The new Mini35/HD100 footage looks great and it is refreshing to see some shallow depth of field from a 1/3" camera! Great job Charles, Nate, and Barry...

For real mobile production with the HD100, where shallow DOF are desired, and a Mini35 and primes are not needed or practical, I think we'll be able to get fairly shallow DOF by using a Century 2x extender between the the HD100 and the 16x or 13x Fujinon lenses. In many genres of television production prime lenses aren't used. The new Fujinon 13x seems to be a good quality HD lens, and with the 2x between the lens and HD100 it seems like it would still be a real mobile setup with good resolution and DOF capability. Subjects and scenes would have to be lit well, because the 2x will probably cause you to lose a stop.

For mobile SD productions in 480i60, 480p60, or 576p50 it seems the 2x extender combined with a 1/2" to 1/3" converter could be used with a longer focal length lens like a 1/2" Fujinon 20x or Canon 19x to get some shallow DOF.

If the HD100 is placed farther back from the subject and ND filters are used it should also make achieving shallow DOF easier...

The HD100's stock lens is capable of getting a quite shallow DOF effect all on its own. It's reasonably long, 88 mm (twice the length of the DVX, and as long as the original Canon 16x lens). So as long as you can get back far enough, you can get very shallow DOF.

The problem is that the chromatic aberrations are far more noticeable when you're using that much telephoto.

Have a look at this clip, it demonstrates both effects.
http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/chroma-aberration.wmv
In it, I'm rack-focusing on two different surfaces of a wine glass, from the front surface to the back surface. You can see that when the front is in focus, the back is most definitely out of focus. The downside is the enormous purple and green fringe around the reflections of the lights in the glass -- those shouldn't be there at all; the lights shining on that glass were white and they should have been rendered white.

Very good observations for the 16x - an $800 lens. The 13x ($12k lens), and for SD, the Fujinon 20x and Canon 19x (both $4k lenses), shouldn't suffer from the chromatic aberrations you found in the 16x, and thus be good tools with a 2x and ND filters for getting clean shallow DOF footage from the HD100.

With the 13x, you would probably want the 2x extender, yes. And at a max of about 90mm (3.5 x 13 x 2) you would get similar shallow depth of field effects.

Someone posted that they could get the 13x lens, FOB in Miami for something pretty cheap (comparatively), like $8000 or so. And a JVC rep at the WEVA booth (won't say who) said that he thought the lens would be a lot less than $11,995. So the 13x may be a more practical option than it has heretofore been thought!

Nice! At NAB I was impressed by the clean images of the 13x on the HD100 - no apparent barrel distortion, smooth motion, etc. The uncompressed out to HD-SDI, to good CRT monitor helped to give a good indication of what the 13x can do. If it comes way down below $10k I'll be stoked! I need one for my types of TV production: sports, documentaries, nature, etc - not to mention stock footage acquisition.

Can I ask the maybe stupid question why that 13x lens is sooo expensive? Especially in comparisson with the other lens that ships with the camera?

Remember that by moving the subject back and zooming in, thus maintaining the same image size, the DoF characteristic remains the same. You only get a shallower depth of field if you go telephoto AND you can allow for a larger image size (subject stays close).

Remember that by moving the subject back and zooming in, thus maintaining the same image size, the DoF characteristic remains the same. You only get a shallower depth of field if you go telephoto AND you can allow for a larger image size (subject stays close).
In theory, but not in reality.

In wide-angle, even when getting close, there's a whole lot more background visible in the shot (the reason is, because the wide angle has such a wider field of view, and the telephoto uses such a narrower field of view).

So when going close and zooming out, you'll see a lot more background than you will when you back up and zoom in.

So even though the elements of the background that you're seeing are equally sharp (or equally out of focus), they'll APPEAR much more out of focus in the telephoto shot. The telephoto shot optically magnifies a very small piece of background to fill the screen, and that magnification makes it appear as if it's a lot more out of focus than it actually may be (just like zooming in on a photoshop document can make something look blocky and un-sharp, but if you shrink down your window it looks a lot sharper and more in focus). Same effect with optics: the wider the field of view, the smaller each element of the background, and therefore the more in focus it looks.

I demonstrated this effect by shooting an identical subject at max. wide angle, and getting close; and then max. telephoto, and backing up so that the subject size stays the same. For an equivalent subject size, the telephoto shot's background looks *noticeably* more out-of-focus.

http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/DOF-Combined.jpg
I split-screened it, the shot on the left was done by backing up and zooming in, the shot on the right was done by zooming all the way out and getting close. Both shots used an identical aperture.

Can I ask the maybe stupid question why that 13x lens is sooo expensive? Especially in comparisson with the other lens that ships with the camera?
Because the lens that ships with the camera is ridiculously cheap. The least-expensive high-def lens on the market, that I can think of, is $12,000. The 13x lens, when it comes on the market, will be the new least-expensive high-def lens available. Far from being sooo expensive, it will actually be the least expensive.

The lens that comes bundled with the camera is, basically, a "giveaway". It is not something by which the standards of high-definition lenses should be judged.

Barry are you talking about 1/3" hi-def lenses? I think the prices you quote are for 2/3" lenses?

The $12,000 figure was for a 2/3" lens, yes. Other than the JVCs, I'm not aware of any 1/3" HD lenses.

Than $8k is too expensive for a 1/3 inch lens. It's a lot less glass in there and cheaper to make. Some won't even consider 1/3" as a professional lens.

I get your point Barry--it's actually an illustration of the Papert school of cinematography (if I may!!);it's not about the numbers or the theory, it's the image itself that counts.

Still and all, there are many reasons why shooting at extreme telephoto just to get a bit of softness in the background can invite many other issues. Shooting an over-the-shoulder shot can be a real pain in the arse, for one thing--you virtually have to lock the actors in place to maintain the desired composition, and forget about dollying left or right to correct for it (a very common way to deal with this--you make your adjustment when the person who's back is to camera speaks, i.e. an off-camera line). And a bunch of other reasons and issues, like having to shout to the actors! But I won't go further into off-topic land.

Because the lens that ships with the camera is ridiculously cheap. The least-expensive high-def lens on the market, that I can think of, is $12,000. The 13x lens, when it comes on the market, will be the new least-expensive high-def lens available. Far from being sooo expensive, it will actually be the least expensive.

The lens that comes bundled with the camera is, basically, a "giveaway". It is not something by which the standards of high-definition lenses should be judged.

Ow thankyou, seems like I was just plain wrong then :-)
Thanks for the answer

Than $8k is too expensive for a 1/3 inch lens. It's a lot less glass in there and cheaper to make. Some won't even consider 1/3" as a professional lens.

Those are the same guys who don't consider a 1/3" camera a professional. Others of us just keep using 1/3" cameras for our national television programs and laughing all the way to the bank! In the hands of an experienced professional, a 1/3" camera can a very professional camera, and yes, a 1/3" lens can be a professional lens - especially one that is engineered by a reputable maker like Fujinon.

Every day I use 2/3", 1/2", and 1/3" cameras for my national television porgrams. Myself and my shooters have the flick on how to maximize the capabilities of a 1/3" camera and lens and then broadcast the results. I think the old definitions of "professional" and "industrial" were more applicable in the days of Beta SP and Hi8. Nowdays, with the advent of 3-chip 1/3" cameras in DV, HDV, and DVCProHD (soon), it's risky assigning a 1/3" camera or lens a "non-professional" niche. Certainly the 16x lens is marginal, but having seen the results of the 13x on the HD100 at NAB I certainly would not agree with categorizing it as a "non-professional" lens.

If Charles, Nate, and Barry had also shot footage with the new 13x, I don't think they'd have any reservations in calling it a professional lens...

Right on the money Steve.....

It's great to read someone that takes pride in their work while learning and maximizing their tools.

Our indie film went through literally a frame-by-frame quality control for Warner Bros. The final report comes on a worksheet, and 95% of the potential issues of quality are not equipment related, but operator related.

It's the folks like yourself, with the saavy and knowhow that are truly going to benefit from the technical advances in the videography field.

What will the new adapter from optex do for depth of field? It says (www.prohd.co.uk) that it will allow the use of nikon 35mm lens?
Does this give us 35mm depth of field and if so how would it compare to that other big contraption......?
Would the angle of view of a nikon stills lens be less when used on a hd-101e?

craig

What will the new adapter from optex do for depth of field?
Presumably, nothing. It looks like the adapter they're offering is a mechanical linkage, meaning it allows you to use a Nikon lens on the HD100. So a 25mm Nikon lens would have the same field of view as the JVC stock lens when the JVC lens is zoomed to 25mm. And a Nikon 90mm lens would have the same field of view as the JVC stock lens at full telephoto.

A millimeter is a millimeter, after all. The field of view will be equivalent at equivalent millimeters.

Barry,

thanks for the test footage.

Are the problems you see caused by the lens shortcomings alone, or are there problems with the CCDs?

Do you have the capability of conducting the same test with other glass?

Thanks again for the look.

There's some speculation that the fringe may be being caused by overexposure into clipping, but I don't think that's what it is. I saw that effect on the original DVX100, a purple fringe that would surround blooming/clipped highlights when footage was shot on CineGamma -- but the issue went away if you used any of the other gamma curves. And it was always only purple. And it could happen anywhere in the frame, equally. So on the DVX the lens was fine, it was a DSP situation, and CineGamma has no knee protection.

On the HD100, the problem appears to be the glass. It happens primarily on the outer edges of the lens, but at full telephoto the issue gets worse and can be seen (as demonstrated) right in the middle of the screen. And depending on where the focus is set, the fringe can be green or purple. I'm not a lens engineer, but I can't fathom how that could be anything other than chromatic aberration in the glass. Fortunately, the lens is interchangeable. (unfortunately, the optional lens is $12,000!) But hopefully Les Bosher or some other enterprising camera engineer will whip up some alternate lens mounts so we can try 16mm movie camera lenses and other types of lenses...

Regarding the CCDs -- the dead pixels are a definite CCD issue; can't be anything glass-related about that. We observed them with the mini35 attached, and I've also seen them with the fujinon attached, and I'm certain you could see them with no lens attached. Same goes for the split-screen effect. Hopefully software will be able to mask both of those effects.

Regarding other glass -- I'd love to test it with the 13x wide-angle lens -- that lens sure looks like a beauty. I would strongly suspect that the issues we're observing in the 16x will not be present in the 13x -- but, that's a guess as I haven't had a chance to put the 13x through its paces. And, as far as I know, the 13x is the only lens option at this time -- I don't think the 1/2" adapter exists yet (and even if it does, that would limit you to using standard-def lenses, which would not necessarily be sharp enough to adequately resolve the high-def frame). And the c-mount adapter doesn't exist yet either, afaik. I think the only optional glass one could use would be the 13x at this point in time. I'd love to do a side-by-side between those two, but that would be dependent on JVC deciding that such a test is warranted, and then them supplying the camera and lens. Here in the US there are no HD100s available, the only way to get access to one is if JVC loans it out, or if you happen to catch it at a trade show (like the WEVA expo).

It seems the problems reported with the 16x are accentuated in artificial light situations. Maybe it will do better in well-lit natural light environments - scenery, etc. I don't think anyone expected the 16x to be a pristine lens, but I'm sure everyone expected it to do better than what has been reported so far. When we get our hands on the 16x and 13x I think it would be great to test them out side-by and create an MTF chart for each of them. The first thing I did when I bought my JVC DV500U was remove the *giveaway* 14x lens and buy a new Fujinon 20x6.4 lens for it. It cost me $4K. With the better lens I was quite happy with the footage. If budget wasn't an issue, getting a Mini35, some primes, the 13x, a matte box, and follow focus would unlock what potential the camera has. Then again, renting for the front of the camera whatever a specific project needs, makes real good sense...

The 1/2" adapter does exist and should be shipping shortly according to my sources. For 480i, 480p, and maybe 576p shooting where a long focal length lens is needed, the 1/2" Fujinon 20x or Canon 19x should work real well - for standard definition shooting only. The IDX Endura or AB bricks would be a good idea to counterbalance the camera when using the 1/2" lenses.

JVC should really be making a top priority of having their tech staff solve the reported CCD problems. Those issues should have been solved before a single camera shipped. It's probably not too late to recover, but they better move quickly and decisively...

It seems the problems reported with the 16x are accentuated in artificial light situations. Maybe it will do better in well-lit natural light environments - scenery, etc.
I've seen about a dozen shots of daylight/nature scenes that have chromatic aberration that ranges from mildly objectionable to horrifying. So no, it's not limited to artificial light.

JVC should really be making a top priority of having their tech staff solve the reported CCD problems. Those issues should have been solved before a single camera shipped. It's probably not too late to recover, but they better move quickly and decisively...
Agreed. And I've heard that they are doing exactly that, and that the HD100 won't ship in the US until JVC US is satisfied that they've addressed the issues. It may be disappointing to have to wait a little longer, but I'd much rather wait for it to be "right" than get it now and be frustrated with QC issues! So JVC is doing the right thing, hopefully.