XL1Solutions.com XL-1 to Arri PL Adaptor

Barrett Bilotta · June 25th, 2003, 08:37 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Kubat : Wow, impressive stuff and fairly affordable.

I have Canon EOS adapter and its frustrating as hell...

and the P+S Teknik or whatever-it's-called is way out of my price range and not avail. to rent here in Toronto...

so your products are a welcome sigh of relief and maybe now I might stick with the XL1 system...

I have a friend who owns a bunch of NIkon lenses that I could probably get to use - very very interesting....

Wonder when Canon will buy you out? Just kidding! -->>>
Hi Mark,
Your not the only one thats excited and sees the potential. Canon has been showing our product line at NAB in Vegas and now this month in New York City. I don't think we will get bout out or do I want to :)
Thanks
Barrett
P.S. Keep this secret we are making another mount for a Sont 2/3 B4 Bayonet mount that will take.....guess what??......motion picture lenses.

Mark Kubat · June 25th, 2003, 10:35 PM

the quality is beautiful. But unless you are making a movie about talking noses, the application is limited. Okay, you can try filming from the next room or from outside through the window (across a soccer field maybe?)

I sound flippant but I scarcely fathom to guess what Canon was thinking when they first launched their camcorder with "interchangeable lenses" and especially the EOS adaptor. Okay, I perhaps am too harsh... I have used it and love the quality - it's just the 7.2x factor is murder! Step down rings and wide adaptors mean you lose stops, etc.

Now with this latest offering, there is real promise for indie filmmakers to have pro Sundance-worthy results while still operating on car-wash-fundraiser budgets.

Hey, isn't that how everyone here gets their money?

Oh, Nigel, now I read you do wildlife stuff - then you definitely want the Canon EOS adaptor! All my stuff with it looks like it's for Mutual of Omaha - tiny depth of field, super-telephoto like it was shot while on Safari in the Serengeti - problem is I shoot narrative movies with actors and only RARELY does the shot call for them to do a convincing impersonation of a pygmy hippopotamus in heat...

Hey, am I the first one in all these forums to use the word "hippopotamus?" Somebody do a search!

Don Berube · June 25th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Geez Mark,

Place the Canon Manual/ Servo 16X lens in front of your XL1S and then you will appreciate the benefit of having the ability to change lenses with the XL mount.

Which lens do you mainly use?

- don

Nigel Moore · June 26th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Cheers, looks like the EOS adapter gives good quality if you can live with the magnification. I can.

Thanks again.

Barrett Bilotta · June 26th, 2003, 04:09 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barrett:

I'm intrigued by the PL adaptor and the minimal magnification effect, but I am curious about the field of view differences between a 16mm and 35mm designated lens. For instance, a 16mm format 12mm lens is going to have half the field of view of a 35mm format 12mm lens due to the difference in target size; what would the magnifaction factor be on both lenses when used with your adaptor? As a specific choice (since it is a reasonably priced lens to find used), what would be the equivalent focal length created when using the illustrated 12-120 lens? -->>>

Hi Charles,
You correct 35mm gives you more image then the 16mm. Its 2x effect. As for the Angenieux 12-120 it would be a 24-240mm lens. No matter if it is a 16mm lens or a 35mm lens it still has a 2x effect. Did you see the photos taken with the 12-120 Angenieux on our site?
Thanks
Barrett
Anymore questions get back to me. I am out of town but I will get back to you.

Charles Papert · June 26th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Barrett, please bear with me if that's OK.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the adaptor has a 2x magnification of field of view. Let's imagine we place a 25mm Cooke S4 on an Arri 435. Now we move that lens to an SR3, and we find that it has magnified by a factor of 2, netting the same field of view as a 50mm would have on the 435. Then we move the lens onto your adaptor on an XL1. What would be the comparable lens on the 435 at this point? Still a 50mm, or would it now be yielding the same size image as a 100mm?

The overwhelming reason (based on what I have read on this forum) that folks seem to be interested in the Mini 35 is the shallow depth of field characteristic, not as much the optical quality*. If your product is able to approach this goal at an obviously more attractive price point, I'm sure you will do very well.

To that end, may I make a recommendation about the pictures on the site? How about setting up up a demanding focus situation that has multiple planes (foreground objects, midground subject, background objects) and photographing the exact same image size with both your adaptor + cine lens as well as a stock CanonXL1 lens; then posting the results next to each other. I think if people can see the that the adaptor will deliver more shallow results, they will be impressed. Listing the specs of the images (focal length, aperture etc) would be helpful also.

* regarding optical quality: the Angeniux 12-120, while historically a workhouse, is not exactly an optical champ. It's been years since I'ved used them but as I recall they breathe significantly. With the advances in optics over the years, I would be surprised if it could outperform the Canon manual lenses for the XL1 in flare resistance and resolution--but that's merely conjecture on my part.

Barrett Bilotta · June 27th, 2003, 04:11 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barrett, please bear with me if that's OK.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the adaptor has a 2x magnification of field of view. Let's imagine we place a 25mm Cooke S4 on an Arri 435. Now we move that lens to an SR3, and we find that it has magnified by a factor of 2, netting the same field of view as a 50mm would have on the 435. Then we move the lens onto your adaptor on an XL1. What would be the comparable lens on the 435 at this point? Still a 50mm, or would it now be yielding the same size image as a 100mm?

The overwhelming reason (based on what I have read on this forum) that folks seem to be interested in the Mini 35 is the shallow depth of field characteristic, not as much the optical quality*. If your product is able to approach this goal at an obviously more attractive price point, I'm sure you will do very well.

To that end, may I make a recommendation about the pictures on the site? How about setting up up a demanding focus situation that has multiple planes (foreground objects, midground subject, background objects) and photographing the exact same image size with both your adaptor + cine lens as well as a stock CanonXL1 lens; then posting the results next to each other. I think if people can see the that the adaptor will deliver more shallow results, they will be impressed. Listing the specs of the images (focal length, aperture etc) would be helpful also.

* regarding optical quality: the Angeniux 12-120, while historically a workhouse, is not exactly an optical champ. It's been years since I'ved used them but as I recall they breathe significantly. With the advances in optics over the years, I would be surprised if it could outperform the Canon manual lenses for the XL1 in flare resistance and resolution--but that's merely conjecture on my part. -->>>

Hi Charles,
Thanks for your inquiry about our product. To answer your questions about the 2x effect with the hypothetical example you gave: the 25MM Cooke would become a 50mm on the XL-1 with our mechanical adaptor, it would not be a 100MM. Canon USA shot a commercial with our adaptor. I assume you have seen the outtakes on our website www.xl1solutions.com They did a comparison between an 18MM Cooke which ended up being a 36MM lens, and our Super Fast Optar 35MM which ended up being 70MM.

As you know when you use the center of the lens you are getting the best part of the glass. Canon also shot for the purpose of comparison, with a Canon 16x video lens, and you can see the difference on our site.

You can also see on our web page sample images taken with the Mini 35MM adaptor. There are some outtakes from the feature film “Phreakers” that was shot with an XL-1 and the P+S Mini 35MM. You decide if I am close to the quality of a film look and depth of field with our mechanical mount.

Canon USA has taken our product line and our motion picture lenses to the Video Expo in NYC and previously to the NAB show in Vegas. I also have given Canon a Zeiss 10-100MM to try with the adaptor as well. We will have sample images on our site soon.

As far as your point about the 12-120 Angenieux lens, we both know it was a work horse in its day in the 70’s. They were $5000 then, and that was a lot of money. The reason that we use the 12-120 with the XL-1 for an example, is for two reasons. They are abundant in the market place and they are inexpensive now. If you wanted to start moving up to a 15-150 Angenieux or a 25-250 Angenieux, which we have, it starts to get expensive for the XL-1 user market. However, we will have samples as you recommended. Soon on our site a section of FAQ’s will be added and samples of images taken with a variety of lenses, film and video, 16MM and 35MM.

You mentioned the Canon lens; if you are talking about a Canon video lens compared to the Angenieux, the Angenieux out performs the Canon lens. If you are talking about a Canon still film lens, which you can use our EOS adaptor (over 50 different types of lenses) it performs equal to the Angenieux. I hope this answers all your questions. I look forward to further discussions. Wait until we get the Russian Lomo/Kovas 35mm motion picture lenses mounted with a PL. They have a beautiful look, not as hard as the Zeiss. I am hopeful that we can get these lenses to work with the XL-1 as well as Sony 2/3 bayonet.

Sincerely
Barrett Bilotta

Mark Kubat · June 28th, 2003, 11:38 PM

re-reading it now I wonder if it's meant as a dig at the standard issue lens that comes in the XL1 package?

if so, I get your point. I've learned with difficulty how to live with it - hell, if I have to rack focus, I shoot and then use after effects to mask and blur in post!

don, i was trying to emphasize that 2x is heckuva a lot easier to live with than 7x and if it works and the price doesn't go up, then Barrett and co. are on to something big here.

Unless I win the Powerball, I wouldn't be able to properly appreciate the interchangeability advantages my XL1 potentially offers - the Teknik is an example - it's way more than the camera itself and the way I shoot my stuff on the road and all, I find it more practical to own my equipment (lenses and adaptors included) rather than renting.

Barrett's stuff would keep me in the game swinging with an XL1 in my hands!

Dylan Couper · June 29th, 2003, 03:10 PM

I'd like to see some side by side DOF comparisons to the stock XL1 lens before I considered purchasing this product.

Barrett Bilotta · July 3rd, 2003, 11:33 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I'd like to see some side by side DOF comparisons to the stock XL1 lens before I considered purchasing this product. -->>>

Hi Dylan,
Actually now that you mention it we just put up on my website a side by side comparsion of images taken with the 16x lens and our adaptor with 18mm Cooke as well as 35mm Optar Please go to http://www.xl1solutions.com

Thanks
Barrett

Keith Loh · July 3rd, 2003, 12:05 PM

I'm having trouble navigating your website. Can you give a specific page?

Barrett Bilotta · July 3rd, 2003, 08:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : I'm having trouble navigating your website. Can you give a specific page? -->>>

Hi Keith,
Go to our main page www.xl1solutions.com click on adaptors and then click on sample photos taken with our adaptors. The first link on that page are the photos taken by Canon USA.
Thanks
Barrett

Keith Loh · July 3rd, 2003, 09:41 PM

Thanks.

http://www.virtualcybervision.com/xl...anon_comme.htm

David L. Fisher · July 5th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Hi,

I have been reading through your thread, and I hate to ask just a STUPID question, but is this an adaptor that works via the P+S Mini35, or goes straight onto the XL1 and allows you to do without the Mini35?

I went tpo our website, but I couldn't really get it to function correctly, but that big as hell picture you have of the XL1 with the Mini 35 attached prompted my question.

Sorry for my technical stupidity.

Regards,
David Fisher

Chris Hurd · July 5th, 2003, 11:41 PM

David

It goes straight to the XL1. Don't worry, there are no stupid questions here. Hope this helps,

June 25th, 2003, 08:37 PM	#16
Barrett Bilotta XL1 Solutions Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston MA Posts: 28	Re: you keep me a believer in the XL1 system... <<<-- Originally posted by Mark Kubat : Wow, impressive stuff and fairly affordable. I have Canon EOS adapter and its frustrating as hell... and the P+S Teknik or whatever-it's-called is way out of my price range and not avail. to rent here in Toronto... so your products are a welcome sigh of relief and maybe now I might stick with the XL1 system... I have a friend who owns a bunch of NIkon lenses that I could probably get to use - very very interesting.... Wonder when Canon will buy you out? Just kidding! -->>> Hi Mark, Your not the only one thats excited and sees the potential. Canon has been showing our product line at NAB in Vegas and now this month in New York City. I don't think we will get bout out or do I want to :) Thanks Barrett P.S. Keep this secret we are making another mount for a Sont 2/3 B4 Bayonet mount that will take.....guess what??......motion picture lenses.

June 25th, 2003, 10:35 PM	#17
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	note to Nigel - yes, the 7.2x makes Canon EOS frustrating the quality is beautiful. But unless you are making a movie about talking noses, the application is limited. Okay, you can try filming from the next room or from outside through the window (across a soccer field maybe?) I sound flippant but I scarcely fathom to guess what Canon was thinking when they first launched their camcorder with "interchangeable lenses" and especially the EOS adaptor. Okay, I perhaps am too harsh... I have used it and love the quality - it's just the 7.2x factor is murder! Step down rings and wide adaptors mean you lose stops, etc. Now with this latest offering, there is real promise for indie filmmakers to have pro Sundance-worthy results while still operating on car-wash-fundraiser budgets. Hey, isn't that how everyone here gets their money? Oh, Nigel, now I read you do wildlife stuff - then you definitely want the Canon EOS adaptor! All my stuff with it looks like it's for Mutual of Omaha - tiny depth of field, super-telephoto like it was shot while on Safari in the Serengeti - problem is I shoot narrative movies with actors and only RARELY does the shot call for them to do a convincing impersonation of a pygmy hippopotamus in heat... Hey, am I the first one in all these forums to use the word "hippopotamus?" Somebody do a search!

June 25th, 2003, 11:49 PM	#18
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	Geez Mark, Place the Canon Manual/ Servo 16X lens in front of your XL1S and then you will appreciate the benefit of having the ability to change lenses with the XL mount. Which lens do you mainly use? - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

June 26th, 2003, 01:41 AM	#19
Nigel Moore Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Switzerland Posts: 358	Thanks Mark! Cheers, looks like the EOS adapter gives good quality if you can live with the magnification. I can. Thanks again.

June 26th, 2003, 08:58 PM	#21
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Barrett, please bear with me if that's OK. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the adaptor has a 2x magnification of field of view. Let's imagine we place a 25mm Cooke S4 on an Arri 435. Now we move that lens to an SR3, and we find that it has magnified by a factor of 2, netting the same field of view as a 50mm would have on the 435. Then we move the lens onto your adaptor on an XL1. What would be the comparable lens on the 435 at this point? Still a 50mm, or would it now be yielding the same size image as a 100mm? The overwhelming reason (based on what I have read on this forum) that folks seem to be interested in the Mini 35 is the shallow depth of field characteristic, not as much the optical quality. If your product is able to approach this goal at an obviously more attractive price point, I'm sure you will do very well. To that end, may I make a recommendation about the pictures on the site? How about setting up up a demanding focus situation that has multiple planes (foreground objects, midground subject, background objects) and photographing the exact same image size with both your adaptor + cine lens as well as a stock CanonXL1 lens; then posting the results next to each other. I think if people can see the that the adaptor will deliver more shallow results, they will be impressed. Listing the specs of the images (focal length, aperture etc) would be helpful also. regarding optical quality: the Angeniux 12-120, while historically a workhouse, is not exactly an optical champ. It's been years since I'ved used them but as I recall they breathe significantly. With the advances in optics over the years, I would be surprised if it could outperform the Canon manual lenses for the XL1 in flare resistance and resolution--but that's merely conjecture on my part. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 26th, 2003, 04:09 PM	#20
Barrett Bilotta XL1 Solutions Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston MA Posts: 28	<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barrett: I'm intrigued by the PL adaptor and the minimal magnification effect, but I am curious about the field of view differences between a 16mm and 35mm designated lens. For instance, a 16mm format 12mm lens is going to have half the field of view of a 35mm format 12mm lens due to the difference in target size; what would the magnifaction factor be on both lenses when used with your adaptor? As a specific choice (since it is a reasonably priced lens to find used), what would be the equivalent focal length created when using the illustrated 12-120 lens? -->>> Hi Charles, You correct 35mm gives you more image then the 16mm. Its 2x effect. As for the Angenieux 12-120 it would be a 24-240mm lens. No matter if it is a 16mm lens or a 35mm lens it still has a 2x effect. Did you see the photos taken with the 12-120 Angenieux on our site? Thanks Barrett Anymore questions get back to me. I am out of town but I will get back to you.

June 27th, 2003, 04:11 PM	#22
Barrett Bilotta XL1 Solutions Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston MA Posts: 28	<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barrett, please bear with me if that's OK. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the adaptor has a 2x magnification of field of view. Let's imagine we place a 25mm Cooke S4 on an Arri 435. Now we move that lens to an SR3, and we find that it has magnified by a factor of 2, netting the same field of view as a 50mm would have on the 435. Then we move the lens onto your adaptor on an XL1. What would be the comparable lens on the 435 at this point? Still a 50mm, or would it now be yielding the same size image as a 100mm? The overwhelming reason (based on what I have read on this forum) that folks seem to be interested in the Mini 35 is the shallow depth of field characteristic, not as much the optical quality. If your product is able to approach this goal at an obviously more attractive price point, I'm sure you will do very well. To that end, may I make a recommendation about the pictures on the site? How about setting up up a demanding focus situation that has multiple planes (foreground objects, midground subject, background objects) and photographing the exact same image size with both your adaptor + cine lens as well as a stock CanonXL1 lens; then posting the results next to each other. I think if people can see the that the adaptor will deliver more shallow results, they will be impressed. Listing the specs of the images (focal length, aperture etc) would be helpful also. regarding optical quality: the Angeniux 12-120, while historically a workhouse, is not exactly an optical champ. It's been years since I'ved used them but as I recall they breathe significantly. With the advances in optics over the years, I would be surprised if it could outperform the Canon manual lenses for the XL1 in flare resistance and resolution--but that's merely conjecture on my part. -->>> Hi Charles, Thanks for your inquiry about our product. To answer your questions about the 2x effect with the hypothetical example you gave: the 25MM Cooke would become a 50mm on the XL-1 with our mechanical adaptor, it would not be a 100MM. Canon USA shot a commercial with our adaptor. I assume you have seen the outtakes on our website www.xl1solutions.com They did a comparison between an 18MM Cooke which ended up being a 36MM lens, and our Super Fast Optar 35MM which ended up being 70MM. As you know when you use the center of the lens you are getting the best part of the glass. Canon also shot for the purpose of comparison, with a Canon 16x video lens, and you can see the difference on our site. You can also see on our web page sample images taken with the Mini 35MM adaptor. There are some outtakes from the feature film “Phreakers” that was shot with an XL-1 and the P+S Mini 35MM. You decide if I am close to the quality of a film look and depth of field with our mechanical mount. Canon USA has taken our product line and our motion picture lenses to the Video Expo in NYC and previously to the NAB show in Vegas. I also have given Canon a Zeiss 10-100MM to try with the adaptor as well. We will have sample images on our site soon. As far as your point about the 12-120 Angenieux lens, we both know it was a work horse in its day in the 70’s. They were $5000 then, and that was a lot of money. The reason that we use the 12-120 with the XL-1 for an example, is for two reasons. They are abundant in the market place and they are inexpensive now. If you wanted to start moving up to a 15-150 Angenieux or a 25-250 Angenieux, which we have, it starts to get expensive for the XL-1 user market. However, we will have samples as you recommended. Soon on our site a section of FAQ’s will be added and samples of images taken with a variety of lenses, film and video, 16MM and 35MM. You mentioned the Canon lens; if you are talking about a Canon video lens compared to the Angenieux, the Angenieux out performs the Canon lens. If you are talking about a Canon still film lens, which you can use our EOS adaptor (over 50 different types of lenses) it performs equal to the Angenieux. I hope this answers all your questions. I look forward to further discussions. Wait until we get the Russian Lomo/Kovas 35mm motion picture lenses mounted with a PL. They have a beautiful look, not as hard as the Zeiss. I am hopeful that we can get these lenses to work with the XL-1 as well as Sony 2/3 bayonet. Sincerely Barrett Bilotta

June 28th, 2003, 11:38 PM	#23
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	don? can you elaborate on your question? re-reading it now I wonder if it's meant as a dig at the standard issue lens that comes in the XL1 package? if so, I get your point. I've learned with difficulty how to live with it - hell, if I have to rack focus, I shoot and then use after effects to mask and blur in post! don, i was trying to emphasize that 2x is heckuva a lot easier to live with than 7x and if it works and the price doesn't go up, then Barrett and co. are on to something big here. Unless I win the Powerball, I wouldn't be able to properly appreciate the interchangeability advantages my XL1 potentially offers - the Teknik is an example - it's way more than the camera itself and the way I shoot my stuff on the road and all, I find it more practical to own my equipment (lenses and adaptors included) rather than renting. Barrett's stuff would keep me in the game swinging with an XL1 in my hands!

June 29th, 2003, 03:10 PM	#24
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I'd like to see some side by side DOF comparisons to the stock XL1 lens before I considered purchasing this product. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

July 3rd, 2003, 11:33 AM	#25
Barrett Bilotta XL1 Solutions Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston MA Posts: 28	<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I'd like to see some side by side DOF comparisons to the stock XL1 lens before I considered purchasing this product. -->>> Hi Dylan, Actually now that you mention it we just put up on my website a side by side comparsion of images taken with the 16x lens and our adaptor with 18mm Cooke as well as 35mm Optar Please go to http://www.xl1solutions.com Thanks Barrett __________________ please visit our site at http://www.xl1solutions.com

July 3rd, 2003, 12:05 PM	#26
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	I'm having trouble navigating your website. Can you give a specific page? __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

July 3rd, 2003, 08:43 PM	#27
Barrett Bilotta XL1 Solutions Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston MA Posts: 28	<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : I'm having trouble navigating your website. Can you give a specific page? -->>> Hi Keith, Go to our main page www.xl1solutions.com click on adaptors and then click on sample photos taken with our adaptors. The first link on that page are the photos taken by Canon USA. Thanks Barrett __________________ please visit our site at http://www.xl1solutions.com

July 3rd, 2003, 09:41 PM	#28
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Thanks. http://www.virtualcybervision.com/xl...anon_comme.htm __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

July 5th, 2003, 11:29 PM	#29
David L. Fisher New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 23	Adaptor Hi, I have been reading through your thread, and I hate to ask just a STUPID question, but is this an adaptor that works via the P+S Mini35, or goes straight onto the XL1 and allows you to do without the Mini35? I went tpo our website, but I couldn't really get it to function correctly, but that big as hell picture you have of the XL1 with the Mini 35 attached prompted my question. Sorry for my technical stupidity. Regards, David Fisher

July 5th, 2003, 11:41 PM	#30
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	David It goes straight to the XL1. Don't worry, there are no stupid questions here. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!