Hi, I've read through most of the threads on the P+S forum and a lot of people seem to be using the XL1S (PAL and NTSC) with the P+S adapter. I'm a little concerned with this because I've already got a GL1 and basically the GL1, 2, and XL1/S share the same video quality, except for the slight differences in color and low light sensitivity, and I'm already used to that look. But nobody seems to be using any of the newer cameras that have come out from Sony, Panasonic, and JVC (PD170, DVX100A, and HD10U respectively). I'm wanting to get a new camera to make short films for blow up (in other words, I want to be able to show these movies in theaters) and I want one that is supported by the P+S 35mm adapter, but these newer cameras have better features and supposedly sharper quality when compared to the XL1S. So if I were to invest in a any of these other cameras (although I have yet to see what cameras will be announced in April and May) and a P+S 35mm adapter, would I be getting the same or better image quality than the XL1S and P+S adapter combo?

Basically, if I got the DVX100A, PD170, or HD10U(which isn't yet supported), what would be the difference?

An argument for Frame mode is unnecessary as it isn't good for theatre blow up according to my vast research into the subject.

Hi Jack,

There is one fundamental difference between the XL1s and the other DV cameras; the lens is removable on the XL1s. This has the advantage to give a better optical control of the image between the adapter and the camera. The professional viewfinder, be it color or back & white, can be detached from the XL1s camera and properly mounted for handheld use. This makes this camera the most versatile when it come to using the P+S Mini 35 adapter. The last version of the adapter has been redesigned to be used not only with the Xl1s but also with the Sony VX2000, PD150 and the Panasonic DVX 100A by assembling it with the proper kit. In the case of the later cameras, there is a specific optical relay mounted in the front of the existing camera lens. Each of these relays is designed to transmit the best possible quality thorough the lens of the cameras. However in these cases, the viewfinder at the back of the cameras makes it impractical to handhold the adapter. These combinations are best in the case of studio work with a tripod or a dolly.
So far I have indirect information about the Sony PD170. As far I was told it is physically the same as the PD 150 so it can be assembled with the same kit on the adapter and it has the same viewfinder limitation as the PD150.

Well, that's all fine and everything, but I'm talking about footage quality. Sure, it may be easier to pop the adapter on and off of an XL1S but what about the image quality on other cameras?

That's a tough one to know the real answer to. I had the opportunity to use the mini35 with a DVX100, and my intention was to test it against the XL1 version, so we'd know the answer.

The question comes down to: does the DVX100, with its 2002-generation, progressive-scan, full-resolution chips, 480 lines of resolution, cinegamma, 24P, etc. deliver better-looking footage than the XL1s, with its 1997-vintage, frame-mode 320-lines chips, at 30fps, when one factors in that the DVX needs to shoot through the camera's fixed lens, whereas the XL1s needs only a relay lens?

I wanted to test them side-by-side, but we were unable to get an XL1 connecting kit for the time I had the mini35/DVX unit.

So, objective tests remain elusive. You can, however, do a little subjective testing. Order the demo DVD from ZGC. All of the clips on there are from XL1's, except a clip called "Narren", which is from a VX2000.

In my opinion, "Narren" is every bit as sharp and clean and attractive as the best of the XL1 footage, but that's still not solving much, because that footage has been converted to 24P, it's been compressed on DVD, and a lot of the XL1 footage has been converted from PAL to NTSC as well, so it's difficult to judge.

Without seeing raw clips from both, especially of the same subject matter shot at the same time, there's no way to know which one is truly "better".

I can say this: the footage I shot on the DVX/mini35 looks absolutely like 35mm. It is completely superb. The mini35 was a fantastic performer, and the results exceeded my expectations. I think the mini35 on a DVX100 produces outstanding results. Whether one camera has an edge over the other remains to be seen, but is actually somewhat irrelevant, because plenty of us in both camps have been able to deliver wonderful footage from all three cameras (DVX, XL1, and VX2000) using the mini35.

So, choose whichever camera you like, and the mini35 will perform very well with all of them.

Hmmm, I guess you're right. I mean, how much different can these cameras be to one another when they are shooting through the same optics. So they'll all just look like 35mm film. Well, since it is March, I think I'll wait for April and May and see what possible new cameras come out then. Darn cameras are almost just as quickly phased out as computers these days! =)

BTW Barry, (I'm just figuring since you live in Las Vegas =/) do you know anything about UNLV having any DV/film classes? If so, what equipment do they use? Is it an okay school in general?

<<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis :

BTW Barry, (I'm just figuring since you live in Las Vegas =/) do you know anything about UNLV having any DV/film classes? If so, what equipment do they use? Is it an okay school in general? -->>>

UNLV does offer film & video classes. The school is much more known for its hotel management courses though. From the festivals I've attended, I'm always amazed at how high quality the work is from Florida schools, and the AFI, and of course USC/UCLA. Those are the premium film schools, I think, if you judge by the caliber of work that is turned out.

Well, that's good because I'm currently trying to figure out which schools to go to. Since my other choice doesn't have a video class, then I guess I'll be going to UNLV! Thanks =D (I love Las Vegas anyway)

Hi, Jack...

Just a quick question regarding your take on the "quality" of the Mini35. What is it that you want to achieve? If you want the sharpest, most crisp image possible, the DVX without the 35mm adapter is probably going to give you that (my opinion). If you want beautiful, i.e. less, contrast and the oh so wonderful depth of field inherent to film lenses, then obviously the adapter is the way to go. Just curious on what your take of "best quality" is.
I tested the adapter out on my antiquated XL1 and the footage was stunning, by that I mean the images weren't so damn DV, which the Director and I wanted for a particular project (even though I try to swim as far away from "DV" as possible anyway).

Well yeah, I mean, of course I want less DV like footage but I also want that image to be sharp and not fuzzy. But, of course, now I have to wait to see what comes out at NAB next month ;). I'd be more inclined to go for an XL2 with the 35mm adapter than a DVX100 with a 35mm adapter, that is, depending on what is revealed at NAB.

funny as I shoot with my mini35 the consistent response from film folks is that it looks like film as it is (their words) "softer" than video....

oh, well whatever. You know what I mean. My bad ^_^;;;

"Strike that, reverse it."

Having never been involved in the 35 adaptor forums, but having read some of it recently, isn't the loss of light issue favour a more sensitive camera to bring out the detail in the blacks, that also has higher latitude?

I notice much of the adaptor footage has a trendy dark look with a quick drop off to black. I take that as the ground glass causing a drop in light accross the range that is more uniform than linear. Meaning that the glass is "trying" to take the same amount of light from the brightest parts of the image as it does in the darkest, rather than a linear proportion, resulting in a loss of the low end.

it's funny now when I'm looking at mini35 footage I wonder what lens they used... I think that drop off might be loss of light with a slower lens exacerbated by a David Fincher style-look... or some "film look" plug in that stresses bleach and contrast...? The stuff I have most successfully shot so far was mostly flourescents and that was also very cold.

and yes, it's always funny.

I just want to comment in respect to "loss of light" shooting through a mini35:

A stock lens of an Canon XL1s has a loss of light rating that ranges throughout the zoom range. At it's best you will lose f1.6, at it's worst you will lose f2.6.

Since with the mini35 you shoot using fixed lenses, a 35mm lens rated f1.2 combined with the amount of light the mini35 consumes you might at worst cast scenario lose a total of f2.8 which is not that far off to what the original stock lens offers.

In that scenario there should be no difference with details in blacks, etc.. I did however shoot a short film using f3.5 (or worse) rated lenses and there was definitely something funny going on with the blacks between the background and foreground subject. Now I only use f1.2 of f1.4 rated lenses.

Getting back to Jack's original question though which was which camera used with the mini35 might offer the best quality for film blow up. I think the answer here really lies in which DV camera in general will offer the best digital to 35mm film transfer, irregardless of the mini35. The best people to ask this question are the companies out there actually doing digital to film conversions. What they should tell you is that higher resolution cameras (especially HD) and the larger sized 3 chip cameras will produce the best results for blow up to 35mm film.

These guys here in Toronto offer this service and at $330USD per minuted along with many satisfied customers I'm sure they know what they're talking about: http://www.sohodigital.com/faqs.htm

$330USD huh? Well, geez that's a lot of money for a 90-minute movie that I'm planning to make. Is it possible to get funding/sponsoring from movie studio companies (Sony Pictures, Dreamworks, ect.) or is that for an entirely different process?

Well your original post said short film but I guess if you're looking at a 90 minute feature you will definitely need funding from somewhere. If there is any interest in the film by funding agencies or movie distributors they may very well be willing to pick up the tab if the finished product has potential in their perspective and with their plans.

The potential with the mini35 is great but if you are strongly gearing towards a feature and think you might be ready for it I would shoot on HD 2/3" chips and if you still want 35mm depth of field rent the Pro35Digital Image Converter by PS Technik.

Nothing compares to these results for shooting digital and going to 35mm film for theatrical release!

Dennis

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg : I just want to comment in respect to "loss of light" shooting through a mini35:
In that scenario there should be no difference with details in blacks, etc.. I did however shoot a short film using f3.5 (or worse) rated lenses and there was definitely something funny going on with the blacks between the background and foreground subject. Now I only use f1.2 of f1.4 rated lenses.
-->>>

My meaning was that the glass was trying to shave off a set amount of light, thus largely cancelling light below a certain level. instead of a percentage, that we normally get in systems. Does anybody see this in real life? Maybe I am asking in the wong forum as P+S must have taken this into consideration, but I have noticed it on the home mades. But the real question is, has any body noticed a good net gain in light with any lense?

I think Jack needs to compare actuall footage between cameras, like the PD170, XL1s, to a normal DVX in cine mode for the blacks (unless he likes that style). I think the results on the HD10 would not be worth it compared to the newer HDV cameras (HDV2 pro cameras also much better again). If the adaptor is not available for the HDV of your chioce then pick the best home made design (a few different methords available) and make one for it.

thanks

Wayne.

There is no such thing as a lens "gaining" light. Lenses cannot create light that isn't there.

Jack,

The only way to get funding from a studio is presenting a script or a finished product. They will have to love your script over all others. Then they will give you millions and you will shoot it in film. Talk to your agent.

Heh..heh...what agent? ^_^; <---currently has none

So where can I find an agent? Should I maybe attend some big name film festivals (like Sundance) and see who and what goes on there? L.A. Newspaper ads?

But anyway, back to the camera stuff. I'm really not into renting equipment at this point because I live in an area with no rental places ANYWHERE. So, no 2/3" HD cams unless I can buy one below $35,000 (my opinion of worth). However, I was looking at the Panasonic AJ-SDX900 and thought that maybe this would be a better alternative to getting a PD170 or DVX100A with the P+S Technik 35mm adapter, whaddya think? DVCPRO = Better film blowup friendly? 2/3" CCDs and 24p to boot. Would this be better than getting the P+S Technik adapter with one of the MiniDV cameras supported? The only disadvantage I can think of is that DVCPRO tapes will be hard to come by in my area where Panasonic MiniDV cassettes (personal perferred tapes) are plentiful.

Also, I'm thinking about getting a new comp/NLE for this stuff because Premiere just isn't cutting it for me. I've already done research on AVID and Final Cut Pro but which one would be better to get?

AVID- The Industry Standard and future upgradeable to additional AVID hardware/software suites that the big boys use.

Final Cut Pro- Apparently the same basic features of AVID, but without the upgradeability, but also has the advantage of being the best for HD editing support ATM.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : There is no such thing as a lens "gaining" light. Lenses cannot create light that isn't there.
-->>>

Rob, I'm not talking about creating light out of thin air, but talking about larger lenses gathering a larger area of available light and delivering this through the adapter to the CCD, so that the CCD gains more light than it did previousely.

Jack, except for low light, detail and range the DV/HDV + mini 35 should look better than the 900 (though I haven't researched that yet), but you could buy, rent, or build an adapter for it anyway. As you said, wait till NAB, see the time frames and decide. It is simple, estimate the life of the camera, and see if there is a model you can be COMPLETELY happy with for that period of time. HDV is allright, and you can imagine what they eventually will be able to do in blowing that res up, compared to DV, but in sequences with lots of movements it can fail. If you can wait for HDV2 cameras, with high bit rates, you might have a suitable cinema camera for the rest of it's life, or find out if any HDV model allows direct uncompressed to disk recording (for the future). There is a rumour page on the web, but half of it should be taken as rumour.

http://www.geocities.com/mammacow3/index.html

See ya

Film festivals are a great place to show your style of work, your potential and possibly what you can do on a small budget. If your film gets into a festival (and you attend) you will have a great opportunity to meet potential distributors and talk about your "new" feature film which you are trying to get made and also have distributed - It's a great way "in".

There is no question that the SDX900 is definitely a better camera than the PD170 or DVX100 in terms of quality, the real question is do you think you need it for what you are doing. Only you can answer that question. For now I'm using the XL1se mini35 rig until I can afford otherwise or someone else simply pays the bill! As for whether or not the SDX900 alone is better than a mini35 and miniDV camera - better in quality, but not the same depth of field you get shooting with 35mm lenses (if that matters to you).

This summer I will be DOP for a feature length film and so far the plan is to shoot using the mini35 but the filmmaker is talking to a distributor now who in the end might very well call the shots and say "it's fine" or "no, shoot it on HD, here's the extra money you need". Right now we don't know because we just only recently established a relationship with the distributor, but hope to talk to them soon about the project.

As for your editing woes, use what ever you think is best. I like easy so I'm still on Premiere and have no complaints.