Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Charles Papert]

When Panavision (who were first and foremost a lens manufacturer before they got into the camera building business) tackled the F900 conversion a few years back, the challenge they set themselves was to build lenses that could resolve as well as their 35mm lenses within an image area 1/4" the area of 35mm. That took a LOT of engineering--they were essentially doubling the resolution of their previous designs. SD optics have always resolved more than the format; now HD optics have to do the same, which means several times better resolution than the SD versions. It's an interesting challenge.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

When Panavision (who were first and foremost a lens manufacturer before they got into the camera building business) tackled the F900 conversion a few years back, the challenge they set themselves was to build lenses that could resolve as well as their 35mm lenses within an image area 1/4" the area of 35mm. That took a LOT of engineering--they were essentially doubling the resolution of their previous designs. SD optics have always resolved more than the format; now HD optics have to do the same, which means several times better resolution than the SD versions. It's an interesting challenge.

Yep. That goes with what I heard about lenses. The smaller the CCds are, the more complex and expensive to make. Because of the smaller target area.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Chris Basmas

I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.

Anything less than a HD (true spec as Barry puts it) will be basically what the stock lens is. The Aberrations will be corrected most likely.

Your analogy with still cameras doesn't really hold. Moving images is a whole different thing. You say 1/3" lenses are not in the same category as 2/3". You mean price? The smaller the CCD the lens is for, the more complex and expensive it's to make. So a 1/3" HD lens is harder to engineer. You can't just count the size of the glass, which is not really smaller anyways. I wouldn't be sure your Fuji S20x6.4 (is that what you have? I'm just guessing by the 20x factor) which is actually an industrial/professional lens, will out perform the stock lens. Maybe it won't have the chromatic aberrations, but that's a defect. It will most likely be corrected. But I think your lens would look softer. I have used this lens with a DSR500 and it looked softer than when I used one of the Fuji true Broadcast lenses with the same camera. I remember it, because we were trying to find out if there was really a difference between the professional/industrial series and the Broadcast series. There was.

So if it didn't match a higher SD lens, I think it wouldn't match a lower HD lens either. As Charles points out, a lens needs to resolve more than the format. Of course, it's impossible to tell for sure without testing.

But the curious thing is that the stock lens for the HD100 cost about $800 while your 1/2" SD lens cost alomost $3,000.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

The ZR1 fixed glass does fine and clearly it's not $10K glass. I guess we have a design value difference of opinion. I really don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. However, I don't design camera and camera price points for a living - just speaking as a potential buyer. The lens issue is real for me. Perhaps I'm an "aberration" about chromatic aberrations :)

When you say it does a fine job, I'm thinking you mean with no chromatic aberrations? As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Find an NAB Handbook and Peter Gloeggler's contributions on lens and CCD relationship. It's brilliantly written, and whether you're an engineer or layperson, (or in between), it makes a lot of sense and is very informative. I'll see if he'll allow it to be posted, but it deals with why and how lenses resolve the way they do with various CCD sizes and types. You might be able to Google it, as it might be online already. I'm on a slow connection overseas, or I'd have a go at it.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

The Z1's lens looks like it already outperforms the HD100's. The Z1 has its share of chromatic aberration as well, but it looks downright mild compared to the HD100's Fujinon.

Sample pics of Z1 (well, actually FX1) aberrations are available on the eidomedia site, at http://eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

When you say that Fuji will correct it -- do you have basis for that? Do you know of examples where such a thing was corrected in a past product? I'm thinking that at the price point they engineered to, there's not likely going to be any correction for it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

[Greg Corke]

hi all
got a few questions if anyone can help

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

Would it be possible to use the mini 35 on a magiqcam steadycam rig or would the fact that you would have to use a fairly wide lense to keep focus without need of a focus puller make the employment of the mini 35 redundant

Also would the mini 35 be too heavy?

If you shot footage on the longer end of a long lens would this narrow your DOF even though the angle of view would not be the same.

Sorry if these questions sound dumb I'm just dunmb and curious I guess

Basically is there any way of acheiving filmic Dof without using mini 35

Thanks Guys

[Greg Corke]

Anyone know the best way to focus on a steady cam rig if you are using hd would you have to have an hd monitor I heard an sd would not be sifficient
Thanks

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

hi all
got a few questions if anyone can help

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean using the mini35 over the stock lens, no you can't, and why would you want that? If you mean mount the stock lens in front of the mini35, the answer is probably no as well. Unless somebody makes a 1/3" bayonet to PL adapter. But again, why would you want to do that? That would defeat the whole purpose of the mini35.

This link could help you to understand how the mini35 works and what it does for you: http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35.php

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

Would it be possible to use the mini 35 on a magiqcam steadycam rig or would the fact that you would have to use a fairly wide lense to keep focus without need of a focus puller make the employment of the mini 35 redundant.
Also would the mini 35 be too

Well, it would have to be a vest type of steadycam. A handheld one would be very heavy to hold. But, I wouldn't use a mini35 on a steadycam. I would use the stock lens. The mini35 reduces dof, so it would make the whole thing harder. Even if you used a wide angle 35mm lens, it would be just easier not to use the mini35 IMO.

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

If you shot footage on the longer end of a long lens would this narrow your DOF even though the angle of view would not be the same.

Short answer is yes. Depending of the distance of the subject from the camera.

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

Sorry if these questions sound dumb I'm just dunmb and curious I guess

The dumbest questions are the ones which go unasked. Cliche, but so true. ;)

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

Basically is there any way of acheiving filmic Dof without using mini 35

By shooting with the iris more open and using a longer focal length (longer end of lens), you can reduce your dof a good deal. It won't be 35mm dof and angle of view as the mini35 offers. But is what most people shooting on video (specially 1/3" cameras) do to get a shorter dof.

I'm sure somebody with more experience will chime in to add some more details. If you want information about video production cameras and etc, you couldn't have come to a better place. Don't hesitate to ask the questions you have. You will sure get your answers. Nobody here will think you dumb or anything. We are all in the same boat here. We're all learning new things everyday. Besides, people are nice and polite around here.
Another tip is to use the search function. Maybe your questions have already been asked by somebody else, and you can get your answers straight away.
Welcome on board.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

Hi Greg, the Mini35 converter is designed for full-grown motion picture lenses, the ones that are used on 35mm movie cameras. The standard Fuji video lens wouldn't fit on it. Hope this helps,

[Charles Papert]

Greg:

The Mini35 hovers around 15 lbs fully loaded (depends on camera, lens, accessories etc). I think the current top end Magiqcam can accomodate this, but not all models. As you guessed, pulling focus with a Mini35 for Steadicam is a can of worms. When you are working with a front end that is essentially a 35mm setup, you associate the challenges of the format, and for Steadicam that requires a wireless focus system. Any Steadicam operator who works in 35mm (and most who work in 16mm or 2/3" formats) will have the gear that is needed to fly and pull focus with this system; those who have rigs that oriented towards DV (such as the Magiqcam) will be in a bit of a pickle. Probably the easiest solution is to simply use the standard configuration of the camera on the stabilizer, then use the Mini35 for non-moving shots. I did this once while helping out on a shoot, and the footage cut in well.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

When you say it does a fine job, I'm thinking you mean with no chromatic aberrations? As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

Exactly - the footage I have seen on the Z1 is fine (not great, but fine). Clearly lower aberrations than the Fujinon.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I think it's outrageous, and that's why I'm pursuing getting a camera engineer to custom-make an Arri Bayonet lens adapter so I can use my Zeiss 10-100 on the HD100... perhaps it'll perform better...

Hey Barry, that's an interesting idea. Do you think such adapter would be a mechanical adapter only, or would also have to involve some sort of optical convertion? If it's just a matter of making a mechanical adapter to attach on the lens and make it possible to attach on the HD100, I might be able to machine it. If there's optical involved, then it's out of my league. I would also like to make one to use Nikon F mount lenses, but I'm also not sure if it would need to have optical convertions.

[Greg Corke]

Michael, Chris and Charles,

Many thanks for the reply. my questions were a bit garbbled but I think you guys got nuts and bolts of it. You've helped a great deal. I was particularly interested about shortening the dof on the standard hd 100 fujinon lense by shooting at the longest setting did I get that right? Anyway many thanks again. I'm paying close attention to these pages as I hope to be getting an hd 100 (when in finally turns up in Uk that is) I'm also thinking of getting the new animagiq steadycam would this be a good combo with the jvc?
Thanks for making me feel like not too much of a fool.
Greg

[Greg Corke]

Sorry guys I meant to ask this yesterday.

If I had the hd 100 on a steadycam rig and I wanted to make sure I was always in focus would the monitor I use have to be hi def or would a normal lcd be sifficient or would the fact that I would be on a fairly wide setting anyway make it a thing not worth worrying about too much?

or

I guess what i'm trying to ask is - How important is focus when shooting dv given the fact that dv is always trying to flatten the dof?

Hope this makes sense love to hear your views
Greg