Post your Micro35 footage here.

http://www.micro35.com/progress_footage.htm

I just received some photos of the Micro35 being used by my buddies over at lunaticfringepictures.com. This is from a feature called "The Ancient". It is produced by Necroscopic Unlimited (www.spellcaster.addr.com) in association with American Movie Works.

www.micro35.com/oct19/micro35meter1.jpg
www.micro35.com/oct19/micro35_tim.jpg


Thanks guys!!

James

The second site has a bit of info on the film but alas, very limited so far and nothing yet about the adaptor - you should get them to post a comment or two either here or as article on your site where they can talk about how it all went down...!

I'm guessing they'd have good things to say!

It would be cool to get some direct feedback from filmmakers about how they feel about YOUR solution...

and that brings up a very interesting point:

A lot of people here have posted their musings on such an adaptor system ranging back to the original posts by Agus, etc. Great work has been done by many like Bob Hart et al. to advance the development here - but correct me if I'm wrong - are you not the first one here to actually have built a working system that OTHERS (ie. indie filmmakers) have been able to take advantage of?

Others have built/designed systems for primarily their own use - well, that's terrific to show that it can be done. But James, really, you deserve a bit of special recognition for being so willing to not just help yourself... I still can't believe how cool your philosophy is - the Guide and all...

Thank you for that - us filmmaker types applaud you - think of us as the "Kirk" to your "Scotty":

"Scotty, I don't care what you need to do to those dilithium crystals - we need shields up! Get us out of here!"

Or something like that.

Well, James, what can I say?

Beam me up!

Cant see the pics

Edit: Seems to be working now. Looks nice!

James what lcd monitor do they have that is on top of the DVX?

Ernest,

That's my rig in the photo. The LCD monitor is made by TV One. It has 2 inputs and a really handy button that allows you to turn the image upside down, which makes it perfect for use with the Micro35.

Hope that helps,

Larry

Larry, a quick Google search turns up nada on that monitor. Can you direct me to it?

EDIT: Nemmine, I found it.

Mark, here is a quick rundown of how the shoot went.

Tim Sanders was directing the scene. He whipped out his trusty director's finder and decided a 35mm lens was best for the first setup. I mounted a 35 and we blocked the shot.

I set the 35 wide open to F1.4. The coroner's character was roughly 6 feet away from the camera. A victim lay on the examination table just in front of the coroner. A second victim lay on a table another 6 feet behind the coroner. The shallow depth of field of the wide open 35mm lens worked beautifully. You could see there was a victim behind coroner, but you couldn't tell he was made of Styrofoam.

On another setup, we used the 35mm lens again. We needed to rack focus from a pair of twitching feet on one actor to the rising head of another actor. They were situated about 10 feet apart. We started with the feet in focus and while the camera floated toward the second mark, we racked to the head which was about 16" from the camera lens. It was another great shot.

For another setup, Tim chose an 18mm lens. Again, I set it wide open to F1.4. I was amazed that even a lens as wide as that could offer a depth of field as shallow as it did.

Of course, setting a lens to wide open is not the best choice for every shot. But, hey, I was playing and it worked just fine for those shots.

The Micro35 appears to offer another bonus that I had not expected. There seems to be an absence of the sharp edge that runs along an object that screams video. In the scenes we shot, the background was kept dark, so that may have masked the video edge. I plan to shoot more tests this week to make sure, but it will be great if that is indeed the case.

John, I bought mine from Brad at American Media Solutions in Houston. His number is 281.277.4000. It is the model LM-681M 6.8" LCD monitor.

Good luck.

cool deal...i should have a ton of pix up on the site in the next few dyas...the lens rocked......

Tracy

www.tvone.com is where I think you can find more info on it.

Wow, so cool to get some actual user feedback - this is tremendous - Larry, can you comment on the footage? Anyone? This is sounding so cool - wish you guys can offer a short clip sometime!

Larry - what kind of lenses were you using? Thanks for the info, very helpful to have a real example.

Mark, here is what the editor at American Movie Works had to say when I sent him the footage, "I thought the clips had a lot of depth to them that I don't see in normal DV. "

He knows there are people wanting to see samples, so hopefully he will get time soon to post a clip or two on the AMW site.

As a side note, I made a clone of the footage to show local filmmakers. I took it by to show one of them today. He is usually down on DV. He likes BetaCam SP or better. But, when he saw the footage, he was pumped. It was really fun to see the look on his face as watched the screen. He kept talking about how cinematic it looked. He already has a project he wants me to shoot with the Micro35.

Brian, I was shooting with Lomo high speed primes. They were made in the former Soviet Union in the same plant where the USSR made the lenses for their spy satellites. They are on a par with Cooke and Zeiss, but nowhere near the cost.

Lol - I have heard of lomo lenses, but didn't know they were manufactured with the spy satellites! I have seen various lomos on eBay for around $180-200. Who would've figured...

Wow, thanks for the fast reply - this is sounding better by the minute - super exciting!

Larry, know you're using the DVX... I will be too, as well as Sony HDV - but I'll be using SLR lenses...

Hoping James doesn't mind you commenting: can you talk a bit about how it went in terms of ease of use, setting up, etc.

Very cool that the system has now been used in an actual project setting!

Larry, looking forward to your updates here - congratulations - James, WOW...

Wow!

Mark, it really couldn't be much easier. I just took the Chrosziel base off the camera and attached the Bogen plate that came with the Micro35. James had designed the Micro35 to be at the proper height for the camera to marry up perfectly. I just slid the camera onto the Bogen receiver on the Micro35 baseplate and was ready to mount a lens. I set the zoom to a factor of 90, as James had suggested, and focused on the motionless ground glass. At that point, all that was left to do was set the follow focus and slide on the matte box.

The only thing easier would have been to let someone else do it for me. ;)

During the shoot, I had the LCD monitor mounted on top of the camera with the switch set to flip the picture. On one of the shots, we also set up my Sony 9" field monitor turned upside down. We looped through the LCD to send the signal to the Sony.

Larry - you are a wealth of info! Thanks. One more Q - how did you deal with 16:9 if at all? My understanding is that there is no anamorphic solution for this yet. Thanks

Brian, this was the last scene of a movie we shot back in September. The whole project was a bit of an experiment by the producers. There were 4 teams shooting at the same time at different locations. As a result, there were several makes/models of cameras. XL-1, GL-1, VX2000 and my DVX100A. So, we were instructed to shoot 4:3 so there wouldn't be any confusion on where the frame ended.

So, the short answer is, I didn't really deal with the 16:9 issue at all.

As for an anamorphic solution, all you have to do is shoot with anamorphic lenses. ;) Yeah, I don't have any of them either. So, for the time being if I need to shoot 16:9, I will either switch on the bars or do the squeeze thing. According to the Panasonic website, there is virtually no difference between the digital squeeze and the optical anamorphic adapter anyway. At least in the progressive mode. In interlaced, the adapter wins out.

Oh there is a difference. Whether it's significant depends on your display medium :)

Using anamorphic 35mm lenses will give you a 2.66 aspect ratio since the CCD has a different ratio than film. Not good! They don't make 16:9 35mm anamorphic lenses of course because 1.85 is rather standard via cropping ;).

There is a solution in the works. See here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38336

Arron, you are absolute right about the difference in aspect ratios. Don't know what I was thinking. Somehow in my little brain an anamorphic cine lens on a video camera would result in a 1.85 ratio. Guess lack of sleep really does affect the cognitive skills. Thanks for not letting my goofiness go any further.

Oh not a problem! I know exactly how that goes - happens far too often to me! I've just been working with this stuff recently so it's fresh on the brain =D!

It seems to me strange that for all the extraordinary effort put into the 35 project to achieve this shallow DOF that 16:9 is so readily given up.... maybe most folks are okay with that, have a different target format, or have an alternative approach??

On the particular project the Micro35 was used, the ratio was decided on months before the Micro35 was available by producers trying to keep things a simple as possible on a very hectic shoot.

Most of the theatrical material I shoot is framed for a 1.85 ratio. 16:9, for one reason or another, doesn't seem as popular with the people I have shot for so far.

thanks for the perspective Larry. I am following the other thread re: 16:9 35mm adapter. Thanks for pointing that out as well

You are welcome. Seems that every production is it's own beast.

Hi all!
I'll be getting to the clips that Larry shot with the Micro35 this weekend. Apologies for not having them available sooner, been extremely busy around here lately.

I'll let you all be your own judge on this, but for me it looks like the Micro35 is a no brainer piece of equipment to have. A good investment for the arsenal.
Just need to scrounge up the $$ and I'll be getting one.

I'll let you know as soon as I get clips and grabs uploaded.

Larry:
I have a handful of questions about the lomo’s you used.

Can you tell me what type of mount the lomo primes have. How fast are they, and how much light loss did you encounter using the micro 35. was breathing a big problem, and how smooth/precise is pulling focus.

I am very interested in finding an economic alternative to using still lenses.

search "lomo lens" on eBay. You can find a few primes right now for around 80-150

Pls. start a new thread so we don't miss it - call it something like "film shoot footage with micro 35" or something - thanks!

Mark

Scott, they have an OCT-19 mount which is the Russian answer to the PL mount. They are all F1.4 lenses, have no breathing issues, and pulling focus is a smooth as glass. They are, after all, cine primes. ;)

I appeared to loose about 2 f-stops through the Micro35, which is what I expected. The key light was a diffused, bounced 500w at about 6' from the subject and I had plenty of light. The handheld meter read F4. The cine lens was set wide open as was the iris on the DVX100A.

Hope those were helpful answers.

Hi guys - just wondering how it's all going - guess you guys are still picking your dropped jaws off the floor now that you're starting to look at the footage....?

pls. give us something - we want our jaws to drop too.

thx!

Rich, Larry, this is DJ from the santuary. I also am waiting around for that footage. Any luck? :-p

Hey, I was just curious what the best way would be to acquire 16:9 footage using this adaptor. Is there someway to use an anamorphic adaptor with it? Or--is cropping the only method.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with Andromeda. But basically it gets 4:4:4 images out of the DVX100 and can upscale them to 720p HD. Would using this system with the micro35 end up showing a lot of grain on the footage? Thanks.

Matthew Overstreet

currently I am aware of a third party trying to develop an anamorphic for it, but I am not aware of if it will be a production unit or not, possibly just a personally crafted mechanism

OK, boys and girls. The clips are ready. We all need to give it up for Richard. That poor guy is working his fanny off on several projects at one time. Things finally worked out so that he could post the clips and frame grabs.

The only correction done to the clips was turning them right side up. They will be tweaked for the final project, but they are posted as they were recorded. Except for the upside down thing.

Like the rest of the project, they were shot at 60I in the 4:3 aspect ratio. The mood for the scene was intentionally dark. Not only because the story call for it. We were shooting in the lobby of a tattoo parlor and didn't want to show the artwork on the walls (see the pic of Tim with the Micro35 rig to see what I mean). So we put up a canvas portrait background. We didn't want the viewers to see that either. How many coroners have a portrait studio in their lab? So we flagged off the light striking the background.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Submitted for your approval, here in the Micro Zone:

http://www.americanmovieworks.com/Micro35/micro35clips.htm

Just curious, but why did you shoot 60i?

I like the shallow dof... I'm a little concerned with the blending between the high contrasts of tha man's arm and the black background. It's sort of hazing... But other than that, I think that footage looks really good

Most of the project was shot over a weekend back in September. There were 4 crews shooting 4 different camera brands/models simultaneously at 4 different locations around town. The producers decided to shoot 60I at 4:3 because some of the cameras couldn't shoot 16:9 and only my DVX100A could shoot 24P.

What about attaching a DVX100 anamorphic adaptor to the DVX lens, and then fitting the micro35 to the anamorphic adaptor? Would that work? I guess there might be complications, but would it be easy to workaround?

On another note, I found some anamorphic lenses that fit to an OCT-19 mount, I guess those would be good to use. However, they seemed to cost a lot of money, so I don't know.

Matthew Overstreet

well actually with the oct-19 mount the anamorphics you will be using on that will not give you the proper squeeze ratio you need to handle it in post.

the way the adapter is currently designed It is no possible to use the pana ana with it.

Thanks for the information. Now--I'm wondering, if you can't use a pana anamorphic adaptor, How does a normal film production do it? Do you think there are 35mm lenses that have anamorphic adaptors that fit them? Sorry if that is a stupid question, but I'm not too familiar with cine lenses and all that.

Matthew Overstreet

-I have seen anamorphic adaptors online for SLR lenses. Unfortunately, I can't remember where.

-A really expensive option would be to buy anamorphic cine lenses.

- In theory, the anamorphic adaptor for the GL-1 would work if you could figure out how to mount it on to the SLR lens.

-I'm sure Century optics would make you one if they don't already. Although, it may not work for all SLR lenses.

Wow, great stuff, Larry - I'm sold on the micro 35... I'm not seeing any ground glass, etc. and I believe the results will be even better using Sony HDV, which is much more forgiving in low light and has higher resolution...

Incredible. Really gives you something you can't get with mini-dv otherwise...

Great stuff - thanks for posting!

Mark

The problem is the squeeze ratio if you will on a cine anamorphic is not what is suitable to get the proper looking footage on a DV camera, so new ana's will have to be developed for this system.

Eh.. sorry but since when is the Sony HDV more "forgiving" in low light????! It's not as sensitive in low light!

<<<-- Originally posted by Soeren Mueller : Eh.. sorry but since when is the Sony HDV more "forgiving" in low light????! It's not as sensitive in low light! -->>>

It makes it look nicer though. You don't get that blotchy grain like you do with most dv cams

Hey look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here - I own a DVX 100, okay?

I've rented the FX1 and the Z1 - forget the specs. When you shoot under low light conditions with the Sony, you don't get any noise pixels. Just pools of black. It's amazing in low light - it's crazy how good results you get at the 0db setting - a real clean picture...

While I think there's tremendous potential for using the micro 35 with Panny SD, I think the potential is even greater with Sony HDV...

I only wish 24p on DVX100A shot as well under low light as the FX1 does...

Century doesn't make one - at least not for the DVX