PDA

View Full Version : HPX300 + Super 16 (JVC HZ-CA13)



Shipsides
03-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Hey everyone

Mitch Gross at AbelCineTech posted on article on our blog about putting the JVC Super 16 adapter on the HPX300. I thought I would share - http://blog.abelcine.com/2009/03/12/super-16-lens-adapter-for-the-hpx300/

Also, we have a new blog! CineTechnica

(http://blog.abelcine.com)Check it out to see what we've been up to.

Andy

Shipsides
03-23-2009, 05:38 PM
I'll work on that. It's a nice combo.

VGurcu
03-23-2009, 07:42 PM
Thanks for the article Andy. We discussed this configuration a while ago, so it would be nice to see some pics, and some footage if possible. Also it says in the article:


You get the field of view advantages but no change in depth of field, so it’s not like the popular lens systems with the spinning groundglasses out there.

This can't be. So are you telling us that you got the same DOF with that 12mm Super speed(at f5.6 appr) compared to the stock Fujinon17x (at f4 appr.). If HPX300 was 2/3" this("No change in DOF") would make sense. You should be getting 16mm DOF at least with this set-up, which should be way shallower than the one you get with Fujinon.

MikeDPLD
03-23-2009, 07:43 PM
Andy, could you recommend a few good lens choices for the HVC S16 adapter.

Maybe a set of semi-affordable primes(if they exist) or not-so-affordable primes.

And maybe a few zooms with the proper rod support...

Mitch seemed to say that depth of field won't be helped much, but doesn't it
improve dramatically if we go from 1/3" to S16 or 16mm--which is slightly better
than 2/3" CCD size, right? Maybe not 35mm DOF, but at least as good or better
than 2/3??!!?

Thanks,

Mike Favazza

earmarkcreative
03-23-2009, 09:19 PM
Footage please. You shouldn't tease us like this! Interesting blog read. I've shot two shorts with the JVC HD250 + PL mount adapter + super speeds and I find it hard to believe that its "depth of field doesn't change".

Here's a totally random/ridiculous question. There are all these devices out there to use cine glass on B4/12 cameras and B4 glass on B12 cameras etc, is there anything out there (yet) that will let a user mount Nikon/Canon still lenses on a B12 body. One can even mount Nikons on a Red for pete's sake! This maybe the next big thing for indie film makers. HPX300 + Nikons....

filmat11
03-23-2009, 09:49 PM
[. One can even mount Nikons on a Red for pete's sake! This maybe the next big thing for indie film makers. HPX300 + Nikons....[/QUOTE]


i like this idea very much.

Kenn Christenson
03-23-2009, 10:12 PM
Someone's already got a Nikon adapter for the EX3
http://www.cameraadaptors.com/

Don't imagine the HPX300 version would be too difficult to come up with. Although, I've heard of problems with the images people are getting from this adapter. Film lenses, are meant to focus on a single plane - that's why they work so well with the Red's single CMOS chip - focusing on 3 chips in a prism is another matter - hence the $4K+ price tag of the relay.

earmarkcreative
03-24-2009, 09:08 AM
I didn't realize the EX3 was a B12 mount. If that's the case then users of the EX3 can swap lenses with the better HPX300 lens, correct?

evsdan
03-24-2009, 09:24 AM
The no change in DOF makes some sense to me though I am still looking for the actual answer, when we first started carrying the Redrock adapters I had the bright idea of setting up the adapter on a camera, getting it set up properly, then removing the spinning ground glass.

Since the camera would be focused/zoomed in to the same spot where the ground glass used to be, I figured you'd get the same characteristics but with less light loss (this was back when a redrock lost almost 2 stops of light). I got it working, but other than a FoV change I did not get the shallow DoF I was expecting.

The same thing is happening here, I just wish I knew why. Anyone have any thoughts?

Kenn Christenson
03-24-2009, 09:49 AM
Daniel, this thread might give you some insights into why the DOF doesn't change going aerial image vs ground glass.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/alternative-imaging-methods/113722-ground-glass-focusing-screen-necessary-35mm-adapters.html

VGurcu
03-24-2009, 04:00 PM
The no change in DOF makes some sense to me though I am still looking for the actual answer

I dont know about "aerial image vs ground glass" argument. This is from JVC Pro site:
There are numerous advantages and benefits to the HZ-CA13U Cine Optical PL Adapter. First is the characteristics of the optical relay system. Depth of Field (DoF) and field of view of the film lenses are virtually matched with that of film cameras, preserving the visual essence of the optics.
Read the rest here:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?&feature_id=01&model_id=MDL101683

Kenn Christenson
03-24-2009, 05:08 PM
"preserving the depth of field (DoF) and field of view characteristics" Unfortunately, there is no mention of exactly what DOF characteristics are being preserved. My hunch is that it preserves the film lens' FOV, while preserving the video camera's DOF. The only way I can see DOF being reduced is through the use of very fast lenses.

Shipsides
03-24-2009, 06:10 PM
Hey guys,

I'm in DC at National Geographic tomorrow so I'll post some footage as soon as I get back to the office.

What Mitch is saying, and the reason Depth of Field doesn't change, is because our sensor size doesn't change. Unlike a Letus or Redrock which allows a 35mm lens to focus on a 35mm size ground glass, the JVC PL mount adapter actually focuses light on the 1/3" sensor. In a Letus we are essentially taking an image of a 35mm size sensor.. we fake the Depth of Field. If we focus light directly on a smaller sensor then we are left with the DOF of that sensor. The same applies when I put a Nikon lens directly on an EX3 - I still have the same DOF of a 1/2" sensor. The wording on the JVC site is misleading.. the DOF characteristics that are preserved are those of the camera not the lens.

The JVC PL mount adapter has optical elements which allows for the same field of view as you would get on a 16mm camera. This is a great benefit when working with wide angle lenses.. and we don't have to do any math when putting on the 16mm lenses.

Mike, I'll get a list together of different lens options.. 16mm glass isn't very popular these days but the used market is very large.

VGurcu
03-25-2009, 10:10 AM
The wording on the JVC site is misleading..

A few lines from Tim Dashwood's review:
....
My primary goal was to determine if I could still use the data in the DoF charts in the American Cinematographer Manual with the HZ-CA13U.
The Samuelson DoF charts rendered enough data for me to determine that the CoC (0.0015mm) and DoF characteristics of the aerial image seem to be equivalent to 16mm format.
....
I found there to be a considerable difference in DoF between 1/3-inch and 16mm.
Complete review here:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/article_rev.jsp?model_id=MDL101683&feature_id=09

So another misleading article or what ;)

MikeDPLD
03-25-2009, 07:20 PM
"Mike, I'll get a list together of different lens options.. 16mm glass isn't very popular these days but the used market is very large. "
__________________

Thanks, Andy!
I guess the only reason for the adapter then,
is to get better glass on the camera...
Real nice stuff like a Zeiss T2 10-100?
--Mike

MikeDPLD
03-25-2009, 07:28 PM
I think I remember Barry even complimenting the serious testing done by Tim Dashwood.
Not everybody can be correct here...

Same 1/3 DOF or 16mm DOF?

Any higher court of opinion?

Shipsides
03-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Without a Virtual Focal Plane and aerial image directly on the 1/3" sensor will always produce the same DoF. Just basic optics we are talking about.

Read about DOF vs Format Size here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

Using Super 16 glass may increase the apparent DoF because of the sharpness of focus. Good glass will always improve image quality.

I'm still working on getting some footage up. Give me another day... getting caught up at work.

VGurcu
03-26-2009, 06:31 PM
Any higher court of opinion?

Well, here is the supreme court 'Steve Mullen' opinion for you:

The optical elements in the CA13U reduce the size of the aerial image to that of the 1/3in. CCDs. Amazingly, the 11 elements reduce the light transfer by only 0.5 stops while maintaining the angle of view as well as the circle of confusion (0.0015mm) and DOF characteristics of 16mm film camera. Thus, to any mounted lens, a JVC ProHD camera functions as though it were a 16mm film camera.

Rest is here:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/hdv_camcorder_lens_adapters_061107/index1.html

By all means I don't pretend to know anything about lens design, optics etc. But information provided by the pros & manufacturer is pretty clear and doesnt require in-depth knowledge to have a proper judgment.
I think the vendor's mistake is to assume something without knowing the entire details of a very complicated design.

markyf
03-26-2009, 07:34 PM
I don't know if this was posted before but it sure doesn't look like 1/3" DOF

http://web.mac.com/timdashwood/iWeb/sundance/HZ-CA13U_Test.html

cheezweezl
03-27-2009, 03:30 AM
I don't know if this was posted before but it sure doesn't look like 1/3" DOF

http://web.mac.com/timdashwood/iWeb/sundance/HZ-CA13U_Test.html

sure it does. 1/3" cam on a long lens gives nice shallow dof. the common misconception is that bigger chips give you shallower depth. this is what is perceived but in fact a 50mm lens has the same DOF no matter what chip size it is projecting on to. it's the FOV that changes.

example. say you are shooting on a RED at 4k with a 50mm lens. you frame up a medium shot and have a nice blurry background. now, switch the camera to 2k which only uses part of the sensor, or basically cuts your chip size in half. the DOF has not changed but the FOV has. your medium shot is gone and now you have a close up. so to get your medium shot back you either have to move the camera back or change to a shorter lens. either of these moves will take away the nice shallow DOF you had at 4k using the bigger chip. but the issue isn't that the DOF changed. the FOV changed and the camera move or lens change required to correct this will eliminate your shallow DOF.

so while throwing a 16mm or 35mm pro PL mount lens on a 1/3" chip camera may improve sharpness due to higher quality glass, the DOF will remain the same. using a GG adapter is the only way to improve DOF.

cheezweezl
03-27-2009, 03:39 AM
I think I remember Barry even complimenting the serious testing done by Tim Dashwood.
Not everybody can be correct here...

Same 1/3 DOF or 16mm DOF?

Any higher court of opinion?

16mm film has relatively shallower depth (or wider FOV) than 1/3"

but it's not the lens, it's the larger image plane that gives you the look.

markyf
03-27-2009, 07:40 AM
sure it does. 1/3" cam on a long lens gives nice shallow dof. the common misconception is that bigger chips give you shallower depth.

You should do some due diligence before answering. There's pictures right below the video. He's not on a long lens, he's on a very short one. I just shot 33 hours for a short film on a DVX and I can definitely say that you can't get that DOF being that close. I don't know the physics but I know what I see and that is something much closer to 2/3". And I don't think it's just perceived sharpness... look at the part near the end where he's walking down the sidewalk and people are approaching. They are quite out of focus until the cross him. Whether it's the optical relay, the better lenses you can, the ability to open the iris more with primes... This thing just works.

Shipsides
03-27-2009, 11:22 AM
I just shot some tests and will post them this weekend. Looks great with a 25mm Super Speed on it.

Andy

cheezweezl
03-29-2009, 11:39 AM
You should do some due diligence before answering.

i did. it's called a DOF calculator. check for yourself. a 50mm lens has only very minimal difference in DOF from 1/3" to 35mm. the FOV however, changes drastically

Shipsides
03-30-2009, 08:00 AM
Some footage! Check it out.

http://blog.abelcine.com/2009/03/30/hpx300-with-super16-adapter-footage/

Kenn Christenson
03-30-2009, 11:23 AM
That thing skews like crazy! Glad I held off on my purchase.

alexdias
03-30-2009, 02:33 PM
That thing skews like crazy! Glad I held off on my purchase.

Interesting, I have seen some serious skew in other examples but on this one (Shipsides') I didn't noticed anything.

Kenn Christenson
03-30-2009, 02:41 PM
Check the buildings in the background.

guillaum972
04-02-2009, 11:37 AM
is there a difference using 16mm or super 16 lens with the JVC HZ-CA13U ?
Andy, can you tell me how long is the adaptor? Is it usable with a zoom?

Thanks.
guillaume

steven lyons
04-05-2009, 05:06 PM
I had used a hz-ca13 with the jvc 251e camera, did a 40 min drama based corporate with it, I used ziess superspeeds 12mm 16mm, covers super 16mm. (no vignetting)
ziess 8mm 2.2 for standard 16mm( surprisingly this did not vignette ).
standard 16mm angenieux 10 to 150mm 2.2( this vignetted at various focal lengths).
lastly a converted 12 to 150 angenieux ( this did not vignette)

Having been using the brevis dof adapter, it was quite liberating to lose the bazooka look.
the images were indeed sharp, there is a slight increase in dof, I compared with my 16mm camera and the ziess 16mm had similar dof on the jvc with the hz-ca 13.
You definitely get an image with backround more difused, when compared to jvc straight lens, this is only slight however, but probably enough to give your footage a point of difference. the footage is definitely sharper as well, but surprisingly I still noticed CA on some shots.
Setting up was super fast, fits in camera cases easy, is robust, rails and matt box works great.
..All sounds pretty good so far, but...
on every lens, bar the ziess 8mm there can be hideous color cast added to image, what makes this worse, it is magenta in top of frame and greenish on bottom, jvc have a fix as a menu item you can adjust white balance top and bottom of frame,
but this is different for every lens, and on top of that theoretically, would change with every f stop.
this was the deal breaker with me, what was initially a fast compact solution became a too complicated work around piece of equipment.
That coupled with minimal dof difference, sent me back to the brevis, I think digital cameras, need the 35mm dof to give a more complete film look and therefore higher production value appearance.
.. so I am staying with bazooka until I can afford a letus elite with relay lens.

steve lyons

zeke
04-06-2009, 07:45 AM
I had used a hz-ca13 with the jvc 251e camera, did a 40 min drama based corporate with it, I used ziess superspeeds 12mm 16mm, covers super 16mm. (no vignetting)
ziess 8mm 2.2 for standard 16mm( surprisingly this did not vignette ).
standard 16mm angenieux 10 to 150mm 2.2( this vignetted at various focal lengths).
lastly a converted 12 to 150 angenieux ( this did not vignette)

Having been using the brevis dof adapter, it was quite liberating to lose the bazooka look.
the images were indeed sharp, there is a slight increase in dof, I compared with my 16mm camera and the ziess 16mm had similar dof on the jvc with the hz-ca 13.
You definitely get an image with backround more difused, when compared to jvc straight lens, this is only slight however, but probably enough to give your footage a point of difference. the footage is definitely sharper as well, but surprisingly I still noticed CA on some shots.
Setting up was super fast, fits in camera cases easy, is robust, rails and matt box works great.
..All sounds pretty good so far, but...
on every lens, bar the ziess 8mm there can be hideous color cast added to image, what makes this worse, it is magenta in top of frame and greenish on bottom, jvc have a fix as a menu item you can adjust white balance top and bottom of frame,
but this is different for every lens, and on top of that theoretically, would change with every f stop.
this was the deal breaker with me, what was initially a fast compact solution became a too complicated work around piece of equipment.
That coupled with minimal dof difference, sent me back to the brevis, I think digital cameras, need the 35mm dof to give a more complete film look and therefore higher production value appearance.
.. so I am staying with bazooka until I can afford a letus elite with relay lens.

steve lyons

I wonder if this will still be the case with the hm700?

Kenn Christenson
04-06-2009, 07:49 AM
Yes, the HM700 has the same lens mount. The PL lens relay is in the 700's list of accessories:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/accessories.jsp?model_id=MDL101851&feature_id=05

Shipsides
04-08-2009, 08:01 AM
is there a difference using 16mm or super 16 lens with the JVC HZ-CA13U ?
Andy, can you tell me how long is the adaptor? Is it usable with a zoom?

Thanks.
guillaume

The adapter is 5 1/2" long. I tried a zoom on it and it was pleased with the results, but it was very front heavy and needs support for sure.

zeke
04-08-2009, 08:40 AM
Yes, the HM700 has the same lens mount. The PL lens relay is in the 700's list of accessories:
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/accessories.jsp?model_id=MDL101851&feature_id=05

I meant, I wonder if it has the same problems with white balance, color and having to balance top and bottom of frame when using 16mm primes. If it does, that sort of kills it for me.

Shipsides
04-09-2009, 09:37 AM
The HM700 has a full lens shading option which should solve any color balance issues with the adapter and 16mm Prime. This is also true with the HPX300. Really when putting any optical adapter on a camera a lens shading is usually needed.

zeke
04-09-2009, 09:55 AM
The HM700 has a full lens shading option which should solve any color balance issues with the adapter and 16mm Prime. This is also true with the HPX300. Really when putting any optical adapter on a camera a lens shading is usually needed.

Yes, thanks for the info. Tim Dashwood said it is much improved over the HD2xx series cams.

leteeci
04-29-2009, 05:13 AM
One question..

If it is possible to make optical adapter ( without groundglass ) that can shrink 16mm DOF on 1/3' sensor.. would be possible to make similar adapter to juce out 35mm DOF on 2/3' sensor????

Just thought...

Ben Digedig
05-01-2009, 02:23 AM
Check the buildings in the background.

For some reason this skew doesn't bother me much, especially if you are throwing it about hand held like this. If a client ever mentions it I'll buy everyone here a beer though! The chromatic aberration on highlights (guy with a beard) bothers me far more - but you see that on cameras/lenses costing far more too.

BD

Dino
05-01-2009, 09:43 AM
I really think the upcoming Letus 1/3" relay lens with a Letus 35mm adapter will be the hot set up on a HPX300 or JVC 700. It will be fast, shouldn't have any CA issues if the 2/3" relays are anything to go by, perfect edge to edge focus. It's Academy framing, not 35mm SLR, but still a big difference vs. 16mm FOV. It should be the best means of controllng DOF while not suffering from the ramping issues of zoom lenses on a deep focal length.

zeke
05-01-2009, 10:13 AM
I really think the upcoming Letus 1/3" relay lens with a Letus 35mm adapter will be the hot set up on a HPX300 or JVC 700. It will be fast, shouldn't have any CA issues if the 2/3" relays are anything to go by, perfect edge to edge focus. It's Academy framing, not 35mm SLR, but still a big difference vs. 16mm FOV. It should be the best means of controllng DOF while not suffering from the ramping issues of zoom lenses on a deep focal length.

Has Letus made any sort of official announcement?

Dino
05-01-2009, 11:39 AM
No, nothing official. I have no idea about delivery time or final pricing, but I expect it to follow closely on the heels of the 1/2" relay that will be out soon, which is now available for ordering, and slated for mid-May delivery.

guillaum972
05-02-2009, 04:27 PM
After testing HPX301+ JVC adapter, i'm thinking it was a nice setup.
More usable in most situations than vibrating or spinning adapter.
here (http://vimeo.com/4446225) a little test in 1080 25p.
there is little skew but 720p work very well.

dougspice
05-05-2009, 03:23 PM
Personally, I'm loving this look. Everyone is nuts about "35mm DoF" but generally it is overused. Think of how many of your favorite shows are shot on Super 16. Do you complain about how the look isn't shallow enough?

My main complaint about this setup would be that you're once again limited to cinema lenses, which makes this an expensive choice.