PDA

View Full Version : Mini 35 Adapter Review



Jarred Land
04-01-2005, 08:28 PM
Click here to read the review:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/mini35/

rreichenfeld
07-06-2005, 02:04 PM
Very Interesting. :thumbup:

b boy
07-13-2005, 12:51 AM
I would like to know if it's out yet and if so, where could I get one

Barry_Green
07-13-2005, 01:13 AM
The mini35 is definitely out, yes. It's available from ZGC, and it costs about $11,000.

KimCamera
07-15-2005, 02:54 PM
Impressive demonstration of the various 35mm prime lens and the rack focus demo knocked my socks off. I wouldn't mind owning the system, however I must take in to consideration the other costs in my movie I will be shooting soon. If I had larger budget I will consider at least renting or leasing the lens. The demo was the look I was always looking for in an inexpensive video camera. I started in film and would like to apply film look technology to video, which is much more cost effective. Thanks for your time demonstrating the 35mm adapter. Kim Walker

Barry_Green
07-15-2005, 03:39 PM
Keep in mind that there are a couple of indie-priced alternatives coming to market very shortly: the Micro35 from http://www.redrockmicro.com (http://www.redrockmicro.com/), and the Guerilla35 from http://www.guerilla35.com. Both should be around $1000.

(EDITED to fix the g35 website - thanks!).

Daniel Skubal
07-15-2005, 04:30 PM
correction on the g35 website... http://www.guerilla35.com

Jarred Land
07-16-2005, 01:16 AM
yeah, we put the cooke s4 lenses on it, and it will be interesting to see if the 2 lower priced competitors get pl mounts to take advantage of those lenses. Its a hard call, because i think the target market for the micro and the g35 might not have $60k in lenses sitting around.

shibuya_Oboya
07-16-2005, 08:13 AM
the guerilla 35 footage looks amazing. i am very interested in purchasing one for my dvx when it becomes available. which by the way my dvx came to me in the mail yesterday. and i could not be more happy. need to get one of those dvxusers batteries though.


kevin

JefferyTahl
07-20-2005, 10:21 PM
Did I see a rear focus issue?

Tahl

jdv
08-30-2005, 07:22 PM
Hey everyone - just learning about what these various (home-made v 'store' bought) mini-35 mm adapters can do, and the results are very impressive. I'm president of a small indy film co. in Michigan, making primarily horror films. We are currently in pre-production on our fourth full-length feature horror-fest....
My questions is this - Assuming that most (if not all) of the next film is shot at night or in darkened rooms on either the JVC100HD or PanasonicHVX (like many others, the jury is still out on which camera we'll drop our dime on...), would I really need a mini35 adapter? Aparently the DP for '28 Days Later' used a 2 stop ND filter to knock-down the depth of field on the XL1, as well as shooting through various pieces of glass or plastic - and there was a lot of rain in many shots. There were also several shots so dark that one couldn't really see if the background was in focus or not. My concern is that with the higher resolution of the JVC/Panasonic, the infinite depth of field problem would be more pronounced, even if I used techniques similar to those used in making '28 Days Later,' making a need for a mini-35 adapter absolute. Thanks for any feedback....
John Vincent

Northainan
09-01-2005, 07:19 AM
$11,000 dollars? Shaking my head.

Zack Birlew
09-01-2005, 05:54 PM
The only problem with these 35mm adapters guys is, as Jarred Land has implied, the cost of lenses! Sure the g35 or micro35 adapters are $1000-$2000, but then what? Use a cheapie $1000 lens on it? What a waste! I'll just wait on these adapters.

brownhood
09-27-2005, 06:32 PM
Well, there's always renting a good lens.

Haven't seen yet a pic of the G35's adapter... any one has a pic of it?

TimurCivan
09-29-2005, 08:50 AM
Cool.

Jack Daniel Stanley
09-29-2005, 06:47 PM
Hey everyone - just learning about what these various (home-made v 'store' bought) mini-35 mm adapters can do, and the results are very impressive. I'm president of a small indy film co. in Michigan, making primarily horror films. We are currently in pre-production on our fourth full-length feature horror-fest....
My questions is this - Assuming that most (if not all) of the next film is shot at night or in darkened rooms on either the JVC100HD or PanasonicHVX (like many others, the jury is still out on which camera we'll drop our dime on...), would I really need a mini35 adapter? Aparently the DP for '28 Days Later' used a 2 stop ND filter to knock-down the depth of field on the XL1, as well as shooting through various pieces of glass or plastic - and there was a lot of rain in many shots. There were also several shots so dark that one couldn't really see if the background was in focus or not. My concern is that with the higher resolution of the JVC/Panasonic, the infinite depth of field problem would be more pronounced, even if I used techniques similar to those used in making '28 Days Later,' making a need for a mini-35 adapter absolute. Thanks for any feedback....
John Vincent

actually I think you slighty off on that :)

they used 35mm prime lenses with optek adaptors and also used ND filters and shot through different things for various aesthetic purposes:

"Dod Mantle helped matters by securing the higher-resolving Canon EC (6-40mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses to the camera bodies with Optex adapters. Even though video-lens focal lengths are measured differently than those of 35mm lenses, traditional focus-wheel systems were mounted onto the rods for the assistants, who pulled by eye. Because the XL1's viewfinder is black-and-white, Dod Mantle composed shots by looking at 9" color monitors. "It's amazing, because this little consumer camera gets built up with matte boxes and transmitters for sound," he says. "But they were still streamlined and light compared to film cameras."

Dod Mantle shot as wide open as possible with ND filters to minimize DV's seemingly infinite depth of field, and he underexposed by one to two stops to get more information on tape. (The XL1 has an exposure value of about 320 ASA without altering the shutter speed.) For daylight-exterior shots that featured prominent skies, which present difficulties in DV, grad filters were thrown into the mix. "I used them quite a lot because the sky burns so quickly," he recalls. "If there's nothing there, then there is nothing you can work on digitally - there will be a hole in the cinema screen when you go back to print." Inevitably, the sky had to be sacrificed in certain shots, but Dod Mantle shot sky plates to use as replacements in post by stopping down three to four stops and using filters to enhance the cloud formations."

here's a link to the article:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

You don't absolutely need a 35mm adaptor, but its the only way to get flexible (not dependant on having the camera a mile away) shallow depth of field with these DV cameras.

I haven't been following the comparisons lately as to which has the lowest loss of light which might be a concern for you given your dark shoots. According to the Broken DVD guys though, more light is always the way to go and you can bring it down as dark as you like in post. I found this to be true on my last horror shoot. Images are much cripser / sharper when shot with sufficient light and then brought down in post.

Ernest_Acosta
10-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Any news regarding what adapter we can use with the HVX? I went to a workshop in May where the P&S folks were saying that anything High Def will have to use the pro35 not the mini.

Barry_Green
10-03-2005, 12:25 PM
I hadn't heard that, but if they said that, they've changed their minds, because they make the mini35 for the HD100. I'm sure they'll make a mini35 adapter for the HVX also.

TimurCivan
10-04-2005, 08:25 AM
Could you use a similar contraption as a mini35 just with medium format lenses? you know bigger viewing area for HD to help minimize grain and image defects.

jaslak
10-04-2005, 11:51 AM
Redrock Micro has this same product for $850.

Ernest_Acosta
10-04-2005, 12:51 PM
Being that an HD image is really sharp, I would think that a high quality ground glass is required to maintain that image; even if it is spinning or vibrating especially if you intend on displaying it on the big screen. Is there info/footage on the mini and guerilla adapters displayed on a large screen? If yes, can you provide a link.

Bruce Morgan
11-11-2005, 11:05 AM
Hello Jarred,
I can understand a spinning disc ground glass to" kill grain "
But i dont understand the reson for the flickering
or the "oscillating ground glass on this mini 35 .
Can you give an explanation of how and
why it works?
and the alternatives with pro and con issues ?.
Thanks for a reply
Bruce

Jarred Land
11-11-2005, 01:00 PM
If it oscillates.. it is visually more random, so as the ground glass gets slower you dont see the "wax on, wax off" grain effect of the grain.. it moves up and down and round and round so it mimics real film more accurately.

Its exactly like when you buy a random orbiting sander for painting the old Chevy.. orbiting is better because it doesn't leave the swirls.

Jack Daniel Stanley
11-11-2005, 02:00 PM
Its exactly like when you buy a random orbiting sander for painting the old Chevy.. orbiting is better because it doesn't leave the swirls.
you know I've thought that exact thought about a million times :undecided :laugh:

dan
12-24-2005, 10:09 AM
The Mini35 has a circular movement. However, the closer part of the GG to the moving arm moves on a circle while the opposite side describes an ellipse.
Draw two horizontal circles, connect them with a line in the middle, split the diff (that would be the holding point of the arm) and imagine the left circle spinning, while the right one moves around. I made this mechanism in July 2004 and I found it unsuitable for a Fresnel type-focusing screen because of the above-described effect. For a GG is more than appropriate because a GG has an uniform grain structure on the whole surface, but the Fresnel screen has the “built in” lens, which requires a "very circular" motion (just enough to obtain a motion blur of the grains (on the matte side) while avoiding an excess of "of axes" movement of the lens.
Might shoot a video to exemplify the diff (if need be).

Bruce Morgan
02-01-2006, 11:31 PM
:shocked: Is there considerable loss of defintion with the use of these 35mm adapators?

I would imagine so for when we were working in film effects and we were farced to use "areal image printing ' it was a compromise .:cry:
The comparision test on line definition with a staright up dvx lens would be interesting .:thumbup:
Any refrence to line chart-definition test would help .:thumbup:
I am especially concerned about this if I or a client are getting excited by what looks like the "film look " via 35m adaptor in a small monitor and then when the same image goes to large screen the definition loss is so great even at 35ft throw that there is a presentation crisis :cry:
Thanks to ANYONE for an answer or a link to material that deals with this concern .
Cheers
Bruce

Dennis Wood
02-02-2006, 12:54 PM
http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/GS400?full=1

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/guskers35?full=1

These are full res EIA1956 with and without the "Guskers35" adapter attached. I've done some fairly extensive testing with GG's and this is typical. I've yet to see an EIA1956 like this from any other adapters....so this is hardly conclusive.

Bruce Morgan
02-04-2006, 10:02 PM
http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/GS400?full=1

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/guskers35?full=1

These are full res EIA1956 with and without the "Guskers35" adapter attached. I've done some fairly extensive testing with GG's and this is typical. I've yet to see an EIA1956 like this from any other adapters....so this is hardly conclusive.
:beer: :shocked:
Thanks!
This is immediatly seen as perceptable difference .
The adaptors are nice tools but i am advised to beware and test IF there
is an ultimate screening venue involved with presentation of a product done
WITh
or WITHOUT - these adaptors .
Thanks again
\Bruce

Dennis Wood
02-05-2006, 09:18 PM
Here's a few more posted by Ted West at dvino:

http://www.digital-west.com/adapter

They will give you an idea of the hit from the M2/3 and Letus. There is some distortion evident with both of these.

The res charts don't tell the whole story though....this frame grab was done with my setup. The pics are untouched:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/coarsepl?full=1
and
http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/vlcsnap_308810?full=1

I did up a DVD and viewed the footage on my 51" HDTV...which really shows the flaws...and I must admit that the close up shots were quite compelling. One thing's for sure, if you're doing panoramic scene type shots, the adapter really should be removed. Dan Diaconu has demonstrated that digital stills actually looked better from his adapter, than from the cam...which I've yet to corroborate. From my research and views of test footage, a carefull analysis of bokeh quality in out of focus areas, and grain patterns should be considered as well. There is some logic to the argument that DV compression on different cams may result in different effects in the bokeh area of a frame. I find some of the grain patterns I've seen quite distracting.

So yes, I'd say there's plenty of evidence to support the "try before you film out" approach.

dan
02-05-2006, 11:11 PM
I have an MPIC ordered for an Andromeda/DVX with the obvious intend to obtain a film out. That should be an interesting test.
As far as comparison and testing goes, I have the pics to demo that the footage from MPIC/GS200 IS sharper than the camcorder can do by itself:
Sorry for the repost of these (over one year old) pics:
MPIC + Nikkor4/200 + GS200:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0485?full=1
GS200 :
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0486?full=1
The... apparent grain on both images must be "noise" from the CCD (not enough light)

There is no "magic" involved. The camcorder can't handle a high contrast image and the GG/screen attenuates the high contrast acting as a translator between real life light and what the CCD can handle. Further; the "sharpening circuit" triggers between high contrasting surfaces reducing the resolution in HALF!
Think rez chart down to last theoretical lines that could be reproduced:
White line to be reproduced on a single row of pixels. The adjacent row of pixel will not show the actual next black line but the ghost of the previous bright white line!
Half resolution? Yes! That’s why I suggested a while ago a Grey/White rez chart (or black/gray) instead of B/W to avoid the high contrast.

As far as contraptions goes, most of the poor resolution comes from a few factors:
Thickness of the diffusing medium (gg), how plane the movement is, achromatic lens used, mounting distance GG/camcorder and zoom position. Other factors to influence:
Glass quality (filters), mechanical means to position all elements on the optical axes of the system (how squared all optics are) and.... the end user (to work around the problems).

rpster88
02-09-2006, 03:43 PM
holy crap dan, i didnt think your adapter was THAT sharp!
i too will be looking forward to results of the andromeda system on an mpic.

dan
02-09-2006, 11:29 PM
To which post are you replaying rpster88?

rpster88
02-10-2006, 03:02 AM
#29.

curious, has anyone done a comparison between the mpic and the p+s? considering they're relatively closer in price than any of the other adapters out there.

dan
02-10-2006, 09:26 AM
Yes I have.
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album17/IMGA0667?full=1
My opinion doesn't count though.
Did you replay to your own post?

Spartacus
02-10-2006, 02:13 PM
@Dan
i just saw the pictures of the mpic/XL2or1 combo, why didnīt you mount the adapter directly to the camera body, I mean a detachable lens probably is the main selling point of the canon...?