XL-H1 and P+S test

[Shannon Rawls]

Levan,

For 60i, straight to FCP is fine like you're doing.
We are talking about 24f, which needs HDVxDV for the time being.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Pete Tomov]

First of all - I'm never using mini35 with an H1!And second...you do realise you can clearly see the h1 in the reflection on the glasses.

Originally Posted by Levan Bakhia

http://homepage.mac.com/sarke/FileSharing3.html

ok, see "snow in h.264" and let me know what you think. this is the shots I did in snow with mini35. with the dirt issue.

it is h.264 so, I am not sure if this is going to work on PC but as I know it should.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Do you already test the Nick's method following Shannon's tip?

If you don't get it, try as before. Thanks.

[Levan Bakhia]

Shannon.

with 60i I understand it is ok the method I am using. But what would you do with if you were to capture material that you shoot with 30F?

Will you capture it with HDV60i.

also, I realize that I can see the h1 in the glasses, never mind that.

Ok I will try the Nicks method.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Yeah, the ghosting issue in the viewfinder is super annoying, this is due (according to canon) to the nature fo lcd's but once they warm up the problem should go away, but as far as I'm concerned if you lose 30 minutes of a shoot waiting to be able to monitor through a viewfinder that's pretty darn unacceptable.

Levan all of the footage I captured was 24F so 30f should work through the HDVxDV process.

Pete I'm not 100% sure you should scrap this whole mini 35 deal, Levan and I (the most vocal posters who've used it) are both pretty new to using this device and lighting set up. I think that in the right situations and once the work flow gets Ironed out it could be a great tool to get 35mm DOF and HD resolution, just everything is still in it's beta phase.

[Levan Bakhia]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Pete I'm not 100% sure you should scrap this whole mini 35 deal, Levan and I (the most vocal posters who've used it) are both pretty new to using this device and lighting set up. I think that in the right situations and once the work flow gets Ironed out it could be a great tool to get 35mm DOF and HD resolution, just everything is still in it's beta phase.

Absolutelly agree, with nick. Just want to add, that I feel that it is matter of experience. Sometimes I shoot and get perferct picture, very clean, but then with this snow, had so much problems.

So, I think if we had some good advise from other mini35 users, who have had experience with xl2 and mini35, they could give us some valuable advise.

As the bottom line I could say that mini35 can be used with h1, in good hands.

Ok Levan, if it's not possible as m2t conversion, I can confirm that Snow in h264.mov worked better at PC side than the method before. Can you so convert the other files at same way? (if it isn't possible as m2t files)

BTW, I like your work. You have a special eye. And it's possible to watch that Snow in h264 is from the same author than the former commercial posted before. Nice filmic feel environment.

Kudos

[John Benton]

New question,
...as I lean towards the H1 (away from the HVX200)
why use a 35mm adapter?
Depth of field, I know....
but cannot you mount one directly on camera?

if you use an EF adapter you can use Canon lenses...
but it degrades the image A Lot
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/archive/i...p/t-56642.html

what are the other 35 mmoptions for the XL-H1
besides strapping on another adapter.

renting cheap Cine-Lenses?
What?

Thanks,
J

[Barlow Elton]

Cinemek is developing a relay lens for the XL-H1, so you will have less light loss (I think) and a direct mount.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Yeah, the ghosting issue in the viewfinder is super annoying, this is due (according to canon) to the nature fo lcd's but once they warm up the problem should go away, but as far as I'm concerned if you lose 30 minutes of a shoot waiting to be able to monitor through a viewfinder that's pretty darn unacceptable.

Well, the ghosting is one thing, but the slight delay I see, particularly in the VF, must be due to DIGIC processing. Nick, I remember you asking me to wave my hand in front of the lens and see if I noticed a delay. Well, there definitely is one, especially in 24F, and that's gotta be due to the processing. In regular 1080i, rather than 24F, I noticed very little delay in the VF, and none on the analog out.

Anyone else have this experience? The delay doesn't really bother me as my eye is glued to the VF and nothing else.

I'm not a fan of the ghosting at all, but it hasn't ruined a shoot yet. Still, I'm definitely going to pick up the FU-1000.

[Levan Bakhia]

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

Anyone else have this experience? The delay doesn't really bother me as my eye is glued to the VF and nothing else.

I'm not a fan of the ghosting at all, but it hasn't ruined a shoot yet. Still, I'm definitely going to pick up the FU-1000.

I experience delay, but not always. I am not sure which conditions cause it thou. What surprises me is that, there is no delay in the field monitor at the same time.

[John Benton]

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

Cinemek is developing a relay lens for the XL-H1, so you will have less light loss (I think) and a direct mount.

Thanks Barlow,
yes Cinemek has said as much - there is no timetable given however - but it is a priority (after they get the regular G35 out)

Levan, have you the PC conversion of the remaining files?

[Levan Bakhia]

no, actually I didn't forget to do that, what I am doing now is shooting some new things with mini35. I will be done shooting this weekend and I will upload totally new clips.

:*)

[Johan Forssblad]

Originally Posted by John Benton

...as I lean towards the H1 (away from the HVX200)
why use a 35mm adapter?
Depth of field, I know....
but cannot you mount one [35 mm lens] directly on camera?

Hello John,
The depth of field is a combination of the size of the film format (in this case the 1/3" CCD sensor), the focal length of the lens and the distance to the filmed object.

A larger format camera with a normal lens will have a much smaller DOF than a smaller format camera with a normal lens. For instance:
Photograph with an expensive Hasselblad camera with a 80 mm normal lens: You need to precisely set the focus otherwise the object will look unsharp. DOF is very short due to its large 6x6 cm film size.
Photograph with a cheap cell phone and everything will look "sharp" because it has a very tiny sensor and a very short lens, perhaps 3 mm to get the same angular view as the lens above.

Sure you could mount a longer tele lens like a Canon 600 mm on the XL H1 with a suitable adapter to reduce the DOF but then you have to stand far away from your object because the field of view will be extremely small. The 1/3" CCD is 7.2 times smaller than the 35 mm film and most of the projected picture is wasted outside of the CCD chip. (This waste is light bouncing around between the camera (outside of the chip) and the rear lens which could in fact damage the contrast in the picture.)

You don't solve the problem by just grabbing a lens for a 35 mm camera. It has nothing to do with that. It is solely the focal length, the distance from the object and the film sensor size making up the DOF.

The various adapters mentioned here for small DOF, projects the picture on a larger (than the 1/3" CCD) artificial film plane made of ground glass or similar. Then they have a relay lens (macro lens) to just photograph this plane picture on the glass. This lens has no function for the DOF. It is just there to see the whole 35 mm "film" or whatever size it is made for.
Be careful to not get dirt on this glass, otherwise you will get a macro photo of it on every frame ... The adapter system with a spinning disk will move around these imperfections fast so you don't see them so clearly.

Hope this makes it more clear. Regards Johan