Hi,

Sorry, about all I know is that it's a 1/3" bayonet mount to 16mm PL lens adaptor, and it's designed to retain the same angle of view as the PL lens in most cases. The picture will come out inverted to the camera, but with the image flip of the GY-HD250U and GY-HD200U, you can correct this in real time.

Regards, Carl

So, how are we HD100 owners supposed to use it? I'm very disappointed in JVC's delays with this piece of equipment. The HZ-CA13U was one of the reasons I bought the HD100. Now, I'm seeing that despite it's price and optics it will not even give me a properly upright image, so it will be kind of useless to me unless I upgrade to the HD200. I'm just sick and tired of camera makers and electronics companies that announce certain pieces of equipment in order to lure potential buyers into buying a piece of equipment and then not delivering on their promises.

So, how are we HD100 owners supposed to use it? I'm very disappointed in JVC's delays with this piece of equipment. The HZ-CA13U was one of the reasons I bought the HD100. Now, I'm seeing that despite it's price and optics it will not even give me a properly upright image, so it will be kind of useless to me unless I upgrade to the HD200. I'm just sick and tired of camera makers and electronics companies that announce certain pieces of equipment in order to lure potential buyers into buying a piece of equipment and then not delivering on their promises.

Hi Miklos,

Quite a few GY-HD100U and GY-HD110U owners are already using film lens adaptors that produce an inverted image on a GY-HD100 or GY-HD110U. Redrock Micro and Zork are two examples. You invert the image back to normal in post. Most NLE's can accomplish this task.

See this thread for a successful project shot on a GY-HD100U with a film lens.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=81871

Inverting the image in real time prior to recording, like what our GY-HD200/250 can do requires more camera horsepower, thus the higher cost. Or, you can use the PS Tech Mini 35 on your GY-HD100U and get a right-side-up image.

The ProHD family is continually evolving and growing. We bring new products to market as the technology for new features are finished, and not before.

The GY-HD100/110 do what we claim they will do, and the GY-HD200/250 do what we claim they will do. There is no deception here.

If the history of the ProHD product line is traced, there is actually no sign of a film lens adapter or image inversion in the description of the GY-HD100 and its accessories. This is because these concepts were never planned in the beginning, and had not been put on the drawing board until a little over a year ago. When the concept was eventually green-lighted, the combination of a GY-HD200 camcorder and HZ-CA13 16mm film lens adapter was born.

The final judgement of introducing the GY-HD200 and the HZ-CA13 was that the two were to be used in combination, and it is the combination of the two that provides proper image recording. This is the concept system that was introduced at NAB 2006.

The image inversion capability wasn't anything new to the industry - a Digital Betacam camcorder that had image inversion existed almost a decade ago, but the concept of making a film on a camcorder was ill-accepted despite the efforts of the product designers, and so the feature went away. Angenieux has a HZ-CA13 like-product for adaptation of 35mm and 16mm film lenses to 2/3" mount, which was most probably designed for the DigiBeta with the image inversion capability, but its cost was around $30k. Other lens manufacturers had considered creating film lens adapters for current cameras available in the marketplace, but as exemplified in the Angenieux product, the implementation of the technology is an expensive and complicated proposition. The Pro35 and Mini35 lens adapters are alternatives to an all-optical solution that also brings down the cost of the adapter. The M2 brings the cost down even further by using the camera lens as the image relay and not inverting the image - image inversion is accomplished through the use of software in post, as we know well through the works of Taylor Wigton.

JVC found the potential for use of 16mm film lenses from two sources: filmmakers that own 16mm or prefer these lenses and wanted to somehow utilize them with the current cameras, and the need for high grade glass in order for smaller CCD's to aquire good images. So, since there is an abundance of 16mm film lenses in the world, why not utilize them? And wouldn't it be ideal to use it on a platform that's HD and native progressive 24p, on a standard that has the potential of editing as simply as DV? Wasn't this what the independents are asking for? The deduction was quite easy, but the technology necessary to make the film lens adapter that would be both functinally viable and affordable was a challenge for any manufacturer.

Fortunately, JVC also has years of experience in optics design and research, and because of this technological resource, the creation of the HZ-CA13 was possible. However, since this was a major undertaking of an all-optics configuration design which started from a blank canvas, multiple iterations had to be made to obtain the best possible product. The current version has been optimized three times in the past two months, working with filmmakers in making sure that this product is viable. Upon completion, which is imminent, the HZ-CA13 will be a true production tool for the independent digital filmmaker, enabling them to utilize the most vital part of the camera, the glass.

The combination of the HZ-CA13 with either the GY-HD200 or GY-HD250 and a 16mm film lens is a production system that was years in the making, in the minds (and dare I say hearts) of many filmmakers looking for such a solution. With a camcorder offering thats HD and SD switchable, native 24p, an affordable working platform with equally affordable yet robust NLE choices, and now with an even wider choice of glass options, one that's not available within a range of tens of thousands of dollars, it's truly a great time to be an indie.

Our deepest and humble gratitude to the supporters of ProHD, to whom we strive to bring out the potential of our products.

Craig, I have to say everying you said makes sense to me, people tend to take how complicated the science is when dealing with optics for granted. I started in video production in 98 and the leaps and bounds in technology since then is truely incredible and as you say it is only going to evolve. You guys could just as easily forget about helping the little guys who want to make films and aim your product at the $20,000 dollar and upwards market and I for one appreciate it.

A couple of things i would like to ask, do you have a counterpart here in Europe? (obviously you do ). Why is he not a member of DVinfo? and why is it that America seems to get all the promotions and free kit with their cameras?. Our cameras cost more over here and we get less with them, I havn't read this whole thread but i'de bet my lunch money that the HZ-CA13 isn't available to Europe. I hate to sound like i'm complaining but more often than not i have read a thread that states ONLY FOR US at the top, Carl talks about the Pro HD Family so i guess that would make America the favourate Son and Europe the Black Sheep. As I said I'm sorry to complain but you are an important man at JVC and I thought you could shed some light.

Andy.

So, how are we HD100 owners supposed to use it? I'm very disappointed in JVC's delays with this piece of equipment. The HZ-CA13U was one of the reasons I bought the HD100. Now, I'm seeing that despite it's price and optics it will not even give me a properly upright image, so it will be kind of useless to me unless I upgrade to the HD200. I'm just sick and tired of camera makers and electronics companies that announce certain pieces of equipment in order to lure potential buyers into buying a piece of equipment and then not delivering on their promises.
Yes, it's upside down Miklos but the light loss with the aparatus is negligeable compared to sending it through more lens' to get the image upside right. There are some plus and minus aspects to it on every front. The real problem I see is framing the image with the aparatus attached to the HD-100/110. Up is down, right is left and etc. The magnet trick would be good for this but has anyone gotten it to work?

Hi Miklos,

Quite a few GY-HD100U and GY-HD110U owners are already using film lens adaptors that produce an inverted image on a GY-HD100 or GY-HD110U. Redrock Micro and Zork are two examples. You invert the image back to normal in post. Most NLE's can accomplish this task.

See this thread for a successful project shot on a GY-HD100U with a film lens.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=81871

Inverting the image in real time prior to recording, like what our GY-HD200/250 can do requires more camera horsepower, thus the higher cost. Or, you can use the PS Tech Mini 35 on your GY-HD100U and get a right-side-up image.

The ProHD family is continually evolving and growing. We bring new products to market as the technology for new features are finished, and not before.

The GY-HD100/110 do what we claim they will do, and the GY-HD200/250 do what we claim they will do. There is no deception here.


Carl and or Craig, I am a fellow HD100 owner i understand and share Miklos pain as a big part of the reason I purchased the HD-100 instead of the HVX200 was the ability to take the lense off the HD100 and put other higher quality and /or cine lenses on the camera whether via adapter or however...

At the same time i understand that a dollar a year from now will get you something better, higher quality, more technologically advanced, how ever you wanna say it, than that same dollar will get you today...

With that said could more consideration been given to HD100 and 110 owners with regard to this adapter? I realized that it's more complex than a firmware update, but is there anything, some sort of consideration as a sort of gratitude, allegiance, support of what ever the correct word would be, to people who have chosen to support and purchase JVC products?

Thanks

Mr. Craig Yanagi,

Thanks so much for your post! As an HD100 owner I have to say that JVC really hit the ball out of the park with this cameras concept. It's very encouraging to hear how much development and energy is being put forth on the ProHD line. Glad to see how much cool stuff your bringing to market for the "low budget indy filmmaker or corporate vid" folks. As one of the aforementioned "low budget filmmaker/corporate video" folks I say - Thanks!

My question is when will you come out with an adapter that can take 35mm lenses =) (obviously excluding the ones on the market now).

Hello all,

Has anybody had one in the field who would like to write up their experience with the HZ CA13U?

All the best,

Martin

Hello all,

Has anybody had one in the field who would like to write up their experience with the HZ CA13U?

All the best,

Martin

Hi Martin,

The unit has not shipped yet.

Regards,

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the optics of these devices. I recently went to the movies and slipped out of "Little Children", which is a beautifully lensed film, with clear optics that are the hallmark of well-shot studio films, and slipped into Lynch's "Inland Empire".

Immediately, I noticed the crappy lens look I have grown very used to, shooting on my own prosumer digital camera.

I am tired of the optics that come from these little zoom lenses.

I have been looking at the possibility of renting mini35/HD100 for my next big project this Spring. Part of the reasoning is that with a relay lens that is not a zoom (I own a couple handmade adapters that I screw onto to my hc1's zoom lens), but a relay lens that is prime. I have to admit it's been a while since I looked at that pro35 DVD P+S Technik sends out for free; I'll have to dig it up; I wasn't as sensitive to the effects that differing lens qualities can have on an image when I originally watched that DVD. ANYWAY, my question is twofold:

1) Concerning adapters which use relay lenses that attach directly onto the camera body, bypassing a zoom (such as a HZ-CA13U or P+S Technik with proper adapter)--can it be expected that these adapters will produce images that are as distortion free as the fine images we see in a lot of 35mm studio fare? In other words, how much distortion/etc. is added by the relay lens and focussing screen?

2) I know the JVC rep doesn't get into it too much in this thread, and this thread seems to be the most definitive source on the subject so far, BUT, what were the quality considerations that lead to the HZ-CA13U being 16mm only? The JVC rep's explanations didn't make complete sense to me; was it an issue of cost? Was it an issue of cost/performance--that by sacrificing JVC customers' ability to use newer Zeiss and Cooke lenses, the HZ-CA13U would nevertheless be able to beat the mini35's quality, but only by focussing on the 16mm lenses exclusively because of some technical optical issues, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? What is the optical quality outlook on the mini35 vs HZ-CA13U question (for JVC hi-def cams)?

2) I know the JVC rep doesn't get into it too much in this thread, and this thread seems to be the most definitive source on the subject so far, BUT, what were the quality considerations that lead to the HZ-CA13U being 16mm only? The JVC rep's explanations didn't make complete sense to me; was it an issue of cost? Was it an issue of cost/performance--that by sacrificing JVC customers' ability to use newer Zeiss and Cooke lenses, the HZ-CA13U would nevertheless be able to beat the mini35's quality, but only by focussing on the 16mm lenses exclusively because of some technical optical issues, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? What is the optical quality outlook on the mini35 vs HZ-CA13U question (for JVC hi-def cams)?

Perhaps the decision was because the CCD size was much closer to a 16mm frame size than to a 35mm one.

this question is heretofore withdrawn

similarly, this comment is heretofore withdrawn

Fischer Spooner, as good a song as "Emerge" is I doubt very much doubt that that's your real name. But whatever.

In regards to the prime versus zoom issue for the relay lens, don't expect much of a difference. A good zoom is way better than a bad prime, and all the relay lens does is photograph a flat surface and because it's a flat surface there is inherently no chromatic abberation (and since it's shot at a reasonable focal length, no barrel distortion, either.) The mini35 doesn't play nice with HDV, by the way, so I'd be wary. Children of Men is an Academy Award nominated medium budget film with a fantastic DP. Inland Empire is David Lynch playing around with a pd150. The reason one film looks better than the other has to do with a lot more than zooms versus primes.

The HZ CA13U sounds awesome, though, and designed specifically for the JVC, unlike the mini35. You can get some fantastic 16mm lenses (for a lot less than 35mm lenses) that open up to f2 or even f1.4 and if depth of focus is a concern, shoot at f2. (Most 35mm is shot at f4 and it will look about the same.) If resolution is a concern, don't worry--HDV will be the limiting factor 90% of the time.

Also, check out the second page of this thread ( http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83854&page=2 ) as it has some interesting info on optical adapters and, more specifically, why JVC chose 16mm--since a purely optical 35mm solution might have been prohibitively hard (and expensive) to develop.

Matthew,

Thanks very much for contributing to this thread with the extensive discussion on the lens adapters. The discussion on the engineering of the adapters appear dead on. The major difference between the Angenieux/Zeiss CLA 35 HD is that the HZCA13U does not invert the image. To incorporate this feature, my guess is that it would make the adapter longer and would need additional optical elements - the HZCA13U has 11 in its design.

Jon Fauer, ASC, has done extensive testing with the HZCA13U and the GY-HD250 side by side with an Aaton 16mm film camera and arrived at the following results:

"Focal plane marking should be 52mm behind the flat surface of the lens mount – all PL mounted lenses, 16mm or 35mm, are measured and calibrated that way. So it should be scribed on the barrel. It looks to me like an aerial image – but still, that’s where it’s being focused, right?

I was delighted to find that 16mm, super16 and 35mm motion picture PL lenses all worked equally well, from the 4mm to the 180mm lenses we tested. Very sharp—as good as the best zooms dedicated to the 1/3” format. (Note: Jon's resolution tests were in comparison with the Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM HD lens)

Use: this fills a huge need in 1/3” format: prime lenses. I supposed a Digiprime 2/3” lens could be mounted, but this provides a use for the large and idle inventory of older 16mm lenses, as (C. Yanagi) well predicted.

When would I used this? In situations where I want to rack or follow focus with minimal “breathing” – ie: apparent change of image size (sort of a zoom effect) when focusing – which happens a lot on most zooms. Also for critical dramatic scenes where we have to follow focus: following an actor.

Field of view appeared to be very close, if not exactly, to normal 16mm format. I wouldn’t call it “optimized” for normal 16 in your ads or pr: just say that it accepts, without vignetting, all PL mount lenses, 16, s16 and 35.

Field of view of 16mm and 35mm format lenses appeared the same. Same with depth of field. Depth of field can be further checked using one of Zellan ZGC’s Putora charts...."

We had the HZCA13U outfitted with a Zeiss 16mm/16mm on the GY-HD200 and recorded .m2t files at 60p into a DR-HD100 to demo the system at the HD House event in Sundance last week. Tim Dashwood has posted the test in QT: http://web.mac.com/timdashwood/iWeb/sundance/HZ-CA13U_Test.html

It should also be noted that Andrew Young played a major role in testing the initial prototypes - it was his testing results that led to the refinement of the optics design. Andy's findings were that the field of view didn't cover that of S16 or 35mm, but rather took a "center cut" of the 16mm diagonal of the lens, which resulted in no vinetting of either S16 or 35mm lenses, a characteristic which he preferred to see from using his SuperSpeeds. Here lies the difficulty in determining what type of lens to base the design of the adapter.

JVC chose 16mm as these lenses are the most abundant with film schools and rental houses, as well as ownership by most indie photogs. To consider S16 or 35mm would signify competing with the available lens adapters out in the market today, which is not the intent. The adapter is to provide a means for independents to use the most abundant and affordable film lenses available. The result of the final design can be considered as an unexpected bonus (as per Jon Fauer's findings) in that you can use S16 and 35mm lenses with the adapter if you so choose, and expanding the use of the ProHD camcorder system.

It should be noted, though, that lens test findings may vary as lens selection is a subjective matter, so it is highly recommended that everyone tests before determining what lens to use for their projects. Tim Dashwood will also be conducting his own tests and I've asked him to share his results for us.

Also, as an update, the HZCA13U should ship from the factory at the end of February. The extension to the delivery date was due to implementing some additional late adjustments to the product design.

The reason one film looks better than the other has to do with a lot more than zooms versus primes.

Hey Matthew--that's patently obvious; I'm sure everybody is pretty tired of that discussion. My #1 question was perhaps poorly phrased. It's meant for DPs who have experience using Zeisses and Cookes, who can appreciate the differences between super speeds and ultras, etc.

Here's perhaps a better way to phrase the question: a zoom lens--by merit of being a zoom--adds a certain amount of optical aberration (indeed, any additional optical elements add a measure of optical aberration). How much optical aberration does the focusing screen/relay lens add?

My own rig definitely produces distortions. I use SLR Canon FD prime lenses. For example, a F2 28mm wide angle lens using the video camera's zoom lens as a relay produces definite, visible distortions--optical aberrations of the character that I noticed in the blown up PD150 footage in Inland Empire (that are unrelated to grain, noise and resolution). I suspect that the optical abberations introduced by the focusing screen are minor campared to the aberrations introduced by the zoom/relay.

I suppose I'll find my best answer at some point by testing out the gear myself, but in anticipation of the HZ-CA13U's release, I thought perhaps there might be some intelligent discussion here..

Also, as an update, the HZCA13U should ship from the factory at the end of February. The extension to the delivery date was due to implementing some additional late adjustments to the product design.

so is this out yet? any new information on the list, etc.

thanks,

marshall

so is this out yet? any new information on the list, etc.

thanks,

marshall

The first shipment has left the factory, and should be in the U.S. by end of this month. The JVC dealers have pricing, so you can start placing orders now.

The first shipment has left the factory, and should be in the U.S. by end of this month. The JVC dealers have pricing, so you can start placing orders now.
I am currrently writing my review of the prototype. After extensive testing I was surprised by quite a few things. Most notably, that any given T stop on a Ciné lens with the HZ-CA13U is at least a full stop brighter than the equivalent marked F stop on a video zoom lens. This is probably due to the coatings and numerous optical elements in a zoom lens, and of course T stops indicate the actual transmittance of the lens and F stops are calculated, so there is bound to be some discrepancy.

I also conducted two days of tests at Clairmont with every lens we could think of (from Cooke S4 to anamorphics) and the depth of field results seem to match the charts of 16mm almost dead on (assuming a "16mm" CoC of 0.0015mm) I'm still waiting for my 16mm film to come back and be scanned for practical comparison of DoF.

Right now I'd happily use this product in a production. Once you set the backfocus there is no messing around with it and it behaves predictably, just as the lenses would on 16mm.

More to come in a few weeks.

Unfortunately, this is not in my budget anytime soon, let alone the crunchy glass cylinders to go with it....
BUT, it will be awesomely transforming to have one available along with primes to rent. My impression is that the family of 35mm converters with ground glass etc, would take a day to properly set-up for a noobie, and still take some serious getting used to. Not as practical for the rental situation, unless staff there was really helpful.
I'm in NYC, so I assume renting the HZ CA13U will be a realistic expectation. Abel-cine is probably a good target, since they are JVC dealers, and they have a nice selection of 16mm PL lenses for rent. I don't see the 13x JVC lens there though - that is another item I'd love to have occasional access to.
So Noo Yawkers, lets think about petitioning A.C. when this puppy gets released. Or maybe doing a coop purchase.
Sorry Craig! It's either this or nothing for the short haul!

Another thought! I do still have 5 lenses for my Bolex 16mm reflex...
(got to admit, it's ALREADY dusty & it's looking even older recently ;)
A couple are actually decent. Is there a c-mount to PL conversion? I'd assume that the smaller c-mount could fit inside, so it could still have the right focus plane. Hmmm.

Another thought! I do still have 5 lenses for my Bolex 16mm reflex...
(got to admit, it's ALREADY dusty & it's looking even older recently ;)
A couple are actually decent. Is there a c-mount to PL conversion? I'd assume that the smaller c-mount could fit inside, so it could still have the right focus plane. Hmmm.

A C mount lens has a flange depth of 17.526 mm and the PL mount 52mm. No one has made adapter to allow you to mount C mount lens on a PL because all the PL film cameras have mirror shutters that would strike a C mount lens as they rotated. Also, the chances are you wouldn't be able to read the markings on a C mount lens because they'd be so deep inside the adapter.

Interesting findings about the stop readings. I wouldn't have thought you'd have lost so much light through a modern zoom lens (some of the old 16mm 10:1 zooms from the 1960s lose a stop) - 1/3 to 1/2 stop would be usual. Perhaps this is because the light is now being concentrated onto a smaller area - a reverse of the x 2 extender which has a drop off in light because it's being spread over a larger area? Or even a bit of both?

Thanks Brian,
I figured it might be a long shot.... Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Like others who have posted on this, one of the reasons I bought this camera was to have the option of using other lenses. I have been very happy with the camera -- it's the only video camera that I have ever used that I could even begin to say that about -- the Cine Alta is not in the cards for me, and is no doubt much too big for what I do. To do away with interlacing and have a real, manual lens makes it like a film camera. I have been an experimental filmmaker for years using 16mm, and would never have gone into the field had interlaced video been the only game in town. Even the 6-frame GOP (on my early HD100u) produces no perceptible artifacts when handholding. With an AJA Kona card, I get good-looking DVCProHD 720p24 images. Thanks to JVC on that score, for making a video camera that is like enough to film for a filmmaker to be reasonably happy with.

However, the lens that shipped with it has a persistent chromatic abberation which is subtile but almost always there. It's not so much as to make it unusable, but those purple and green edges that occasionally appear were not actually there in the subject. A lens that introduces information that was not in what it's shooting falls short of the ideal. But I put up with it, thinking that eventually I'l be able to use the 16mm lenses I already have, and buy adequate used primes for several hundred dollars that will blow away the stock zoom -- in all my years of filmmaking, I have never seen a chromatic abberation problem like the one I see here.

But now it comes out that list price is around $4k. $4k? That's almost as much as the camera -- for a lens adapter? I understand that it's "a complicated bit of optics," that it has 11 optical elements, etc., but given that I could put a prime lens on it that cost me $400 and get a beautiful image, spending 10x as much on the adapter seems out of line. It's not going to take anything nearly as expensive as a new Zeiss prime -- however much I wish I had a set! -- to get a really nice image.

But at $4k, I can't afford the adapter, and I make that assessment with a great, almost bitter sense of disappointment. Filmmaking matters to me, and I'm not really in it for the money. I'm not an aspiring "indie" filmmaker trying to get my feature out and score. I don't work in the "industry," and have no desire to move to Hollywood. I have great respect for those who do work really hard to get good films out in the commercial world -- more power to you! -- but there are others of us out here who make films for other reasons. We are not aspiring to do that, and we lack the financial expectations of hoped-for "success". Maybe new gear was always too expensive for experimental filmmakers, and after the remarkable price drops in quality equipment like this camera, maybe this adapter is just a reversion to that same harsh reality. But clearly I am part of a market segment -- the personal, or experimental, or "fine art" filmmaker -- that has jumped on this camera because of its transforming video into something visually acceptible, but that has been shut out of the further progress that this adapter makes possible by its price.

I feel ill knowing that between the better lenses that I already have and this camera that I already have lies an adapter that I can't afford. I am left with several questions.

1) how did JVC establish the price for this? I've been puzzled to see reaction here that this price is reasonable, but then it gets compared to other film-video lens adapters and, indeed, they are expensive. But then, is this just a price that was picked because that's what everyone else is charging, or is it a meaningful reflection of how much it costs JVC to produce? I know it sounds old fashioned to say it, but shouldn't prices reflect production costs and not just how much the market will bear?

2) by pricing it this high, JVC has dramatically reduced the number of them that will sell. Why not charge less, and sell more units?

3) so, it's essentially a relay lens, that reprojects a focused lens image onto the camera's sensor. That's complicated, and also relatively bulky. Why not make a simpler adapter that accepts a pl lens (or a c-mount, for that matter) and changes the back-focal length so that it hits the camera sensor directly? Granted, I am not particularly knowledgeable about optics, but is this not a simpler idea (to have just the camera sensor focal plane) than a full-on relay lens system that essentially results in two (matching) focal planes? Couldn't such an adapter be less bulky, have fewer optical elements, and be less expensive?

4) could JVC make something simpler (in addition to the HZ CA13U, now that it's developed), like the above, that didn't work so hard to preserve the focal length and depth of field properties of the original 16mm lens? A 1/3" sensor is more like a Super-8 frame than 16mm, so clearly this required some doing. Why not just make the simplest possible adapter, and let the user compensate for differences? What they've released, by all reports, works really well, but for me it doesn't work at all since I don't -- and likely won't -- have one. So, why not also make a cheaper version that would allow the rest of us to at least be able to use our better lenses, even if the focal length and dof are changed?

5) could anyone out there convince me that this adapter really is worth the money, and that I ought to find it and buy one?

Thanks,

Robert Schaller

You can only tell if something is worth the money when you see the figures for developing the product. From what I've read this hasn't been that easy - the simplest route would been some form of ground glass device. However, most of the cheaper adapters to date use the stock zoom lens that already has CA.

The cost is compatible with the new cost of PL mount lenses that you'd be using. Although, Optar prime lenses cost around $2600 each, the Zeiss Master Primes are listed at over $18,000 each. I haven't seen a quality second hand PL mount lens for $400.

The sales volume will also need to be factored in: only a small percentage of JVC cameras will be using these adapters. JVC seem to see film schools that already have 16mm camera kits as a potential market. They'll be aiming it at low budget features and dramas, which can't afford the higher end HD cameras, but have enough to put higher quality glass onto the cameras. Although, it'll be reduced gap using a HD250 with the adapter and extremely basic rigs from RED and SI.

I'd imagine JVC see the Mini 35 as the pricing point.

The R&D that went into this product are certainly extensive, and with a fairly limited market probably this amortization is a larger part of the price than the manufacturing.

However, perhaps the research could be applied to a new, similar product for a wider lower-end market at a lower price point, keeping this for it's specialized area (film schools, rental houses, larger budget films).

I'm thinking about a nikon 35mm slr lens mount with this optical path. Ideally we'd want to have the 35mm frame resolved on the 1/3" chip, but even if it were 16mm equivalent for DOF, which is what my admittedly non-expert understanding is what would occur with the current optics and 35mm lens - it would still be very useful.

It really is much more attractive than using a standard lens/moving ground glass based adapter. If they could make it for $1500 everyone with this camera series would be looking at it (and the market for used mf nikon lenses on ebay would blow way up!)

Whatever the argumnts used to justify the JVC adapter, I agree with Robert completely on that its price is totally disproportionate with its potential market placing.

Paying for the adapter almost as much as the camera itself is completely crazy.

Whatever the argumnts used to justify the JVC adapter, I agree with Robert completely on that its price is totally disproportionate with its potential market placing.

Paying for the adapter almost as much as the camera itself is completely crazy.

With people wanting to put 35mm motion picture prime lenses on 1/3" CCD cameras that cost a 1/4 or even less the price of the lens. It's all depends on how disproportionate you want to get. Personally, I'd go to a 2/3" CCD camera first.

The HZ CA131U does make a bit more sense on the HD 200 and DH 250 than the HD 110.

Unfortunately, the more specialized kit becomes, the smaller the volume of production and so it only gets manufactured in small batches.

You should think yourselves lucky living in the US. I live in the UK and the price I was quoted for the adapter was £5000 + 17.5% VAT. That equates to 9,806 USD. I often ask myself how much longer must we pay higher prices for our equipment here in the UK?

With people wanting to put 35mm motion picture prime lenses on 1/3" CCD cameras that cost a 1/4 or even less the price of the lens. It's all depends on how disproportionate you want to get. Personally, I'd go to a 2/3" CCD camera first.

First of all, I agree with your "going to a 2/3" camera first" argument.

In this case, the adapter was made for 16mm lenses, not 35mm. And I believe the reasoning behind the price tag might be "compared to 16mm film camera", or something like that.

These adapters should be extensive to 35mm photo lenses, when the high price argument crumbles down.

The HZ CA131U does make a bit more sense on the HD 200 and DH 250 than the HD 110.

Unfortunately, the more specialized kit becomes, the smaller the volume of production and so it only gets manufactured in small batches.

With other adaptors, like the M2, in the vicinity of $1,200, I don't see why prices can't be there for JVC too. In fact the RedRock might have a smaller volume than JVC.

1) how did JVC establish the price for this? I've been puzzled to see reaction here that this price is reasonable, but then it gets compared to other film-video lens adapters and, indeed, they are expensive. But then, is this just a price that was picked because that's what everyone else is charging, or is it a meaningful reflection of how much it costs JVC to produce? I know it sounds old fashioned to say it, but shouldn't prices reflect production costs and not just how much the market will bear?
I don't know, but I would imagine they made the price as low as possible to still justify the extensive R&D and production costs that went into it. You can't really compare the JVC adapter to any of the 35mm ground glass adapters on the market (even the P+S mini35 (http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/b20461fb956bf08085256a8400801da2?OpenDocument) at $9000+) It is totally different in almost every respect. The closest comparitive product is the Angenuix/Zeiss CLA-35, which I believe sells for around $30,000.

2) by pricing it this high, JVC has dramatically reduced the number of them that will sell. Why not charge less, and sell more units?
This product is all about optical quality. It is designed for those renting Zeiss, Century, Cooke PL lenses, not some old SLR lens you find on ebay. Will it appeal to the MASS market? Probably not.
I think Redrock, Brevis, Letus, etc will still enjoy great success that segment of the market. The market of the HZ-CA13U will be film schools, small production companies (music videos, pilots, commercials,) even corporate/industrial production companies. The ability to use high quality prime lenses (as well as snorkels, shift/tilts, anamorphics, etc) and resolve an unaberrated resolution as good as the Fujinon 13x3.5mm lens ($12000?) will be the main selling feature. The ability to use longer focal lengths than 1/3" to achieve shorter DoF, and the ability to shoot in low-light, is just the icing on the cake.

3) so, it's essentially a relay lens, that reprojects a focused lens image onto the camera's sensor. That's complicated, and also relatively bulky. Why not make a simpler adapter that accepts a pl lens (or a c-mount, for that matter) and changes the back-focal length so that it hits the camera sensor directly? Granted, I am not particularly knowledgeable about optics, but is this not a simpler idea (to have just the camera sensor focal plane) than a full-on relay lens system that essentially results in two (matching) focal planes? Couldn't such an adapter be less bulky, have fewer optical elements, and be less expensive?
Zörk and Les Bosher make simple mechanical lens adapters for Nikon, Canon, PL, etc. There is nothing wrong with that except that lenses designed for film (especially 35mm) do not perform well in split prism CCD systems, and you won't gain the benefits of longer focal lengths. You mentioned the bad chromatic aberration of the stock zoom lens... and that lens was designed for the system! 3-CCD prisms require very well aligned glass. I'd imagine that the bulk of the R&D for the HZ-CA13U went into correcting the aberration due to the general incompatibility of film lenses and 3-CCD prisms. Keep in mind that the circle of confusion of a 1/3" CCD is probably less than half that of 35mm film, and the Depth of Focus (not to be confused with Depth of Field) is even more critical in a CCD prism system.
4) could JVC make something simpler (in addition to the HZ CA13U, now that it's developed), like the above, that didn't work so hard to preserve the focal length and depth of field properties of the original 16mm lens? A 1/3" sensor is more like a Super-8 frame than 16mm, so clearly this required some doing. Why not just make the simplest possible adapter, and let the user compensate for differences? What they've released, by all reports, works really well, but for me it doesn't work at all since I don't -- and likely won't -- have one. So, why not also make a cheaper version that would allow the rest of us to at least be able to use our better lenses, even if the focal length and dof are changed?
Actually, 1/3" is around 75% the size of Super-8. See my response to #3 above or send an email to Les Bosher (http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/) and/or Zörk (http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_specia.htm). They have both made Nikon adapters for JVC's 1/3" mount. JVC also has a history of making fairly high quality Nikon and C-Mount adapters for the 2/3" bayonet mount. Using the ACM-17 1/3" to 2/3" adapter one of these adapters would fit perfectly, and maintain a focal length for focal length relationship to 1/3". I own some of the C-Mount adapters.
5) could anyone out there convince me that this adapter really is worth the money, and that I ought to find it and buy one?
JVC is taking it on the road so you can get up close and personal. Dallas (http://pro.jvc.com/pro/events/cinema_seminars/dallas/default.htm) is the first stop next week, and I think they are going to 7 other cities soon. I am providing footage of my detailed tests with DoF charts for a wide range of lenses and focal lengths (Cooke S4, Zeiss Ultra Speeds, Zeiss Super Speeds, Zeiss "regular" T2.1, Century 6mm, Clairmont anamorphics, etc.) as well as practical tests.
I reviewed it for Videography magazine and that article should be in the next issue. I will also provide supplemental samples on my website when that review is published.

You should think yourselves lucky living in the US. I live in the UK and the price I was quoted for the adapter was £5000 + 17.5% VAT. That equates to 9,806 USD. I often ask myself how much longer must we pay higher prices for our equipment here in the UK?

You can always import kit yourself from the US, although you'll have to pay the import duty and VAT. It's also worth ringing around the UK dealers, you'd be surprised how much variation there can be amongst the well known dealers.

US prices tend not to include the sales taxes, which can come as a surprise if you're not expecting them.

So with the 16mm adaptor, is the image in the 110U flipped?

So with the 16mm adaptor, is the image in the 110U flipped?


Yes, the image will be flipped on the HD100 or HD110

Hi Carl,

Can you list the US rental houses that have purchased the adapter for rental? Thanks.

For those that don't know, if you have cineforms' hdlink for either Aspect or the new Neo codec, it will 'flip' it back to upright during capture from tape. So in theory, you can use this with the HD100, just have to turn your monitors upside down for preview.