Check out Sylvanias line of photo optic flourescents.

We built our T5 flourescents using top of the line components for around $200 a pop. The ballasts alone were about $100 ea.

they are 1.5 x 1.5 x 4' long double lamped 55 watts and they give lots of flicker free, hum free light. We use color temp lamps at 3000 but a wide range of color temps are available.

IMO, without good lighting, you can go home. Lights
are more important than anything else, because what
you do with your light is what the camera sees
and records.

We just got a couple of the lowell rifa softbox lights and a
chimera pancake lantern.

Yes, the lowell Rifas are very light, very portable,
_quick_ to set up, easy to move once set up, and do a nice job.
I think they were under $800 each at B&H and worth it IMO.

I just did an on location shoot in a restaurant for a DV movie
shot with an XL1 in frame mode using this lighting kit:

Leprechon 1536 light board
Leprechon VX2400 dimmer (12 channels @ 2.4K per)
3 Desisti 1K fresnels on rolling stands
6 Desisti 400W fresnels with clamps
2 Lowell Rifa softboxes with 1K lamps
1 Chimera pancake lantern w/ mogul speed ring and 1K lamp
Lots of 12 gauge cables w/ stage pin connectors
Color gels, color correction and diffusion.

You'll notice that most everything has a 1K lamp.
Why? The reason is that I wanted to shoot
@ -3 db to keep video noise to a minimum, and because frame
mode seems to need lots of light for maximum results.

The 1K fresnels have scrims (screens) so you can cut their output without dimming them down which would change their color temp.
Sometimes you want a redder light, then you simply dim them.
(I have not heard that running a light dim has any effect on lamp
life.)

The softboxes and chimera were used to give broad soft light
to everything in the image without casting ugly shadows all over
the place. The 1Ks and 400W fresnels were used for accents, such
as back lighting heads/hair, lighting objects like statues and paintings, and
fill for what ever needed more light to make it pop.

We used two sony NTSC montors. A 8" HR 8045Q and a 14" MU2U.

Everything turned out pretty good, but having witnessed an XL1s
working with a PS Technik adapter and Arri film lens on a previous
shoot, I could not help and wonder if the standard Canon
"video" lens have any more than 250 lines of resolution.
I would bet NOT. I think the camera can do 500, but that glass . . .
UGH!

The images looked soft on the big monitor using both the 16X
and the 3X video lens. Much softer than the canon 100-400 EV IS
lens/EOS adapter which I have been using on our wildlife doc.
and LOVE. When this is projected, it AIN'T gonna be 16mm.

Argh, the only thing I kept thinking was if we had only had a real
film camera or an HD camera (the producer tried, but just didn't
have the money) we'd have a real product.

I am very excited to hear that JVC (Panny's brother co.) is or has
released a consumer HD camera that uses 1/3" chips.
The DVX100 also has 1/3" chips, so maybe canon will
license those to give us real progressive and MORE resolution.
Those electronics coupled with
real glass should be a winning package.

I want an XL1HD/PS Technik/Film lens combo!!!

I liked this article on the xl1 with third party lense

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles.htm

is sounds like an affordable alternative to the mini35.

<<<-- Originally posted by whiterabbit :
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles.htm
is sounds like an affordable alternative to the mini35. -->>>


I'm not sure what/which you are talking about Mr. Rabbit.

Are you are referring to using Canon 35mm
lens with their EOS adapter?
I have an EOS and 100-400 EV IS lens. Images from this
combo are MUCH better (sharper & richer color) than the
video lens. Too bad even a 16mm wide angle will turn into
115 mm because of the 7.2X maginification issue,
so the EOS/EV doesn't do wide angle at all.

Or maybe you mean the other canon lens that are now available
like the new 16 manuel? Chris Hurd showed it to me
at ShowBiz Expo. Pretty nice, but is still blown away when compared
to the PS Technik/Cooke lens Canon demoed at the same time.

I guess my main frustration is with my 16X standard and 3X
wide angle video lens. Both are way soft when compared to
my 35mm EV lens, which costs about the same.

Has anyone a test chart to check what resolution the video lens
can resolve? I am betting that none of the "video" lens can produce over
250-300 lines.

So really, imo, there is no cheap alternative (yet) for a PS adapter and
real film glass.

HI sorry just realized that link pointed to all the articles. I was refering to the Fujinon Optex xl lens article modified for the Canon. Mr. Pappas has high praise for this lense also specifically on focus issues..

This has been my biggest gripe. For the longest time I felt as it was my eyes that were going on me.

Also I did not mean to imply that the Fujinon lens was compareable to the mini35 adapter (P+S technik) solution, I was thinking as a substitute for the 16x lens at. I did not see any mention of the extra magnification. Sells for $1,700 US.

If I could afford it I believe I would go for the PS technik myself.

cheers,

JP