35mm Adapter Picture Quality at DVinfo.net

Michael Younger · August 11th, 2006, 08:35 AM

Hey guys, I’m really interested in what 35mm adapters bring to the HVX. Do any of the 35mm adapters out there produce a better picture in the end, than using only the stock lens? I am still new to filming and such, so I don’t fully understand glass and lenses, optics, etc. But are 35mm adapters typically just used to give more depth of field or is the actual picture improved in any sort of way? I would assume it’s just for more depth of field, as the image still passes through the stock lens correct?

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Younger

Hey guys, I’m really interested in what 35mm adapters bring to the HVX. Do any of the 35mm adapters out there produce a better picture in the end, than using only the stock lens? I am still new to filming and such, so I don’t fully understand glass and lenses, optics, etc. But are 35mm adapters typically just used to give more depth of field or is the actual picture improved in any sort of way? I would assume it’s just for more depth of field, as the image still passes through the stock lens correct?

With the HVX, everything has to go through your prime still/cine lens, then the imager (usually ground glass), mirrors (at least on the P+S Technik), then an achromat relay lens, then your camera stock lens. This drops your camera's sensitivity by 2-3 stops, which creates some definite issues with indoor lighting.

Even without the ground glass in the optical path, you'd be degrading your image. With the ground glass, it takes a very distinct hit on resolution. It also picks up some grain from the GG. In my opinion, the Redrock M2 ends up looking shockingly like 16mm -- random grain that looks film-like, and shallow DOF. But the drop in resolution is quite easily visible...it wouldn't be satisfactory for a shot with extremely fine detail. Unfortunately, it's problematic to mix-and-match footage, since the "grain" would seemingly disappear on the non-adapter footage.

The only way in the mini-HD camera world to get a better image is to get the Canon or the JVC, which have interchangeable lenses. From there, you can get a cine-to-video adapter mount and use a better lens.

Robert Lane · August 11th, 2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Auerbach

The only way in the mini-HD camera world to get a better image is to get the Canon or the JVC, which have interchangeable lenses. From there, you can get a cine-to-video adapter mount and use a better lens.

Scott,

Are you talking about an adapter that lets you direct-mount a PL-type lens such as Cooke or Zeiss primes, or are you referring back to the M2 and Mini-35 adapters?

If the former, I'd like to know more about those since I know nothing of them - and if such a thing exists for the larger bodies. That would really make the HPC2000 a heck of rig if that were possible!

Michael Younger · August 11th, 2006, 10:08 AM

Thanks Scott for that information, thats what I was assuming; that it was mainly for a style ethic, but in return you do loose some of the original quality. Robert: I was refering to the Redrock style setups, Im not sure about the first idea you mentioned, never seen/heard. I really love the depth of field on the red rock and the abilty to pull the focus back and forth like it does, but I couldnt imagine giving up detail level just for that on most my shoots.

Robert Lane · August 11th, 2006, 10:40 AM

Hi Michael,

Yep, I know what your questions were about, but Scott's mention of a "cine-to-video" adapter is what has me curious. I just want to know if he's referring to the aforementioned adapters or something else. (?) Yo, Scotty!

Vincent Pascoe · August 11th, 2006, 11:38 AM

" it's problematic to mix-and-match footage, since the "grain" would seemingly disappear on the non-adapter footage"

I dissagree with the "M3" or newest "ground glass" you don't have the noticeable "grain" like you get on the PS Tecknik. There is a drop in Resouloution akin to like a 1/4 diffusion.

and I don't think theres a problem cutting back and forth.
take a look at my footage here: we cut back and forth all the time

http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/HVX200/pascoe.mov

a "better Picture" is subjective. and DOF adapters is like a Filter its just another Creative choice the DP has to create the look he wants. its not for evrey shot, Just like you wouldn't allways want to have a BPM or Polarizer on your camera at all times

I think for Music videos, Features, Comercails. I think DOF Adapters do ad Quality to the shots. Selective foucus shots right now do look like higher production vallue. and I personaly Love the look.

If really Sharp video is all that Counts as a "better picture" then you probably shouldn't be shooting with the HVX, and maybe you shouldn't be shooting at all.

jk

VP

www.vincentpascoe.com

www.myspace.com/vincentpascoe

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Pascoe

I dissagree with the "M3" or newest "ground glass" you don't have the noticeable "grain" like you get on the PS Tecknik. There is a drop in Resouloution akin to like a 1/4 diffusion.
...snip..
If really Sharp video is all that Counts as a "better picture" then you probably shouldn't be shooting with the HVX, and maybe you shouldn't be shooting at all.

Yowch. Was that a flame I just felt singeing my gray-haired ass, sonny? ;-)

There are times when resolution matters. There are times when it doesn't. I hardly think that invalidates a career that goes back 25 years at this point. For example, I've done close-up studio product photography of $10-20k Piaget watches. Trust me: if you intercut, you'd see the difference on those shots, and so would the agency.

My Redrock is about 60 days old, so I assume it's the latest ground glass. Steve Weiss apparently has an even finer-grained unit on the way. With the current Redrock, I've intercut M2 and non-M2 footage, and I see the grain and contrast difference. It's as noticeable as switching film stocks.

Are there times when that's completely unimportant? Sure. Plenty of times. Are there times when it's not? Um... YEAH! Would I normally prefer to work with a 2/3" chip in those kinds of situations, to have both the resolution (if needed) and the shallower DOF? Sure. Do my clients always have budget for the rental? Nope. So you make do.

My use of "better image" only referred to the original post's question, which was pretty clearly an optics question regarding resolution and contrast in my mind, since he already understood the DOF advantages:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Younger

Do any of the 35mm adapters out there produce a better picture in the end
...snip...
I don’t fully understand glass and lenses, optics, etc. But are 35mm adapters typically just used to give more depth of field or is the actual picture improved in any sort of way? I would assume it’s just for more depth of field, as the image still passes through the stock lens

This doesn't seem like an aesthetics question to me (I've seen great stuff shot on absolutely HORRIBLE equipment...that's not the point here). If I didn't think the M2 was a useful tool, I wouldn't have bought one.

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Scott,

Are you talking about an adapter that lets you direct-mount a PL-type lens such as Cooke or Zeiss primes, or are you referring back to the M2 and Mini-35 adapters?

If the former, I'd like to know more about those since I know nothing of them - and if such a thing exists for the larger bodies. That would really make the HPC2000 a heck of rig if that were possible!

I was just repeating some info I'd read online without much attention to detail, since it didn't apply to the HVX, and that's all I own at the moment. Like you, I'm waiting for the 2/3" mid-price market to shake out a bit before I get another big rig.
---
I just took a quick look online: The XL H1 can use the EOS lens adapter... that may have been one of the references.

Here's the product detail from JVC's site (it's not clear whether they're talking about a flange adapter or something else):

Bayonet Mount Interchangeable Lenses
The GY-HD110U includes a standard detachable 16x Servo Fujinon ProHD lens. Operation is the same as with all professional lenses, with mechanical control of focus, zoom and iris functions. The built-in servo zoom and iris functions can also be used if desired. Other available lens options include a 13x (3.5mm) wide zoom HD lens, a wide-angle converter for the standard 16x lens, an adapter allowing ½-inch lenses to be used on the camera and a filter kit. JVC offers rear tripod mounted focus and zoom controls for the standard lenses. Prime lenses can also be used with a 3rd party adapter.

---
JVC makes a 1/3" to 1/2" flange adapter.
----

The new JVC GY-HD200U apparently has a true 16mm cine adapter:

http://www.geniusdv.com/weblog/archi...hd_line_up.php

If Panasonic has even the slightest inkling of a clue, they'll make one for the HPC2000. If they don't, they're really not paying attention.

Vincent Pascoe · August 11th, 2006, 03:27 PM

yeah sorry fo;r the Flare up I had just read the long post about the guy getting rid of his HVX because of Sharpness. so I was roring to make a point.

Changeing film stocks in a comercail for the same sceen might not be the look you want. but for a music video even a feture I think it can be completely Aceptable.

I see a difrence, in look, between my difrent Nikon lenses (probably lens Coating and useage)but that dosn't mean I'm going to give up and only use on lens.

I think many people paint them selfs in a corner because something is technicly against the rules. People get afraid of haveing something Blown out because its video, or grainy because its on Super16mm and you have a Hazer.

I don't use the look that the tools I have give me. I use the Tools I have to make the Look I need that fit the Story.

The DP job is about Effecancey. Getting the job done with the Time/Money/tallent that the producer Has given you. yes with more time/Money you could have shot with difrent Film/Lenses/Camera. but if the story asks for a contrasty sceen and I have to shoot it on a cell phone Camera then I'm still going to light it for the "look I want and not what the camera does best.

I think the DP should never be Afraid to use something if it get him/her the look they want.

Or maybe my style is to Break the rules ....and thats my problem.

Vincent Pascoe

www.vincentpasoce.com
www.myspace.com/vincentpascoe

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Pascoe

yeah sorry fo;r the Flare up I had just read the long post about the guy getting rid of his HVX because of Sharpness. so I was roring to make a point.

I'm guess I'm perversely flattered to be linked to Robert, even in that strange a way. ;-) (Do I need to start calling myself Fae Ray??)

Actually, Robert later realized he had some scene file settings way off, and is sticking with the HVX. As you know, you can drastically change the HVX look (including making it look pretty awful) if you dink around in the settings menus, and his settings weren't what he thought they were. A couple of days later, he realized that something ~had~ to be wrong, went back and re-tested, and figured out he'd loaded the wrong scene file.

For what it's worth, he's one of the most helpful and precise contributors to this site. He had a major shoot that required extreme detail, and it was important enough to switch cameras, given the results he thought he was seeing on test footage. Can't fault a guy for choosing the best tool for the job, and he didn't want to tie up the financial resources in owning two mini-HD cams.

Vincent Pascoe · August 11th, 2006, 04:07 PM

"including making it look pretty awful"

somethimes you can use the Sceen files to make it look better to

VP

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Scott,

Are you talking about an adapter that lets you direct-mount a PL-type lens such as Cooke or Zeiss primes, or are you referring back to the M2 and Mini-35 adapters?

BTW, G-cubed (go go godzilla)... if you're ever in the situation to be using a Redrock/P+S/Brevis type adapter with Nikkor lenses, Zeiss is now making two F-mount primes. As someone who switched to Contax back when I was a still photographer (then swtiched back to Nikons & Leicas... the build on the Contaxes was horrible... Yashica did the assembly: the bodies were unreliable... and I had an 85mm just unscrew into two halves in my hand one day... but I digress) I have to say the Zeiss glass was distinctly superior. Far contrastier. After hitting the ground glass, I'm not sure how much of that superiority would be lost, but if anyone ever rigs an F-to-miniHD mount adapter, it'd be a real contender.

Robert Lane · August 11th, 2006, 06:04 PM

Hey Scott

G-cubed, ay? I like it.

Anyway yes, I'm familiar with the new Zeiss F-mount for Nikon. B&H still doesn't sell them you have to do direct to Zeiss, but I plan on getting both the 50 and 85mm versions. If you look at the thread "More HVX truth" you'll see a still from the HVX that has a table full of Nikon primes and zooms, from the 10.5 DX fisheye up to the 600mm f/4. I've even owned the last Contax RTS III with the vacuum back - loved it. Back to topic...

So this cine-to-video adapter you're referring to - are you meaning the current M2 and Mini-35 adapters or something else entirely?

Scott Auerbach · August 11th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Hey Scott

G-cubed, ay? I like it.

Anyway yes, I'm familiar with the new Zeiss F-mount for Nikon. B&H still doesn't sell them you have to do direct to Zeiss, but I plan on getting both the 50 and 85mm versions. If you look at the thread "More HVX truth" you'll see a still from the HVX that has a table full of Nikon primes and zooms, from the 10.5 DX fisheye up to the 600mm f/4. I've even owned the last Contax RTS III with the vacuum back - loved it. Back to topic...

So this cine-to-video adapter you're referring to - are you meaning the current M2 and Mini-35 adapters or something else entirely?

Look upward a few posts... I included a few bits of info. The most encouraging is the JVC 200 cine mount adapter (no intermediate optics) for the new camera coming out this fall.

Robert Lane · August 11th, 2006, 10:20 PM

Thanks, Scott.

I was aware of the EOS adapter for the XL series ever since the XL1, but I never considered it a viable option because of the 7x magnification factor - everything becomes a super-natural telephoto!

I think the best thing is to stick with my original plan: Keep the HVX until a 2/3" P2 body comes out that will do VFR, and until then get the HPC2000 and the Pro-35 lens adapter (the Mini-35 won't fit) and build from there. Can you imagine Zeiss or Nikon primes on THAT body? I'm dying to try my 200mm f/2 on that rig!!

Going forward:

I was originally going to post results from the newer tests on this thread, but since it's become lost from it's original intent I'll instead continue with the "other" testing thread I started. Look for results this weekend.

PS Scott: Thanks for the support earlier on in this thread; I try to stay honest about making mistakes!

August 11th, 2006, 08:35 AM	#1
Michael Younger New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Baltimore Posts: 15	35mm Adapter Picture Quality Hey guys, I’m really interested in what 35mm adapters bring to the HVX. Do any of the 35mm adapters out there produce a better picture in the end, than using only the stock lens? I am still new to filming and such, so I don’t fully understand glass and lenses, optics, etc. But are 35mm adapters typically just used to give more depth of field or is the actual picture improved in any sort of way? I would assume it’s just for more depth of field, as the image still passes through the stock lens correct?

August 11th, 2006, 03:27 PM	#9
Vincent Pascoe Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Pheonix, AZ Posts: 37	another sleepy rant yeah sorry fo;r the Flare up I had just read the long post about the guy getting rid of his HVX because of Sharpness. so I was roring to make a point. Changeing film stocks in a comercail for the same sceen might not be the look you want. but for a music video even a feture I think it can be completely Aceptable. I see a difrence, in look, between my difrent Nikon lenses (probably lens Coating and useage)but that dosn't mean I'm going to give up and only use on lens. I think many people paint them selfs in a corner because something is technicly against the rules. People get afraid of haveing something Blown out because its video, or grainy because its on Super16mm and you have a Hazer. I don't use the look that the tools I have give me. I use the Tools I have to make the Look I need that fit the Story. The DP job is about Effecancey. Getting the job done with the Time/Money/tallent that the producer Has given you. yes with more time/Money you could have shot with difrent Film/Lenses/Camera. but if the story asks for a contrasty sceen and I have to shoot it on a cell phone Camera then I'm still going to light it for the "look I want and not what the camera does best. I think the DP should never be Afraid to use something if it get him/her the look they want. Or maybe my style is to Break the rules ....and thats my problem. Vincent Pascoe www.vincentpasoce.com www.myspace.com/vincentpascoe

August 11th, 2006, 10:08 AM	#4
Michael Younger New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Baltimore Posts: 15	Thanks Scott for that information, thats what I was assuming; that it was mainly for a style ethic, but in return you do loose some of the original quality. Robert: I was refering to the Redrock style setups, Im not sure about the first idea you mentioned, never seen/heard. I really love the depth of field on the red rock and the abilty to pull the focus back and forth like it does, but I couldnt imagine giving up detail level just for that on most my shoots.

August 11th, 2006, 10:40 AM	#5
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Hi Michael, Yep, I know what your questions were about, but Scott's mention of a "cine-to-video" adapter is what has me curious. I just want to know if he's referring to the aforementioned adapters or something else. (?) Yo, Scotty!

August 11th, 2006, 11:38 AM	#6
Vincent Pascoe Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Pheonix, AZ Posts: 37	" it's problematic to mix-and-match footage, since the "grain" would seemingly disappear on the non-adapter footage" I dissagree with the "M3" or newest "ground glass" you don't have the noticeable "grain" like you get on the PS Tecknik. There is a drop in Resouloution akin to like a 1/4 diffusion. and I don't think theres a problem cutting back and forth. take a look at my footage here: we cut back and forth all the time http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/HVX200/pascoe.mov a "better Picture" is subjective. and DOF adapters is like a Filter its just another Creative choice the DP has to create the look he wants. its not for evrey shot, Just like you wouldn't allways want to have a BPM or Polarizer on your camera at all times I think for Music videos, Features, Comercails. I think DOF Adapters do ad Quality to the shots. Selective foucus shots right now do look like higher production vallue. and I personaly Love the look. If really Sharp video is all that Counts as a "better picture" then you probably shouldn't be shooting with the HVX, and maybe you shouldn't be shooting at all. jk VP www.vincentpascoe.com www.myspace.com/vincentpascoe

August 11th, 2006, 04:07 PM	#11
Vincent Pascoe Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Pheonix, AZ Posts: 37	"including making it look pretty awful" somethimes you can use the Sceen files to make it look better to VP

August 11th, 2006, 06:04 PM	#13
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Hey Scott G-cubed, ay? I like it. Anyway yes, I'm familiar with the new Zeiss F-mount for Nikon. B&H still doesn't sell them you have to do direct to Zeiss, but I plan on getting both the 50 and 85mm versions. If you look at the thread "More HVX truth" you'll see a still from the HVX that has a table full of Nikon primes and zooms, from the 10.5 DX fisheye up to the 600mm f/4. I've even owned the last Contax RTS III with the vacuum back - loved it. Back to topic... So this cine-to-video adapter you're referring to - are you meaning the current M2 and Mini-35 adapters or something else entirely?

August 11th, 2006, 10:20 PM	#15
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Thanks, Scott. I was aware of the EOS adapter for the XL series ever since the XL1, but I never considered it a viable option because of the 7x magnification factor - everything becomes a super-natural telephoto! I think the best thing is to stick with my original plan: Keep the HVX until a 2/3" P2 body comes out that will do VFR, and until then get the HPC2000 and the Pro-35 lens adapter (the Mini-35 won't fit) and build from there. Can you imagine Zeiss or Nikon primes on THAT body? I'm dying to try my 200mm f/2 on that rig!! Going forward: I was originally going to post results from the newer tests on this thread, but since it's become lost from it's original intent I'll instead continue with the "other" testing thread I started. Look for results this weekend. PS Scott: Thanks for the support earlier on in this thread; I try to stay honest about making mistakes!