TrueColor HD200 v2.0

[Paolo Ciccone]

Hi.

Eric Gulbransen and I today spent a day testing and calibrating his camera, which is equipped with Nikon lenses and the Zoerk adapter. The results were pretty interesting. One thing is clear, the lenses all focused on the subject, a full-size DSC Fiddleheads chart, without any issue. This is a proof of the high level of accuracy of the Zoerk adapter.
We then worked on the color configuration in order to get the lenses and the camera as close to 1:1 reproduction as possible, the stated goal of all my configuration settings. Eric had loaded the TC v1.0 for the HD200, tweaked it a bit on his own and then I did the fine tuning using the DSC ChromaDuMonde 28-color chart.
This configuration works pretty well for the combination of Nikkor lenses and this camera, your results might vary.
Anyway, I decided to post the resulting settings so that others can test them and possibly report about the results. Remember, different units can and will give different results, that's the reason why, if you want to calibrate your own camera, you should egt your own chart. Anyway, here is the full configuration, which from now on I will call TrueColor HD200 v2.0:

Master Black NORMAL
Detail MIN
Black NORMAL
White Clip 108%
Knee 90%
Color Matrix Standard
Values
R GAIN 1
R ROT 1
G GAIN 3
G ROT 2
B GAIN 2
B ROT NORMAL
Gamma Cinema
Gamma Level Normal
Color Gain Normal


Enjoy!

[Eric Gulbransen]

Thank you for yesterday, Paolo. I had to take three Advil last night to reduce brain swelling. That was like eight hours on spin cycle of the knowledge washer...

It was great to find that it was me who was screwing up the Nikon image, and NOT the Zoerk adapter (detail, minimum, detail, minimum). I guess my photoshoped "DSC chart" wasn't so accurate after all? Hey you can't knock a guy for trying. Or, maybe you can.

Anyone who can survive eight hours with me, has the patience of a saint.

Thanks Paolo

[Paolo Ciccone]

Eric, it's been great to work again on the HD200 and with such fine glass, the Zoerk adapter seems to me one of the best, for the price/benefit ratio, way of mounting alternative glass to the HD100/200. It's also fairly practical to use, the setup doesn't require to be careful with many moving parts, the fit is perfect, it's really a nice adapter. I will definitely consider getting one in the future.

For the benefit of the people reading this and considering mounting Nikkor lenses to the ProHD cameras, let me summarize the main facts. These lenses have a rather pleasant look, IMHO, you can get very nice zoom, macro capability and pretty shallow depth of field and, depending on the lens, very good quality of image with no noticeable CA. The downside is that the lenses have a "discreet step" ring for the iris. If you are used to the continuous shift of the stock lens or other video/cine lenses, the "click click click" movement of the iris ring going directly from f2.8 to f4.0 with no "in between" can take a bit to get used to.
In addition, the focus ring requires very fine turning, while when shooting movies we are more comfortable with wider movements which make following focus easier.
On the other hand this is a great way of connecting high quality glass that you can buy for a few hundred dollars per lens, a really good option for many of us on a tight budget.
I really think that with a HD100 or 200 and the Zoerk/Nikkor combo there is nothing stopping you from shooting a feature film and making it look good.

Sorry for the "information overload" Eric but, as you saw, it's hard for me to stop talking about this stuff. I always tell myself to slow it down but I rarely succeed :)

[Paolo Ciccone]

BTW, Eric, please check the shutter speed on you camera, I moved it quite a bit when testing the backfocus. It might be as high as 1/250.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Hi.

Eric Gulbransen and I today spent a day testing and calibrating his camera, which is equipped with Nikon lenses and the Zoerk adapter. ....


Enjoy!

What were you using for focus? I assume something other than the on board viewfinder?

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

I really think that with a HD100 or 200 and the Zoerk/Nikkor combo there is nothing stopping you from shooting a feature film and making it look good.
:)

Not that I plan to make a feature but are you saying the zork is an alternative to the Letus/Brevis/Ps adaptors? In regards to shallow focus photography? I would think this set up would really limit your field of view--I've been under the assumption this rig was niched for nature photography.

Also, does this thing use any kind of spinning/vibrating glass?

p.s. I perused their website and it looks like Zork also makes endoscopic adaptors in case anyone is interested in that...

[Paolo Ciccone]

Brian, the depth of field is not as shallow as with adapters that use a ground glass, the Zoerk coupler does not replace the fact that the image sensor is 1/3" and so, by nature, the DOF is what it is. The fact is, you can use some zoom lenses that will help you achieve DOF more easily than the stock one, the selection of lenses, both primes and zoom extends a lot and the results for DOF can vary enough to make this system very viable. The Mini-35 is definitely the best in the range as it allows you to mount cine lenses (Cooke, Zeiss, etc) which are designed for feature work, they are different from ENG lenses. It's great but at +$10,000 it's best suited, together with the lenses, for rental, not ownership.

My comment is based on the cost/benefit ratio. The Zoerk adapter costs a fraction of the others and so it make ownership of it much simple. This in turn makes it approachable for and indipendent/amateur shooter to have a piece of gear with which experiment and study the field of cinematography. In addition I like that it doesn't need, unlike the M2 and others, to use the stock lens. The advantage of this is two-fold. First the camera is kept at a manageable size and there is not coupling of the adapter to the stock lens, something that is always pretty delicate to maintain. Second, the quality of the image, IMHO, is nicer because the stock 16x is not used.
DOF is not everything. Several movies have been shot in Mini DV with long DOF. Of course we can't forget Citizen Kane where they actually worked extensively to get long DOF. Shallow DOF can be achieved, with limitations, with the Zoerk/Nikkor combo and can be obtained with other tricks. The fact is, with +$5000 for an HD100, ~$350 for the Zoerk adapter, you can add good lenses for a couple of thousand dollars and have a setup that can produce beautiful images. To me this is one of the best price/benefit ratio in the market today.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

$350 for the Zoerk adapter, .

Joan Wilder? Deed ju say Joan Wilder? $350? Did ju say $350? Dang, Okay...this sounds too good to be true...Why aren't people talking about this thing?

[Eric Gulbransen]

Clarification.. $389.00

No ground glass. The adapter is a tiny piece. The JVC gets light quick (unless you go stupid like I did and throw a telescope on it). 28mm on the Nikons is 28mm on the Fujinon as far as field of view. 88mm is 88mm. DOF is different in more ways than simply DOF. I'll shoot some comparison shots to show DOF differences. Probably not what the ground glass adapters can get, but with them you've got a freight train of a camera. Believe me, I've got a Brevis here and I'm scared I'll turn too quick and knock someone's teeth out so I don't use it. Camera's almost three feet long. Supposedly Dennis has a relay lens in the works. I'm boycotting till one shows up.

The 16x Fujinon's bokeh in high contrast areas turns green and looks fugly (to me). And in order to get great DOF with the Fuji you have to zoom like crazy, along with being wide open. And we all know what happens when you zoom like crazy with the 16x. With the Nikons you don't leave the lense's comfort zone. Like Paolo says, all lenses struggle somewhere. But I have to say that my worst nightmare, CA, is not so much a nightmare anymore. Now it's that mini skirt that my girl runs around town in.

I can see I've got some homework to do here. We've got the 16x, the Brevis with Canons, and the Zoerk with Nikons all right here which we could compare all back to back. Anyone feel like helping? This stuff takes forever.

Brian, you're nuts. In a good way. Check your email

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

I can see I've got some homework to do here. We've got the 16x, the Brevis with Canons, and the Zoerk with Nikons all right here which we could compare all back to back. Anyone feel like helping? This stuff takes forever.

Brian, you're nuts. In a good way. Check your email

Count me in Eric. Love to help.

ps didn't get any email...

Brian

[Brian Luce]

Maybe I missed it, but did you lose or gain any sharpness?

[Eric Gulbransen]

You didn't miss it Brian. Paolo glazed over your question about focus. No he did not use the lcd to judge focus. He had a pc connected to the cam via firewire and used a monitoring program called (Paolo, help!) I don't know what. But it was pretty cool looking and broke the captured image down into a few different critical windows - wave form, vector scope, and then the image. It was fascinating to see what turning the detail up did on the wave form monitor. Good lord do yourself a favor and leave it at min. All the Nikons shined bright on the fiddleheads chart, getting the center of the swirl sharp as a tack. Both the 28-70 and the 80-200 maintained proper backfocus, and neither breathed.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Sorry Brian, I missed the question about focus. We used a full size DSC Fiddleheads chart, see the backfocus video on my website, http://www.paolociccone.com for more information. The size of the chart and the configuration of it makes it very easy to judge focus even with the LCD display. Use the peeking at about 60-70%
I also had the camera connected to a laptop running DV Rack (now Adaobe OnLocation ) to verify image quality on a larger display.
As Eric mentioned, he was able to see the effect of the detail circuit on the image. I'm preparing a page with the screen grabs from a similar project, the TrueColor config for the Canon XH A1, and the result is quite dramatic.
Anyway, the Fiddleheads is really the secret to verify that all the lenses were focusing properly. Which is a very good things since, unlike video lenses, the Nikkor don't have any backfocus adjustment.

[Sean Adair]

Great to have such precision reporting on the setup of this unit guys. I think I've got one in my future too...
I always saw the Zoerk and similar non-optical mount converters as one-trick ponies. But, it's very heartening to hear of some additional benefits.
Regarding it's application for reducing DOF (depth of field - that range of "acceptable" sharpness around the point of "Critical focus" - 1/3 is in front of CF, 2/3 behind)), I'm going to get a bit obsessive here for the record.

It's all over the forum, but I think it's important to have in this thread too. The ultimate way to get better glass on the JVC is with the HZ-CA13U and 16mm PL movie camera lenses. This is rental territory for most of us. What you get is a solid, compact mount, with appropriate lens construction for follow-focusing etc, and reasonable DECREASE in DOF - AT THE SAME EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. It's really a remarkable item not available on any other camera in this class. I plan to rent one when I have a creative, dramatic project with some budget (funny, those things don't come together that often for me....)

I'm surprised that some people buy the 35mm lens adapters without really understanding what they are trying to accomplish. It's a very specific look and feel, only appropriate for some things. DOF is our friend in many situations. Limited DOF shooting often requires another person wholly dedicated to keeping the shot in focus - and this is with the best camera operators around. If it's an interview, or your subject or you aren't in motion, then you'll be fine. Going verite, be prepared to face your worst critic when you see playback on a big monitor....

Changing the size of the resolving image plane is just one way of manipulating DOF. Our JVC's are 1/3" at the chip resolving plane, and this doesn't change with the Zoerk. This is the factor that more expensive system DO modify. The HZ-CA13U does this very elegantly, with price the only real complaint. Contraptions using a ground glass resolving plane can get an even stronger effect, but start to get unwieldily and fragile to handling.
Larger apertures, and longer focal lengths also accomplish this limiting of DOF. The standard lens does start to get a bit strained in the extremes of these settings (wide open at full zoom is ugly, especially for contrasty subjects). My 17x has a modicum of improvement, but still gets strained. But, a real issue is that longer telephoto is not always practical or appropriate in situations where you want DOF. Interiors often just run out of space, and keeping motion in frame is much harder. Telephoto perspective is often simply not what you see, and the lens perspective is for me, a often overlooked and more important element than DOF. It's the zoom lens syndrome. People frame with their zoom, rather than moving to the ideal position.

That was more of a lecture on basic optics than I planned, but hey, hopefully it helps someone. (Paulo and Eric already know this very intimately).

The Zoerk gives us this clean extended range of hyper-telephoto very successfully when coupled with good Nikon glass (Nikons because they have a manual aperture ring which Canons do not. This is focal lengths above 85mm where most our native lens zooms end. For our 1/3" cameras this is already a narrow view of our environment. Truth is, I don't go there that often, but here in NYC we don't have that many open vistas, and when we do, the haze sometimes wipes out the fun.

It's been a long time coming, but here is my question (finally I here them groan). Is the Zoerk really practical to use in focal lengths covered by the native zooms? Would I put my 35-70mm f2.8 Nikon lens (a fine piece of still glass) on this unit for some advantage? Maybe the 50mm f1.4? These lenses are optically fast for their length, but would they really have optical advantages, say when opened up wide? The fast focus barrel and stepped aperture stops would be a compromise in a fast moving situation.

There simply won't be any DOF limitation advantage at the same distance/focal length as far as simple resolving detail. It seems controlling CA (chromatic aberration) is a real motivation. That is a comparison I'd like to see... My lens is a bit better, but some situations are just really harsh, and knowing that envelope is expanded would be great.

One of the first runs I did with my camera last year was in a local manhattan city park, where a juvenile red-tailed hawk has made a home (yummy pigeons and squirrels). Shooting against a bright sky with bare branches on the trees yielded NOTHING useable. Maybe some CA could be removed in post, or some of the underexposed shots brightened, but I just wrote it off as "not a good situation for video".

The quality of the bokeh (shape of out of focus highlights and blur artifacts, nothing like a woman's bouquet!) could also be motivating. The green is from CA, so a separate issue, but there can be real differences in the beauty of the soft out of focus areas in a shot. It's one of the things people like prime lenses for, and can fall apart with zoom lenses trying to do too many other things.

Here's another question. How about DX Nikon lenses for digital APS framed SLRs? I assume these are fine to use, since the effective resolving plane is only using the center of the lens with the Zoerk.

Since I already have the Nikon glass, I am getting really tempted here. I just want to make sure I'll really use it. I have to keep saving money for the glass I KNOW I will really use - the 13x wide angle which has dropped in price!

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Sean Adair

It's really a remarkable item not available on any other camera in this class. I plan to rent one when I have a creative, dramatic project with some budget

Sean, all good points, I just wanted to add one thing. You don't buy a camera like the HD100/200, IMHO, to obtain shallow DOF. The size of the sensor prevents this. This is a camera that has a lot of applications, can get a reasonable shallow DOF but if selective focus is the name of the game for you, you are better off with something else... when those creative, dramatic projects come by. There are several tricks that can be used to fake shallow DOF so the above statement can be reconsidered based on a given situation.
To me, spending thousands and thousands of dollars to get shallow DOF with the HD100 is a questionable investment. It's much easier and cheaper to rent a 1/2" or 2/3" camera when the project comes by and use the the lenses for those cameras. For example, a Sony F350 (1/2" sensor) can mount 2/3" lenses with a mechanical adapter similar to the Zoerk and the results are quite amazing. Way better than anything that the HD200 can do and in a very manageable format. My point here is that we have to make a clear distinction between ownership and rental. Owning a camera like the HD100 is a great way to learn about cinematography first hand. The stock lens, with all the limitations, works like a cine lens. If you learn to use it you will need just a few minutes to get acquainted with something like the Fujinon 10x10, a lens that cost nearly $70,000 and that gives you absolutely stunning images.
Trying to get the same result with any 1/3" camera can be just too much effort. That's why I like the Zoerk approach. It allows you to experiment with many different lenses with a very small investment. It's all experience that you can transfer to other cameras and lenses when the occasion presents itself. I believe that once you have mastered the HD100/200 you can easily walk inside your local rental house and spend a few hours getting familiar with an XDCAM or a F900 and rent it with confidence. You will not be an expert of that camera but you will be able to use it to a certain degree of success.

It's been a long time coming, but here is my question (finally I here them groan). Is the Zoerk really practical to use in focal lengths covered by the native zooms?

Absolutely. The quality of the Nikkor lenses, to me, makes the combination appealing. It's a very subjective matter but I find the look very pleasant. The sharpness is really nice and the minimal CA makes that combinational really useful. Lastly, the ability to have the same f-stop across the range is very useful. You spent a lot of words talking about zoom. Well, we know that the stock lens, like many others, looses light as you zoom in. I have a Sigma zoom, 70-200 that is f2.8 all the way. If you are moving away from the subject and zoom in, wide open, in order to get shallow DOF, having the ability to keep the aperture constant helps a lot.

Shooting against a bright sky with bare branches on the trees yielded NOTHING useable. Maybe some CA could be removed in post, or some of the underexposed shots brightened, but I just wrote it off as "not a good situation for video".

Seems like "not a good situation" period. I don't know exactly what made the shot unusable but I guess that the subject was underexposed because of the bright sky. Of course you could decide to expose for the subject and let the sky being blown out. Later in post you can re-add the sky by adding a blue gradient, lower the transparency and select the blend mode of "darken". You will be surprised how effective that technique is. If you had shot the clip with a polarizer, in order to get the sky as blue as possible, even overexposed the sky will have enough detail to cause the gradient to pick up the clouds. Short of shining some light to the subject, the other "trick" that I can thing of is to use a grad ND to knock off the sky while keeping the subject in the clear area of the glass and the expose for the subject.