Achieving shallow DOF without a Mini35

Marty Baggen · August 17th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Right on the money Steve.....

It's great to read someone that takes pride in their work while learning and maximizing their tools.

Our indie film went through literally a frame-by-frame quality control for Warner Bros. The final report comes on a worksheet, and 95% of the potential issues of quality are not equipment related, but operator related.

It's the folks like yourself, with the saavy and knowhow that are truly going to benefit from the technical advances in the videography field.

Craig Donaldson · August 18th, 2005, 12:21 AM

What will the new adapter from optex do for depth of field? It says (www.prohd.co.uk) that it will allow the use of nikon 35mm lens?
Does this give us 35mm depth of field and if so how would it compare to that other big contraption......?
Would the angle of view of a nikon stills lens be less when used on a hd-101e?

craig

Barry Green · August 18th, 2005, 01:42 AM

Quote:

What will the new adapter from optex do for depth of field?

Presumably, nothing. It looks like the adapter they're offering is a mechanical linkage, meaning it allows you to use a Nikon lens on the HD100. So a 25mm Nikon lens would have the same field of view as the JVC stock lens when the JVC lens is zoomed to 25mm. And a Nikon 90mm lens would have the same field of view as the JVC stock lens at full telephoto.

A millimeter is a millimeter, after all. The field of view will be equivalent at equivalent millimeters.

Marty Baggen · August 18th, 2005, 12:30 PM

Barry,

thanks for the test footage.

Are the problems you see caused by the lens shortcomings alone, or are there problems with the CCDs?

Do you have the capability of conducting the same test with other glass?

Thanks again for the look.

Barry Green · August 18th, 2005, 01:18 PM

There's some speculation that the fringe may be being caused by overexposure into clipping, but I don't think that's what it is. I saw that effect on the original DVX100, a purple fringe that would surround blooming/clipped highlights when footage was shot on CineGamma -- but the issue went away if you used any of the other gamma curves. And it was always only purple. And it could happen anywhere in the frame, equally. So on the DVX the lens was fine, it was a DSP situation, and CineGamma has no knee protection.

On the HD100, the problem appears to be the glass. It happens primarily on the outer edges of the lens, but at full telephoto the issue gets worse and can be seen (as demonstrated) right in the middle of the screen. And depending on where the focus is set, the fringe can be green or purple. I'm not a lens engineer, but I can't fathom how that could be anything other than chromatic aberration in the glass. Fortunately, the lens is interchangeable. (unfortunately, the optional lens is $12,000!) But hopefully Les Bosher or some other enterprising camera engineer will whip up some alternate lens mounts so we can try 16mm movie camera lenses and other types of lenses...

Regarding the CCDs -- the dead pixels are a definite CCD issue; can't be anything glass-related about that. We observed them with the mini35 attached, and I've also seen them with the fujinon attached, and I'm certain you could see them with no lens attached. Same goes for the split-screen effect. Hopefully software will be able to mask both of those effects.

Regarding other glass -- I'd love to test it with the 13x wide-angle lens -- that lens sure looks like a beauty. I would strongly suspect that the issues we're observing in the 16x will not be present in the 13x -- but, that's a guess as I haven't had a chance to put the 13x through its paces. And, as far as I know, the 13x is the only lens option at this time -- I don't think the 1/2" adapter exists yet (and even if it does, that would limit you to using standard-def lenses, which would not necessarily be sharp enough to adequately resolve the high-def frame). And the c-mount adapter doesn't exist yet either, afaik. I think the only optional glass one could use would be the 13x at this point in time. I'd love to do a side-by-side between those two, but that would be dependent on JVC deciding that such a test is warranted, and then them supplying the camera and lens. Here in the US there are no HD100s available, the only way to get access to one is if JVC loans it out, or if you happen to catch it at a trade show (like the WEVA expo).

Steve Gibby · August 18th, 2005, 04:07 PM

It seems the problems reported with the 16x are accentuated in artificial light situations. Maybe it will do better in well-lit natural light environments - scenery, etc. I don't think anyone expected the 16x to be a pristine lens, but I'm sure everyone expected it to do better than what has been reported so far. When we get our hands on the 16x and 13x I think it would be great to test them out side-by and create an MTF chart for each of them. The first thing I did when I bought my JVC DV500U was remove the *giveaway* 14x lens and buy a new Fujinon 20x6.4 lens for it. It cost me $4K. With the better lens I was quite happy with the footage. If budget wasn't an issue, getting a Mini35, some primes, the 13x, a matte box, and follow focus would unlock what potential the camera has. Then again, renting for the front of the camera whatever a specific project needs, makes real good sense...

The 1/2" adapter does exist and should be shipping shortly according to my sources. For 480i, 480p, and maybe 576p shooting where a long focal length lens is needed, the 1/2" Fujinon 20x or Canon 19x should work real well - for standard definition shooting only. The IDX Endura or AB bricks would be a good idea to counterbalance the camera when using the 1/2" lenses.

JVC should really be making a top priority of having their tech staff solve the reported CCD problems. Those issues should have been solved before a single camera shipped. It's probably not too late to recover, but they better move quickly and decisively...

Barry Green · August 18th, 2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Gibby

It seems the problems reported with the 16x are accentuated in artificial light situations. Maybe it will do better in well-lit natural light environments - scenery, etc.

I've seen about a dozen shots of daylight/nature scenes that have chromatic aberration that ranges from mildly objectionable to horrifying. So no, it's not limited to artificial light.

Quote:

JVC should really be making a top priority of having their tech staff solve the reported CCD problems. Those issues should have been solved before a single camera shipped. It's probably not too late to recover, but they better move quickly and decisively...

Agreed. And I've heard that they are doing exactly that, and that the HD100 won't ship in the US until JVC US is satisfied that they've addressed the issues. It may be disappointing to have to wait a little longer, but I'd much rather wait for it to be "right" than get it now and be frustrated with QC issues! So JVC is doing the right thing, hopefully.

August 18th, 2005, 04:07 PM	#21
Steve Gibby Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southwest Utah & worldwide Posts: 398	It seems the problems reported with the 16x are accentuated in artificial light situations. Maybe it will do better in well-lit natural light environments - scenery, etc. I don't think anyone expected the 16x to be a pristine lens, but I'm sure everyone expected it to do better than what has been reported so far. When we get our hands on the 16x and 13x I think it would be great to test them out side-by and create an MTF chart for each of them. The first thing I did when I bought my JVC DV500U was remove the giveaway 14x lens and buy a new Fujinon 20x6.4 lens for it. It cost me $4K. With the better lens I was quite happy with the footage. If budget wasn't an issue, getting a Mini35, some primes, the 13x, a matte box, and follow focus would unlock what potential the camera has. Then again, renting for the front of the camera whatever a specific project needs, makes real good sense... The 1/2" adapter does exist and should be shipping shortly according to my sources. For 480i, 480p, and maybe 576p shooting where a long focal length lens is needed, the 1/2" Fujinon 20x or Canon 19x should work real well - for standard definition shooting only. The IDX Endura or AB bricks would be a good idea to counterbalance the camera when using the 1/2" lenses. JVC should really be making a top priority of having their tech staff solve the reported CCD problems. Those issues should have been solved before a single camera shipped. It's probably not too late to recover, but they better move quickly and decisively... __________________ Steve Gibby, RED One SN 0008, 2 others. Epic M SN 0008, 2 others, Canon 5D. Linked In - Steve Gibby Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/stevegibby/

August 17th, 2005, 09:06 PM	#16
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	Right on the money Steve..... It's great to read someone that takes pride in their work while learning and maximizing their tools. Our indie film went through literally a frame-by-frame quality control for Warner Bros. The final report comes on a worksheet, and 95% of the potential issues of quality are not equipment related, but operator related. It's the folks like yourself, with the saavy and knowhow that are truly going to benefit from the technical advances in the videography field.

August 18th, 2005, 12:21 AM	#17
Craig Donaldson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 80	What will the new adapter from optex do for depth of field? It says (www.prohd.co.uk) that it will allow the use of nikon 35mm lens? Does this give us 35mm depth of field and if so how would it compare to that other big contraption......? Would the angle of view of a nikon stills lens be less when used on a hd-101e? craig

August 18th, 2005, 12:30 PM	#19
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	Barry, thanks for the test footage. Are the problems you see caused by the lens shortcomings alone, or are there problems with the CCDs? Do you have the capability of conducting the same test with other glass? Thanks again for the look.

August 18th, 2005, 01:18 PM	#20
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	There's some speculation that the fringe may be being caused by overexposure into clipping, but I don't think that's what it is. I saw that effect on the original DVX100, a purple fringe that would surround blooming/clipped highlights when footage was shot on CineGamma -- but the issue went away if you used any of the other gamma curves. And it was always only purple. And it could happen anywhere in the frame, equally. So on the DVX the lens was fine, it was a DSP situation, and CineGamma has no knee protection. On the HD100, the problem appears to be the glass. It happens primarily on the outer edges of the lens, but at full telephoto the issue gets worse and can be seen (as demonstrated) right in the middle of the screen. And depending on where the focus is set, the fringe can be green or purple. I'm not a lens engineer, but I can't fathom how that could be anything other than chromatic aberration in the glass. Fortunately, the lens is interchangeable. (unfortunately, the optional lens is $12,000!) But hopefully Les Bosher or some other enterprising camera engineer will whip up some alternate lens mounts so we can try 16mm movie camera lenses and other types of lenses... Regarding the CCDs -- the dead pixels are a definite CCD issue; can't be anything glass-related about that. We observed them with the mini35 attached, and I've also seen them with the fujinon attached, and I'm certain you could see them with no lens attached. Same goes for the split-screen effect. Hopefully software will be able to mask both of those effects. Regarding other glass -- I'd love to test it with the 13x wide-angle lens -- that lens sure looks like a beauty. I would strongly suspect that the issues we're observing in the 16x will not be present in the 13x -- but, that's a guess as I haven't had a chance to put the 13x through its paces. And, as far as I know, the 13x is the only lens option at this time -- I don't think the 1/2" adapter exists yet (and even if it does, that would limit you to using standard-def lenses, which would not necessarily be sharp enough to adequately resolve the high-def frame). And the c-mount adapter doesn't exist yet either, afaik. I think the only optional glass one could use would be the 13x at this point in time. I'd love to do a side-by-side between those two, but that would be dependent on JVC deciding that such a test is warranted, and then them supplying the camera and lens. Here in the US there are no HD100s available, the only way to get access to one is if JVC loans it out, or if you happen to catch it at a trade show (like the WEVA expo).