Anybody planing on using B4 mount lenses with the XL2?

[Valeriu Campan]

You should consider the 1/3" as the target.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about using stils/cine lenses for the XL1-2. Most video lenses are calibrated in such a way that the RGB rays are focused through the prism to reach (let's say) the same point. With the lenses designed for film cameras you might get serious chromatic aberations. Exception could be with the tele Canon range but even those are modified to accomodate the presence of a prism in the light path.
C mount lenses have a very short flange distance, so they would be out of question.
I stand to be corected as Canon themselves are making an EF adapter for their EOS lens range. But, probably the adapter does a CA correction...

[Mark Sasahara]

You have a bunch of options:

Option 1
Canon 16x manual lens with or without the Century .7 Wide Angle adapter. This gets you manual focus and zoom and keeps you close to the weight limit of the Glidecam. You can also use follow focus, matte box and filters and still keep it near the 12 pound mark.

The lenses you are talking about will be too long. 2/3 inch lenses will be twice as long as their stated focal length used on the 1/3" chip camera. So The Digiprime 5mm becomes a 10mm. Same with the 16mm lenses, you get more than 2x magnification. Both the PL and B4 adapters are just mechanical connectors so that you can use the lens on the camera. There aren't any optics to make the image fit and no electrical connections.

You are shooting interiors and unless all the rooms are really huge, you will definitely need wide lenses in the 3mm range. Do yourself a favor and scout your locations and bring the gear that you will be using so you can see if your lenses will fit the room.

Option 2
Renting the Mini35 and Super Speed primes. Using this set up will get you the angles of view you want, shallow DOF and a great look.

Option 3
Sell the glidecam and put the money towards hiring a Steadicam operator and incorporate Option 1 or 2.
Yes, I hate the Glidecam.

Option 4
Something else.
Look at your budget versus costs, can you put the camera on a dolly, sticks and still achieve the results you want? Does everything have to be on a steadicam? Can you use it on one weekend or schedule a long weekend with the talent and crew?

Option 5
Something else further.

Consider:
Do you really need to buy a camera? The money you will spend on buying can be put towards the production. Unless you plan on using it a lot so that it pays for itself, you may be better off in these days of rapidly changing technology renting the necessary equipment.

Whatever you do, have a great shoot. Let us know how it went.

[John Sandel]

Mark, thanks for your reply. Did you mean to post it to another thread---in the Supporting Your Camera forum, maybe?

[Mark Sasahara]

Nope, I was addressing a few different things that David had brought up. Want of a manual lens, use of B4 mount or 16mm lenses, but they're meant for larger formats and will magnify the image 2x. He was worried about overloading his glidecam. Having the camera move seemed important, so I tossed out a few options there too.

A lot of things to consider when you plan a shoot.

[John Sandel]

Absolutely. His post was so long ago, I forgot what he wrote about. All your points are well taken.

[Mark Sasahara]

Doh!

I didn't even look at the date. He's probably already shot it, sold it and is livin' the phat life in LA.

Damn, and Nick's time machine is busted.

[John Sandel]

:D

I emailed David off-list earlier today about his original posts in this thread.

Hey, since you're awake & reading this, do you have any responses to the questions I posted earlier ... that is, today, this year? (Couldn't resist.)

[Mark Sasahara]

Nawww, yer gonna hafta wait six months :~).

Okay here are my answers in order of posting:

yes

No

Only on alternate wednesdays.

usually a Fisher 9, but a Peewee is fine.

A Technocrane with a midget bolted, upside down, to the end, holding a filmo with a 25mm if memory serves. Scorsese used the same technique in The Aviator.

I only got caught once, looking up Miss Hepburn's dress.

[John Sandel]

Once again, you've left me, uh, speechless.

I actually would be interested in hearing from somebody other than Valeriu (thanks, V!) on the questions I posted, but I know it's late back east ... out here by the Pacific, everybody's grumpy.

[Mark Sasahara]

John here are my real answers:

<<<-- Originally posted by John Sandel : After some weeks of shooting with the XL2 (and loving it) with Canon's 14x manual zoom (and missing shorter focal lengths), I wonder:

Has anybody from this thread, or on these boards generally, learned more about mounting 16mm lenses on the XL2? -->>>

I don't recall seeing anything, but I'm not the oracle.

<<<-- What is the magnification factor when figuring focal length equivalents for the XL2's 16:9 mode? In this thread, David Lach reports a factor of 2.17 for 16mm lenses. -->>>

I'm not sure of the exact magnification, but in 16x9 mode
the magnification is 2.17, in 4:3 it's probably somewhere
around 3x magnification. A 1/3" chip is 4.8 x 3.6mm

Article on XL2 Watchdog about the XL2 CCD Block

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php

Here is are film gate sizes for 16mm and Super16 on
an Arriflex camera:
Std 16mm TV 4:3 9.35x7mm
Super 16mm HDTV 16:9 TV Trans 11.95x6.72mm
1/3" CCD 4.8 x 3.6mm


<<<-- Others have asked about using Super-16 lenses. I've never shot this format. Would the magnification factor differ, and by how much? -->>>

+ 2.27 magnification

<<<-- I remember Leitz made a 10mm prime for their Leicina Super-8 camera. Does anybody know enough about that lens to suggest if its image circle would cover the XL2's target area? (I know that the Super-8 frame is somewhat larger than the XL2's target area.) -->>>

Super 8 is close, but a 10mm lens is a shade longer that
a normal focal length. To get wide on the XL2 you want
5mm focal length or shorter.

<<<-- Last: when calculating the XL2's target area, should I use the surface area of the prism face I see in the XL2 body? Or should I use the old (Vidicon-based) "tube diameter" of 1/3", by which most folks describe the XL2's CCDs? -->>>

A 1/3" chip is 4.8 x 3.6mm, but Canon doesn't use the full chip. The XL2 link above shows how it's used, but I don't know exact measurments.

[Chris Hurd]

Audrey or Katherine?

Measurements are listed in the brochure, but they're incorrect.

[John Sandel]

Yeah, I read that thread; it's one of the reasons I posted here. Thanks to both.

(I hope like H*LL it was Audrey, in about 1964.)

[Mark Sasahara]

I don't peep and tell :~)

[David Lach]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Sasahara : Doh!

I didn't even look at the date. He's probably already shot it, sold it and is livin' the phat life in LA.

Damn, and Nick's time machine is busted. -->>>

Thanks for all the advices Mark, and yes this was a while ago when I was driving myself crazy juggling with all my options. Lots of things changed after that post. Only thing that stayed the same was me buying the XL2. In the end, I decided I wanted to try the mechanical adaptors before buying, since there was lots of negative factors to consider, especially magnification. The only real positive for me was a theoritical resolution boost, but again, without testing it myself, there was no way to know just what kind of gain could be expected over the 20x stock lens, if at all. I searched litterally every single renting facility here in Montreal and couldn't find a single place to rent either a B4, PL or mini35 adaptor (not the most cinema friendly town).

In the end, I decided that since my project was to be shot all interiors in confined spaces, I couldn't afford the magnification factor. I considered renting a mini35 adaptor from somebody on these boards but it never materialized due to Custom problems (me being in Canada and him in the US). So I basically ran out of time and decided to buy a XL manual 14x lens. I like everything about it except for the heavy breathing which renders any back and forth pull focus impossible. I also bought a .6x WA adaptor from someone on these boards which gave sharp results and a much needed increased FOV.

Now as for how it went, I'll say well enough, considering the ridiculous budget, but there was something I thought I could live with and it turned out I couldn't, which is the huge DOF (my first time with video, I did a couple of things on film prior, but now video is the way of the future for indie filmmakers so I'm jumping aboard). This drove me crazy. I was quite the cranky fellow on set at times because I was yearning for any kind of out of focus backgrounds. I did some crazy things to get a bit of it for some key shots like placing the object/actor that was supposed to be in focus far away from the out of focus spot and make it look with a tele focal length they were closer to each other. I also did a bit of post selective blurring. The director thought I was crazy (he's right, I am).

In the end, it somewhat worked, but it's still a very poor man's shallow DOF. When I saw the photos the still photograph had taken during the shoot on 35mm, I saw just how better it could have been with the mini35 adaptor and I almost cried when I saw all those out of focus backgrounds (well you had to be there to understand the DOF madness). Anyway, all this to say that for my next fictional project, I will most definitelly make the renting of a mini35 and some nice cine lenses a top priority. During this shoot, I learned I could live with the lower resolution and lower lattitude, but not the greater DOF. Considering DOF is my main problem, the b4/PL lenses are now out of the picture. If I rent lenses, it will be 35mm primes with a mini35 adaptor.

BTW, no, I'm not living the phat life in LA, if only I could... ;)

[Mark Sasahara]

Ca va?

Thanks for your reply, David.

Yes, the bane of videographers is the deep depth of field. I try and shoot as close to wide open as possible, but with wide lenses it hard.

I'm surprised that no one in Montreal has the Minin35. I used to live in Vermont and go to Montreal a lot and usually saw at least one production truck when I drove around. Unfortunately it looks like Toronto is the closest place to rent.

Keep up the good work.