You'll need more stuff to make it work including extra battery, matte box, etc. My guess add another grand or two easily.

You need an XL1s camcorder "body," and battery(s) and whatever
extras you'd like . . . the CRT viewfinder etc. $3500-6000.

Lens (or a set of them) $10K-$100K. Maybe Justin Chin will
enlighten us as to his lens costs :)

However, once you have this stuff, your "film" cost is less than $5 per HOUR. Or in film terms, FREE! Can't afford the lens kit? You can rent them.

Is it film? No. For the investment cost and the cost of operation, is it the best value? Without a doubt. Most everyone who's seen the results is amazed.

Nothing that looks this good takes less money IMO, and until something
better comes along that I can *afford*, I will keep lusting for
a PS-tech/Zeiss/XL1s combo.

Hey guys, sorry for my lack of posting a response. I've been way too busy. I've been shooting every day for the last month. The mini25 has been switched on for a minimum 6 hours a day and lately 10 hours a day.

jacques.mersereau:
You don't NEED a matte box, but having one would greatly help eliminate lens flares. You should get something that fits the 15mm rails since they are a part of the mini35 package.

The mini35 itself will run you about $8200 depending on what lens mount you choose. The PL is the most expensive.

A used set of lenses will run you anywhere from 5k to 10k and up. These are used prices, the latest and greatest will run you at least 11k for each prime. Get the fastest lenses you can find. DO NOT BUY anything that is over T2 unless it's a zoom. Unless you have a few HMIs in your kit. The mini35 soaks up light like anybody's business, but the results are worth it.

Charles:
Yes, I'm a hound for DoF. Can you blame me? But I guess that's another thread... ;)

I should do the test you mention Charles, but there is not enough hours in the day. (I have a 6am call tomorrow, and a 1.5 hour drive to the set)

I'll post this link again (examples of my DP work):

http://www.firisproductions.com/aascreenshots/aass.htm

Martin M:
I saw your link for the music video you shot with the PD-150. Great stuff! I wouldn't use the PD-150 with the mini35, though. It would simply be a waste. Mainly because you must go through the 150's glass. It will just affect your image quality. It's better to keep as pure as possible. The XL1 allows that.

claytonl:
The glass for 35mm cine lenses are that much better than those of even broadcast video lenses. And again Charles probably right when he says that the DoF has an affect on how you're seeing things. It just looks more natural because that's how you're used to seeing 35mm film and photographs.

Again, this gets into that aesthetic debate over what is better, the crisp look of reality with video, or the DoF of 35mm film. To each his own. I've made my decision hands down, and I will not shoot any other way. As a DP and Director I love the image that a shallow DoF can create. To me that is part of the art form.

Justin,

we were going to use the mini35 and XL1 for my upcoming movie but one of our sponsors backed out and we had to tighten corners. That's why we are going with the PD150P solution. Our tests look great. Hopefully I get to use the mini35 on my next project. I'm also waiting to see what's coming up at P+S Technik. They have announced the mini35 on regular 2/3" ENG cameras and HD cameras. It would be great if you could put the adapter on a camera with a bigger CCD (and 16x9 CCD's).

In my opinion. Film is toast...

In regard to the discussion of the ultimate cost of the P&S/XL1 setup. We've just finished some extensive side by side comparison of a weeks worth of testing using a 30k set of Zeiss Super Speed cini primes and using the Nikon mount with the P&S and a set of Nikon still lenses. So far, the results of the Nikons are optically favorable to the Zeiss. The images are killer, absolutely no vignetting...even on longer focal length zooms. Crisp and warm at the same time.

Of course the real advantage with the Nikons (in addition to the enormous cost difference) is the speed for $. Satisfied that we'll get comparable results, I just ordered a full set of Nikons fastest fully manual primes for under 3k. This is really an amazing crossover technology, and Guy and Mizell at ZGC are great people to work with. I can't reccomend this system enough for producers looking to aquire film quality using the mini DV format. It certainly rivals super 16mm.

Where can I find more info about the Nikon mount P&S setup and Nikon lenses you got?
Thanks!

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Where can I find more info about the Nikon mount P&S setup and Nikon lenses you got?
Thanks! -->>>

Dylan,

Go to the following web site (a DVinfo.net sponsor):

http://www.zgc.com/index.htm

If you have further questions, you can call ZGC and ask for Mizel. I am sure he would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I seem to recall ZGC offering a CD with footage from this system.

Dylan asked:

<<Where can I find more info about the Nikon mount P&S setup and Nikon lenses you got?
Thanks!>>

Dylan, the Nikon mount is one of, I think, four that are offered witht he P&S. The system comes with their proprietary mount that can then accept any of the lens systems. The cost of the Nikon amount is $330...the PL mount is $175. I got both to test the optical performance of the Nikons. Being totally impressed, I'm keeping it as my primary sytem as well as the PL mount for the occaision where I may rent a set of cine primes...although at this point I don't see the advantage until I go to full matte box and follow focus assembly (and the strong urge to spend a mortgage on lenses).

Hey, by the way, Dylan meet Paul. Paul meet Dylan. Is it coincidental that you guys both got some of my Canon gear from my transition?

<<<-- Originally posted by imagine40 : Dylan asked:

<<Where can I find more info about the Nikon mount P&S setup and Nikon lenses you got?
Thanks!>>

Hey, by the way, Dylan meet Paul. Paul meet Dylan. Is it coincidental that you guys both got some of my Canon gear from my transition? -->>>

Jim,

I think that it was the alignment of the moon and stars. So you had more stuff for sale? I guess I should have asked!

<<So you had more stuff for sale? I guess I should have asked!>>

Just the 16x lens.

What up Paul? ;)

Anyway, of the available lenses/mounts for the P&L, do you think the Nikon would be the best choice in terms of bang for the buck? I see it has a Canon EF mount as well.

Oh, in case anyone won the lottery recently...
here's a set of 5 Arri PL lenses on Ebay for about $15k.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1373090901

<< of the available lenses/mounts for the P&L, do you think the Nikon would be the best choice in terms of bang for the buck? I see it has a Canon EF mount as well.>>

In my dialogue with Guy (Guru of the P&S) as well as Mizell, we determined that there were some abberation/vignetting with the Canon glass that had been encountered and that Nikon lenses were in fact optically equivilent to the big buck cine primes. The box just arrived with my Nikon 24mm, 35, 50 and 85. 1.2 to 1.4s, which even given the difference of T vs F stop...should be as fast as the Zeiss Super Speeds I shot with. I'm heading back to the farm to start shooting with these bad boys. This really is fun.

Then Dylan wrote:

<<in case anyone won the lottery recently...
here's a set of 5 Arri PL lenses on Ebay for about $15k.>>

I'm so glad I tested the Nikons, because this was the range I was hoping to find a reasonable set of primes for. I feel better now, although that's a good price depending on the glass (I haven't checked them out yet), and eventually....

Would you happen to have a link to where I can check out more about the Nikon lenses?

Thanks!

Hi imagine (what can we call you, mate?)

I'm very curious to hear how you get along working with those still lenses in terms of physically pulling focus etc. Also wondering if you will experience breathing (image magnification when focusing). Please let us know how it works out.

<<Hi imagine (what can we call you, mate?)>>

Hi Charles...I'm Jim Giberti from the Imagination Company. If I knew how to change my set up I'd become public ;)

<<I'm very curious to hear how you get along working with those still lenses in terms of physically pulling focus etc. Also wondering if you will experience breathing (image magnification when focusing). Please let us know how it works out.>>

Obviously there are some physical compromises between a Nikon and Cooke S4, but keeping this whole thing within the realm of $$ reality for day to day usage is where the Nikon thing is great. Not having the barrels marked like a cine prime and not having a focus ring that will handle a follow focus are the issues...but like anything else, you work around them and accept tha you don't have the full range of film aquisition with the system. A major issue was upgrading to the B&W CRT viewfinder at the same time as the P&S. There's no way that the existing color VF can resolve detail necessary pull good focus (especially with longer lenses) and the associated depth of focus issues inherent with the shallow DOF availabl witht his system and the lenses.

So far no breathing that I've noticed, but I won't get a chance to really work with them untl this weekend when I plan to shoot a lot of tests.

Jim, I've changed your user name to Jim Giberti. Hope this helps,

so heres a new person question, but when you blow up DV to film to be shown on the "silver screen", it doesnt look so hot, but with the mini 35 would it look good?

<<Jim, I've changed your user name to Jim Giberti. Hope this helps>>

Thanks Chris...uh, about that "new boot" thing.

Riley,

standard video resololution will always be what it is. Even if you shot it with better lenses. The difference in resolution quality will be minimal when blowing up to film. Good lenses has a tendency to provide a slightly sharper image but you don't get away from the fact that you are aquiring on DV tapes in 5:1 compression 4:1:1 color space.

Using better lenses and concentrating on lighting will ad artistic value -- not image resolution.

thank you! thats what i thought, but i just had to make sure!

<<Using better lenses and concentrating on lighting will ad artistic value -- not image resolution.>>

Well, yes and no. Better glass will definitely produce a higher resolution than what most people experience with their XL configuration (assuming most people are using the stock 16x Canon lens). To see proof of this, visit Scott Billups' pixelmonger.com and look at his test chart comparisons of different cameras: specifically the difference between the stock XL1 and the XL1 with the Fujinon 14x multicoated lens with the B&W CRT VF setup.

Perhaps it would be better to say that the XL is not capable of displaying the resolution that the 35mm lenses can produce...but that's different than saying that the 35mm glass simply provides an artistic value. The images are of a superior quality with the higher end glass and viewfinder capable of getting the maximum focus those lenses produce.

Justin/Martin/Other owners & renters:

Upon following this thread I've been doing some more poking around the web on the Mini35. I finally found some reasonably close-up pix of it which brought up a couple of questions:

There looks to be a numbered barrel that connects the Mini35 to the XL1 body. What are the numbers about/for? (Is this also used when using with 'lensed' camera like PD150?)

It also looks like there is some sort of cable coming out of the lower rear of the unit. Is this for power? Does it draw from the camera battery or does it have its own? (Does it take a heavy toll on battery?)

Lastly, with the spinning element (ground glass) does the unit generate any noticable noise or camera movement?

Thanks in advance for any additional info - and thanks to everyone sharing their insights!

Clayton

<<There looks to be a numbered barrel that connects the Mini35 to the XL1 body. What are the numbers about/for?>>

This is the iris on the P&S. It allows you to use the optics of your lens to form the 35mm image on the ground glass. The relay iris on the P&S sends that image to the Canon.

<< (Is this also used when using with 'lensed' camera like PD150?)>>

I honestly don't know how they work around that glass.

<<It also looks like there is some sort of cable coming out of the lower rear of the unit. Is this for power? Does it draw from the camera battery or does it have its own?>>

Yes...that cable comes from the battery plate on the back of the rods and it runs off a standard Canon battery (like the Nebtek 5" color monitor attached to my XL which is cool) The P&S needs power to run the motor that spins the ground glass. It doesn't draw much...you could probably run for 2- 3 days of shooting on a single charge. Also, if your lenses are open 5.6 and below, you usually don't need to spin the glass (especially at shorter focal lengths).

The other thing with my setup is that the B&W viewfinder requires a battery to run the CRT, so I end up with a battery on the Canon. the Nebtek 5", the P&S and the viewfinder. Fortunately the B&W comes wth an adapter that allows the XL1 power supply to run both units. Also, P&S developed a seperate system to accomodate the B&W viewfinder system that moves the battery around, along with the VF itself and combines the Mini 35 power and the VF power.


<<Lastly, with the spinning element (ground glass) does the unit generate any noticable noise or camera movement?>>

You definitely wouldn't want to use the on-camera mic for audio. It's pretty unoticeable to the naked ear, but there's a hum that comes through to the mic.

Just to add, on a shoot where you're going to the effort and expense of using the P+S Technik adapter, most likely you're going to do your sound the *right* way and get the audio from anywhere else other than on the camera itself. So the sound from the camera shouldn't be an issue on a serious shoot.

ClaytonF:
The relay iris you mention also allows you to slow down the image without affecting DoF. This is a great feature since you can avoid the use of ND glass in front of the lens.

As for the PD150, I believe it just sends the image through the 150's lens set up.

Jim:
Shooting at 5.6 is tricky. I've done that and have then seen the ground glass spinning on the image. Not a good thing. I basically shoot wide open. Then there is no chance of seeing the glass.

<<<-- Originally posted by Justin Chin : I basically shoot wide open. Then there is no chance of seeing the glass. -->>>

Wide open on the attached lens or the rear P+S lens? (I would assume you mean the attached lens, right?)

Do you feel that you lose any quality shooting at this end of the lens? (Going by the rule of thumb that most lenses work best in the middle range of the f-stops...) But then again maybe this is negligible due to using a high end lens anyway and the DV recording format.

The catch would be if you *have* to shoot wide open in order to not see the ground glass - is this what you're saying?

Just curious - thanks for sharing your experiences,
Clayton

<<Jim:
Shooting at 5.6 is tricky. I've done that and have then seen the ground glass spinning on the image. Not a good thing. I basically shoot wide open. Then there is no chance of seeing the glass.>>

Hey Justin...absolutely, especially with a longer lens. The spinning glass is most noticeable on certain backgrounds at maybe 85mm and up in my experience. It's nice to get the lens in it's sweet spot (f4 - f5.6) if you can, but you're right, I've found myself shooting most stuff wide open or f2-f3ish. Also, the P&S eats a couple of stops, so you're not technically wide open anyway (which is why 5.6 is questionable). That said. P&S and ZGC state that shooting 5.6 and below shouldn't require spinning the glass at all.

By the way, wonderful images I've seen of your work. How can I see the finished project?

Hi, I'm trying to participate in this forum, I learned so much here that is only correct if I become somehoww also active. I do have a XL1, XL1s and the mini35. The last I bought mostly based on the good reaction it had here in this forum.
I live in Italy but study now in the NewYork Filmcademy in LosAngeles. For my tesis film I wanted to use the mini35.

I did yesterday my first tests (Zeiss prime lenses and Cooke zoom 20-100), and I was more then confused. I noticed the spinning groundglas down till halfway between F-stop 2.8 and 4.

Did somebody had similar problems?
Thanks Istvan

<<I did yesterday my first tests (Zeiss prime lenses and Cooke zoom 20-100), and I was more then confused. I noticed the spinning groundglas down till halfway between F-stop 2.8 and 4.
>>

Hey Istvan,

<<I did yesterday my first tests (Zeiss prime lenses and Cooke zoom 20-100), and I was more then confused. I noticed the spinning groundglas down till halfway between F-stop 2.8 and 4.
>>

Hey Istvan,
Let's try that again. What focal length were you shooting at when you saw the glass...was it with the Cooke zoom? What was the subject? IF it was a well lit scene, did you shoot it ith the motor off? You shouldn't have to use the motor on a good deal of your shooting.

I'm about to get my first "off day" from a pretty intensive edit crunch in the studio, and I plan on shooting a bunch of footage around the farm the next 2 days. But here's a quick example. I was heading out yesterday around sunset sun had dropped behind the mountain...low diffused light). There were 2 foals in pasture that inspired me to run back to the house and throw the P&S on my shuolder. It had the 85mm f/1.4 on it. I shot about 15 minutes of them close and far, against a pasture background and got no noticeable grain with the motor off and no spinning when I tested with it on. I shot everything open due to the fairly low light.

If you don't have the motor on and you pan or tilt, you'll see grain, with any focal length. I NEVER shut the motor off, because of the noticeable grain in the ground glass. It's like shooting through a dirty lens.

Well to the questions:
I used the fast Zeiss Prime set 1.3, the following lenses 18, 35,50 and 85, then I used the Cooke Zoom 20-100, I think 3.1. (It cost me a lot of money this test)

I always use the motor on "fast", otherwise I would always see the groundglass on the image.

I did two basic test,
- on set: it was the Western in the Universal Envirment, where I had nice textures of the "old" wood cowboy buildings, so I could quickly see where the spinnig is coming up. Ovviously there because of the limitations of the color viewfinder I saw the spinning only on higher F stop numbers.

- morally totaly depressed I retried a test with the technical people from the rentalhouse. I hoped that they could be more experienced then I was and would find that I did something wrong. (They didn't any experience before with the mini35, but where very competent)

We set up a simple situation: a yellow shippingbox on which was positioned a tube of big white paper. It was lit with 1 light (I think not more then 500W) from the side. The tube is good because you can see quickly where is overexposed also without the zebra-pattern

The frame we took was in a way that the tube crossed the center of the picture in a diagonal way.

The test was done with a fast Zeiss 50, 1.3, the controll was on a Sony Studiomonitor (I don't know the type, but it was one of those I would wish to have)

The XL1s is a PAL version, the GAIN I brought down to -3 (which reduces the visibility of spinning effect). Then we started to change and look what happens with the different balanceing between the lens openings and the relay openings. The spinning effect started around 2.8 1/ 3 and we could do nothing to improve the quality.

I retried the test also with the 18 mm lens, and I think it looked a little bit better, it seemed that the effect came here up only at 2.8 1/2 but to be honest I was too depressed to investigate further on.

Meanwhile I called P+S Technik (I bought the equipment in Italy) and they said that this should not happen, that maybe for some reason my groundglass is spinning too slowly so I'll send them the equipment for a check.

I really hope that it is the speed of the groundglass, because the images are otherwise really superb!!!!!!! So I beg everybody who DOESN'T have this problems to tell it, to encourage me, because I love this product.

Istvan

Hi Stevettt,

This is basically what I experienced. If P+S thinks that this shouldn't be happening then I have this fault as well. I keep my lenses at T1.4 anyway. That's just what I like to do. Yes, I'm screwed up that way. I do a lot of things that DP's don't normally do... ;)

Anyway, I'm going to talk to ZGC about some of this stuff. Please follow up on your end as well and we'll compare notes.

Hi Justin,
well I'm very sorry to hear that you have the same experience, I hoped that only mine was like that.

I just looked in the American Cinemat. Manual what happens to the depth of field with a 85 mm lens at T1.4 on 6' distance: it would be sharp from 5'11" to 6'2", which means on a CU I would have to decide which eye to put sharp, left or right? Well Kurbrick did once a movie where every actor was not allowed to move, why shouldn't I learn to do it?

Anyway I'll post any news I'll have. Ah one very important thing: the people at P+S are very friendly and helpful, so if there are solutions, they will work on it to find it, I'm positive on that.
Istvan

Hmmm, I'm shooting a short film using the Mini 35. With the motor spinning on its highest setting, my DP and I don't see anymore grain.

We're using Cooke lenses: 14mm, 21mm & 40mm and an XL1 PAL with the frame rate at 25-interlaced fps.

The image is beautiful.

Thanks Victor,
wouw so there is hope!!! I'm really glad to hear it!
Just two more questions:
- do you controll it on an external monitor?
- till what F-stop can you close down the 40mm lens till so start to see the spinning in the center of the frame?

Thanks indeed
Istvan