Cinema package

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Hi.
I have read and read and read quite a lot, trying to find the best solution for my camera achieving more cinematic results. I have been looking long and hard at different adapters such as Letus, Redrock etc and I have finally settled on the HZCA13U adapter ( I think ).

Now I am looking to buy some lenses but I really do not know where to start. I was at one point looking to buy the 13x Fujinon lense to achieve more wideangle but I decided to go down the cinematic route which is what I prefer anyway. As you may understand I need a good wide lense and more close up lenses. I also need a mattebox.

I tried finding a thread I know I read on this forum on this topic, but I can`t find it anymore. Any help is really appreciated.

I have found a lot of good information on this forum in the past, making me able to achieve the best results possible with my cameras.

Thanks

Svein Rune

[Alex Humphrey]

well the 13x Fujinon still goes more than tight enough for standard cinema. 3.5 to 45.5mm it's more than telephoto enough for normal telephoto cinema and it's top quality glass. I used one one weekend at SF and I fell in love with it. I never bought one though, can't afford it with my current work load. the 17x I have not used, but seems to be by other users statments and my interpertation looks better than the 16x, and the 17x at it's worst is about like the 16x at it's best, but not the same playing at the same game as 13x and 18x lenses. I would bet either the 13x or the 17x would be an excellent standard coverage lens with the 13x edging out the 17x in difficult situations. 16x? got to live in teh 10-40mm range at f4.

something else to consider, MTF converter and Nikon lenses. Especially short zoom or fixed length used Nikkor lenses rock. a MTF is in my near future to go with my half dozen Nikkor and Nikon lenses.

So not sure if I really added anything that you didn't already know, but at least it's a recap of what what everyone has been saying. I guess that was worth the time to read this post? Maybe not...

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Alex, thanks for your reply. I am still looking at the 13 x Fujinon. It is expensive, though, but something I would be quickly familiar with, I guess.

Do you think an MTF- adapter would suit my needs just as good as the PL- adapter?

I do not have any still lenses, either. So as you understand I am rather new to this topic and have no experience what so ever with either cinema or still lenses.

I do know that I want a more cinematic feel to my films, and as you say my current 16x is not as good at either ends. I wish it had more wideangle, but I guess that is why they brought out the 13x.

And your post was really worth reading. Thank you.

[Alex Humphrey]

Think of something like the MTF and PL adapter as two entirely different things. MTF with Nikkor lenses is infinitely CHEAPER than the Pl adapter and 16mm movie lenses with entirely different results. MTF is to cheaply use Nikkor (or other brand depending upon adapter) 35mm still camera lenses for the best optical glass. Fixed or short zoom lenses look killer. A Nikkor 80-200mm would be starting where your 16x or 17x Fujinon leaves off and more than doubles the focal length. No aperature priority, no remote zooming, no camera control.... also no added depth of field other than longer focal length. Think of this route for nature videography. You could still use a 24mm Nikkor (or cheaper Nikon E) or 28mm or 50mm Nikkor for example that could be fairly usefull. Basically 40mm on up the MTF Nikkor combination will look better the farther you zoom out to 80mm and obviously beyond.

The PL adapter is for adapting 16mm movie lenses to mimic the field of view (FOV) of a 16mm film plane and thus having the same depth of field qualities of 16mm movie camera film with 16mm movie camera lenses. Adapter and lenses is far more expensive than your camera by several times, however the results (depth of field and control) are very film like. Usually better than 16mm film stock, and certainly cheaper per minute of footage.

If you can swing a 13x lens for normal cinema work you would be happy, and if you need some nature animal life shots, you will want MTF setup. if you find you need a shallower depth of field that you can't get with your 13x at full tele and f1.8 or 2.8 then the PL mount and 16mm movie camera lenses.

I would vote to get the 13x or if you don't want to spend that much, the 17x Fujinon lens. The 16x is ok from 10mm to 45mm and that's about all. As far as the PL adapter and 16mm lenses, I think (being a cheap bastard) is the $10,000 for adapter and a lens, I can use that money towards some sets that I can move the wall farther back away from the subject to help throw it out of focus in a makeshift studio (wharehouse) and sitll be much cheaper. I'm not convinced that people REALLY need to have super shallow DOF anyway, I say it's better to use the 17x or 13x and use the saved money on a couple soft lights and a few fresnel lights and reflectors, good Cartoni tripod and the other $5,000 savings will buy your volunteers pizza and beer and pocket change. Oh and hire an audio engineer. I know it's one of the first things my friends buy for their setup and DOF adapter either a cheap one at $1,500 to $5,000 plus lenses, I think it's the last thing anyone needs to spend money on. I think it's better to plan more, spend extra time in paying attention to the background, if you use sets, purposefully have less detail in some dressings so that even though it might not REALLY be out of focus as much as you want, there is less detail and color there fighting your subject matter. This is of course a purely personal opinion to try and not generally accepted, but I think it's valid enough to suggest it.

My real opinion is, if you are spending that much money for shallow depth of field effect, you should get a different platform that uses 2/3" chip platform and not monkey with adapters making a cheaper 1/3" platform look like a 2/3" platform. If the adapter was $100 then i would sing a different tune, but it's closer to $4,200 for the adapter before you even get to the 16mm film lens that will likely cost just as much for a good one.

[Alex Humphrey]

Addition:

If you decided that you NEED shallow focus, then the 17x at 60mm to 70mm and I'm betting if you use studio lights, even the ND2 setting will be too bright to get the aperture to open up enough.. so you MIGHT want a ND screw on filter. If so, get a Hoya HMC ND to help open up the aperture when using studio lights. OK, enough rambling.

Someone else chime in with their opinions.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Alex Humphrey

My real opinion is, if you are spending that much money for shallow depth of field effect, you should get a different platform that uses 2/3" chip platform and not monkey with adapters making a cheaper 1/3" platform look like a 2/3" platform.

Ah yes, but have you priced 2/3" cameras and lenses lately???

Everything else I agree with BTW. Well, most everything. I'm not THAT agreeable...

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Alex, thank you for an excellent answer to my question. You have made the differences very clear to me now. I finally understand the difference between the PL- mount an and MTF- adapter.

I am now looking harder at the 17x and 13x as suggested by you, seems like a good idea to save some money and spend more on lights and additional equipment.

One thing is still not clear, though, before I make a decision.

If I were to buy a PL- mount, all the film- lenses I would be looking at, will have a fixed point of view? If , for instance, I need a wide shot, I would have to buy a wide- angle lense, and if I needed a mid- range shot, I would have to buy a mid- range lense, and so on? Is that correct?

Also, how would I be able to judge and set exposure? Does the zebra- pattern still work or would I have to buy an additional light meter to judge exposure?

Sorry if this is a silly question.

Shaun, you seem to have set up a succesful business based on JVC Pro HD. Well done!

[Tim Dashwood]

Yes. Zebra still works. All your doing with an adapter is replacing the lens and losing remote sensing of the iris and obviously lens start/stop, RET & servo zoom.

The primary advantages are increased exposure (1.5 stops more), DoF characteristics of 16mm, and the ability to use quality cinema lenses (Zeiss Ultra series, Cooke S4, etc.) The HZ-CA13U works with all PL primes, zooms & other gadgets (snorkels, shift/tilt, etc.)

Here's a compilation of samples from some projects I've shot with the HD200 and the HZ-CA13U...
HZ-CA13U COPLA Cine Optical PL Adapter Demo Loop on Vimeo

...and my initial review of the prototype.
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquis...ter-copla.html

[Amos Kim]

I am still boggled by how this adapter increases exposure by that much...

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

I am still boggled by how this adapter increases exposure by that much...

It's the laws of physics at work!
See posts 55-58 in this thread.

The best analogy is the ability to start a fire with simply a magnifying glass and the sun.
In that case you are taking a front-of-lens "image" (the sun) that is the size of the magnifying glass and you are shrinking it down many times in size. Since you made the image smaller it also must get inversely brighter (and hence hotter). It is an optical invariant, the Lagrange Invariant to be exact.

The same thing applies to the HZ-CA13U (but not to other adapters that use ground glass dispersion.) An image that is 9.35mm wide (16mm film) is reduced down to an image that is about 4.8mm wide (1/3" CCD), which is roughly half the size. 9.35÷4.8 = 1.948. Let's round that up to 2 to make the calculations easier. Since the area of the image is a squared relationship we would say the factor is 2², or 4 times the amount of light (a 2 F-stop increase.)
The JVC engineers claim that there is a ½ F-stop reduction due to the optics (diffraction, refraction, or whatever) so the net gain is 2 stops minus ½ stop = 1 and ½ stops of increased illumination.

[Amos Kim]

wow... nice.... but does it allow the same FOV of a given 16mm cinema lens as if it were attached directly to a 16mm film cam?

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

wow... nice.... but does it allow the same FOV of a given 16mm cinema lens as if it were attached directly to a 16mm film cam?

Yes.

.

[Alex Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

I am still boggled by how this adapter increases exposure by that much...

Well it's because someone at JVC really cared about making the best product for the situation. No question about that. What is REALLY happening is that the adapter is capturing all the light meant for a larger 16mm frame size and refocusing it on a smaller 1/3 chip on the JVC, so unlike other adapters ([ADMIN: edited for accuracy]) where there are no lenses inside the adapter, much of the light spills on and around the front of the CCD prism and front of the camera (after the lens and before the prism and CCD block) losing 2 or more stops)

I hope I didin't screw that up and made sense... it's been a long day...

If I had some 16mm primes or good zooms from film school days I would probably have one of those PL adapters, but I don't.. so $4,200 for an adapter and $1,500 to $8,000 for a couple of 16mm lenses kills it for me. A motivated person would be trolling E-Bay looking for someone selling their antiquated 16mm cameras and looking for arri (or similar brand) detachable lenses from a film school graduate/drop out who needs cash.

Or live near a rental house rent the adapter and lenses for a few hundred a day for paying projects... (I don't... I have to drive an hour to see the bright lights of walmart... and two more hours to get a decent cup of coffee... ugh.. I miss LA... don't even get me started on Sushi bars around here... better to eat your shoe..... but enough of my complaining)

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Tim, thank you for your response and explanation. I think I am finally beginning to understand. And the images you shot with the HZ-CA13U, unbelieveable.

One thing that got me thinking again, is the increased exposure by 1.5 stop. That is really good news. I was also under the impression that I would loose light.

I spoke to my dealer today regarding the adapter and he said the best thing I could do was to decide what I really needed the adapter for. Meaning what kind of productions I would use it for.

He did not recommend the adapter for live events, sports or concerts.

But thinking of being able to gain more exposure, and shallower DOF seems like a good idea to me.

Also, isn`t that why so many of us bought and fell in love with this camera, being able to shoot more film- like images?

[Tim Dashwood]

There is one caveat that I often mention but many seem to look over. The flip side of the optical invariant I explained above is that the maximum aperture on the camera side of the adapter is F/1.4 (according to the JVC documentation) and considering the factor of 2 stops I mentioned before it means that the maximum aperture opening on the taking lens is F/2.8.
You can attach high-speed PL lenses that can open to T1.3, but they will fail to have any effect once opened past T2.8.
The laws of physics prevail again.

If you normally shoot at T4 (the typical sweet spot of any lens) then you will be happy to know that you will get the same DoF of that lens at T4 if it were attached to a 16mm camera, but you will get the exposure equivalent of opening to T2 and a half.