Mini-35 Adapter

A

araujofh

Veteran
Hi Guys, I just bought my panasonic DVX100AE two weeks ago and I really love it! Now, I really want to invest on this camera, and want to extend it with professional equipment. I didn't buy the anamorphic adapter, because I am thinking of buying the Mini-35 adapter. My question is, is it really worth the investment? I want to use it on my feature film.

Regardless of what Barry Green said about the blow-up looking like 16mm, I still want to go for it. I want to get film-like images with the DVX100. What I really wanted was to purchase either the Panasonic Varicam or the Sony HDCAM, but I just can't afford at the moment, so I will invest on the DVX100, which will cost me about £10k, rather than the £100k for the HDCAM or £60k for the Panasonic Varicam.

Barry, if you had the money to invest, would you buy the Mini-35 adapter? Would you also buy the anamorphic adapter?

Thanks in advance.

Fidel.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

hmm... at last someone with budget on board ;)

i would get the SDX900 and rent the 35pro adapter. wouldn't buy the mini35.. no way. unless you plan to become a rental house.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

yep, I already have the DVX100. I didn't know the SDX900 existed. Well, they never mentioned it on the magasines I buy anyway.

Thanks in advance

Fidel.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Given the high price of the mini-35 (7500 for the unit, anoter 2500 or so for the camera adapter), I think you'd be better off either shooting with the DVX (with or without the anamorphic adapter) and spending the money you save (by not getting the mini-35) on the many other elements required to make a good movie; actors, lighting, sound, and anything else to give you impressive production values.

Or, for the cost of the mini-35 (and the cine lenses you'd rent to go with it), you could also rent an SDX-900 or even a Varicam (heck, even an Arri or Panaflex... of course, then you'd also need film) for at least two or three weeks, which would prove more cost effective (depending on the length of your shoot schedule) and give you a more robust image than the DVX.

The DVX alone may not be able to completely replicate a 35mm lens's shallow depth of field, its resolution, or its sharpness, but it can and does deliver "film-like" images quite capably on its own, without the cost-prohibitive (and bulky) 35mm adapter. People are doing great work with the DVX ("November," shot with the DVX by Nancy Schrieber -- see the interview linked on the Dvxuser homepage -- won the award for best cinematography at Sundance this year).

Hope this helps.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Hi Stas_Tagios, the budget for the film is separate. This is the budget for my own kit. Since, I already bought the DVX100, I want to buy extra stuff for it. And one of this things is the Mini35.
Basically, I just want to equip my DVX100.

What options do you guys suggest?

I am not really concerned with 35mm like footage, cause that is impossible with this kind of cameras. I was pretty impressed with Barry's work. That works for me.

All the best

Fidel.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

I'd suggest getting a good mattebox, like the Chrosziel one which fits both the standard DVX lens and the anamorphic adapter. http://www.16x9inc.com/chrosziel/dvcine/dvx100/

Also, a follow focus system, whether the Chrosziel or the Century Precision optics one.

http://www.16x9inc.com/chrosziel/dvcine/dvx100/followfocus/

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/dvx100/Manual_Focus/manual_focus.htm

You can certainly make do without these accessories, but a mattebox is invaluable, particularly for outside shoots, where you'll often need to use ND grads to knock down the sky. And if you plan on use any sort of filtration. Much easier to slip the filters in and out of the mattebox than screwing them on to the lens.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Go for it...if you have the money and you want to spend it on the Mini35 go for it.  I would recommend renting it first and messing around with it.  See if it is something you really need right now. Remember the 10 grand you spend on the Mini35 is just part of the investment.  Lenses are extremely expensive and will run you up to 20 grand a lense..think about it and don't rush into it. Otherwise I would look into purchasing a steadicam and a nice crane.  Both help you get awesome shots in many different situations.  
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Hi Kyle, thanks for the advice. I think I am going to rent it and play about with it just like you said.

Thank you all guys!

All the best

Fidel.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

[quote author=araujofh link=board=news;num=1086085878;start=0#0 date=06/01/04 at 03:31:18]Barry, if you had the money to invest, would you buy the Mini-35 adapter? Would you also buy the anamorphic adapter?[/quote]

I already did buy the anamorphic adapter, so the answer to that one is "yes".

Would I buy a mini35?  Man, that's tempting.  The images it produces make the DVX look almost exactly like 35mm film.  It's not just the shallow DOF, there's also a softening and a glow and the subtle grain texture... it just completely removes all trace of "video" from the image and makes it look completely 35mm.  The only telltale "video" holdover to the image is the limited latitude, which is something you can't do anything about.

Would I buy it?  I want one bad, let's put it that way.  But $10,000 for a $3400 camera is just so startlingly out-of-whack, I have a hard time justifying it.  If it was $2,000 then there's no question, I'd definitely have one already.

For buying, I'd probably dispense with cine lenses and just use still-camera lenses for the most part.  I've got a set of Zeiss Jena's and Pentax Super Takumars, they looked almost identical to the image we got from the Zeiss SuperSpeed cine lenses, so for any purpose other than a rack focus move, I really don't see any need to spend $20k on a lens for a mini35.  And I've done plenty of racks on these still-camera lenses, it works fine, it's just a little easier with a proper cine lens.

You're not trapped in your purchase of the DVX, if you decided you wanted an SDX you could always sell your DVX.  You'll take a little loss, but so what -- if you're talking about spending $15,000 to $40,000 on equipment, taking a $500 loss on selling your camera should be no big deal, certainly not a deciding factor.

I guess the question is: DVX+mini35+still-camera lenses at $15,000, or SDX+lens at $40,000.  The SDX is a much better camera, and will rent for a lot more if you decide to rent it out, and can deliver a much shallower DOF look than the DVX can by itself.  Plus it's native 16:9 so if widescreen is important to you, you can get widescreen + shallow DOF, something that's difficult to do with the DVX.

At 1/3 the price, the DVX+mini35 definitely delivers way more than 1/3 the picture of the SDX.  If you look at it as a combination (a $15,000 camera that shoots native 24P and uses cine or still lenses and delivers the look of 35mm film) then it is still a great bargain.

I have a hard time justifying buying the mini35 because it's so insanely expensive.  At $2,000 it's a slam-dunk deal.  But at $10,000 it just seems too pricey.  They rent at $300/day, but that means that you'd pay for one if you were going to use it for a month (not counting in 2-day or 3-day weeks, etc).  

Maybe someday the "MovieTube" or some competitive product will actually exist.  Until then the mini35 is the only game in town, and it's a wonderful tool, exquisite craftsmanship and very professional and highly desirable.  Only you can decide if it's truly worth it to you.  And the suggestion to rent it for a day is an excellent suggestion.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

I don't understand why P+K charges so much for the Mini35. They honestly cannot be that expensive to make. The are made of plastic. The only thing I can think of is that it is a niche market so P+K can charge what they want and enough people will buy them.

In my opinion it would be the smartest to find a way to mass produce the Mini35 and charge 2 grand for one. There would be more customers for the Mini35... ??? Come on P+K I want a Mini35...
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

I agree as well. However the market is very small, I believe they've only sold a few hundred units worldwide, so they charge a lot to get back the development costs.

I would think they'd sell many, many more at $2,000 but it's not what we think, it's what they think, that matters...
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

This is very true...oh well..maybe one day they will be cheaper...better...cooler looking..... :P
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=news;num=1086085878;start=0#10 date=06/01/04 at 10:36:48]

 The images it produces make the DVX look almost exactly like 35mm film.  It's not just the shallow DOF, there's also a softening and a glow and the subtle grain texture... it just completely removes all trace of "video" from the image and makes it look completely 35mm.  The only telltale "video" holdover to the image is the limited latitude, which is something you can't do anything about.
[/quote]

Barry...

I don't believe I've seen as bold and/or as direct a statement as this regarding the DVX/Mini35 combination. Indirectly, yes, there are plenty of posts that would indicate its promise and I'm not naive to the facts here i.e. this is a $3,400.00 DV cam opposing 35 mm film.

Since you have had real world experience with this combination, do you really believe that? (I've not seen a film-out or even a broadcast <NTSC monitor> of any footage yet, demo disc, etc. Only online clips which btw are indeed fantastic imo). Also, I've not heard many people point out the other enhancements: "softening and a glow and the subtle grain texture", everyone seems stuck on the DOF. Even the mini35.de site uses the DOF issue as the primary (and only item) in their "The Problem" and "The Solution" sections.

Bottom line here, I too have fought through the tons of posts at dvinfo regarding the aldu and agus, reviewed and read the "Marla" setup, checked the MovieTube site religiously for updates other than "coming soon" and I'm still on the fence with the Mini35 (for the same reasons mentioned here, price. Your assessment of their potential reasoning makes sense however). It's not that it's out of range, it just feels as if you're putting $7,000.00 rims on a $1,500.00 car.

Frankly, if this is your opinion (btw the way, I'm not a smoke blower, my respect of your opinion has come over the course of months of post reading and not simply from a few posts) then the effort to demo this would be worth it. (I'm in a horrible area for rental of any kind, it would have to be shipped).

I've essentially decided to go with it, especially with the improvements in the 400 series (although somewhat vague but I believe the big advance is a rotating/orbital gg rather than spinning).
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Hi Barry and all,

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
I wouldn't really be concerned with losing a few bucks on the DVX. But, since I have already bought it, I just want to buy the extras.
I am going to be away for a month, and if I rent the Mini35, then, like you said, I would be paying for the price of one. I rather buy it and get to keep it, then pay the same price and not be able to keep it.
As for the SDX, £40K is quite a lot. Wouldn't it be better buy the Panasonic Varicam for £20k more?

I still have the lenses of my Nikon-F5. Would those work with the Mini-35?

As for the anamorphic adapter, you think it is worth buy it, then?

I think I am going to rent it for a day, and then play around with it just to see.

But, I think I am going to buy it. I is becoming too tempting.

By the way, is there any book that talks about digital cinematography with the DVX + mini35?

Thank you all guys.

All the best

Fidel.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

[quote author=nullphonic link=board=news;num=1086085878;start=0#14 date=06/02/04 at 00:35:10]
I don't believe I've seen as bold and/or as direct a statement as this regarding the DVX/Mini35 combination.[/quote]
Well... I have occasionally been accused of being bold and direct, yes. Even as employing hyperbole.

So, let me clarify: I have a number of spots on my reel, all side by side. Some 16mm, some 35mm, some DVX, one DVX w/anamorphic, and one DVX/mini35. The DVX/mini35 spot immediately precedes two 35mm spots. And I'm telling you, from the perspective of shooting a television commercial for airing on broadcast, there is no substantive difference in the look & feel of DVX/mini35 as compared to actual 35mm.

For blowup to the big screen, sure there's a world of difference. For up-rez & display on HD, there'd be a big difference. But for the small screen, edited on DV, it's very, very comparable.

(I've not seen a film-out or even a broadcast <NTSC monitor> of any footage yet
Click to expand...
Here's 10 seconds of the spot, which you can download and play through your camera onto an NTSC monitor.
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/DVXMini35.avi
This is with no color correction or any sort of post work, this is raw straight from the camera, shot in 24P mode with the 400-series mini35 through Zeiss Jena M42 still-camera lenses.

Also, I've not heard many people point out the other enhancements: "softening and a glow and the subtle grain texture"
Click to expand...
Well, before I expound, let me just say that it seems like everyone one the Internet is an expert on products they've never used. Half the posts on the Internet are clogged with stuff like "XL1 is better than DVX", yet I'd wager that most nearly all those posters have never used both products. (just a pet peeve... I find that 10 minutes of testing can silence months of arguments about theoretics)...

Okay, softening and glow: we specifically set out to see what the mini35 brought to the table. DOF's nice but it's not the end-all, be-all. So we shot with the mini35 and we also shot the same scenes without, using the Panasonic anamorphic adapter instead. Of course there's a big difference on close-ups because of the DOF issues, but on wide shots, where everything's basically in focus on both systems, the mini35 shots were still much more filmlike. It got to the point where after two shots, we quit using the non-mini35 version. The look was so different (and superior with the mini35), and we were short on time, and we knew we'd never use the anamorphic version instead of the mini35 version. It was like, with the anamorphic, we'd say "that looks like film." But once we put the mini35 on, it was "that IS film."

With that said, the mini35 REALLY softens the image. The anamorphic footage is much sharper than the mini35 version. A lot. I didn't realize it, when shooting it live, but once I pulled both versions in and did a split-screen, it was very obvious that the anamorphic version was significantly sharper. I would be quite hesitant to use the mini35 for making a film print because of this. (I have done this, by the way, made a film print of both versions. The mini35 version actually held up sort of okay, but it was just too soft for me to declare it as "acceptable").

Everyone seems stuck on the DOF. Even the mini35.de site uses the DOF issue as the primary (and only item) in their "The Problem" and "The Solution" sections.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, because that's the most obvious difference, and also it's the only device that can overcome it. The softening and glow stuff, that can be done in post-production, so you can get that look without a mini35. But with the mini35 it just does it all.

It's not that it's out of range, it just feels as if you're putting $7,000.00 rims on a $1,500.00 car.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it amaze you how many people do exactly that? I'll never get it... but, yes, that's exactly the way I look at it. Can you really justify a $10,000 accessory for a $3400 camera? I have a hard time doing so... but I do so love the look the mini35 delivers...

Frankly, if this is your opinion then the effort to demo this would be worth it.
Click to expand...
Take a look at the footage I've posted, and see if it warrants further investigation. If you're going on vacation this summer, see if your destination might have a camera rental house -- they may let you demo it in their shop. But if you're seriously considering buying, then by all means rent it first, as only you can determine if it makes sense for your situations.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

[quote author=araujofh link=board=news;num=1086085878;start=15#15 date=06/02/04 at 01:57:38] As for the SDX, £40K is quite a lot. Wouldn't it be better buy the Panasonic Varicam for £20k more?[/quote]
Sure, if it was that simple, but of course it never is... :-/ The Varicam is $40,000 more than the SDX, for just the body. The body of the SDX is $25,000. The body of the Varicam is $65,000. Then on top of that you have to add lenses, power, etc. And an HD lens is going to cost a lot more than an SD lens for the SDX.

I still have the lenses of my Nikon-F5. Would those work with the Mini-35?
Click to expand...
I believe they will. Ask ZGC to be sure.

As for the anamorphic adapter, you think it is worth buy it, then?
Click to expand...
It was worth it to me. Doesn't mean it'd be worth it to you. If you do widescreen production, and take the time to extract the best quality from the lens, then it can be a big help. But it takes work to get the best from it.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

I have a mini 35 with a DVX100A, and I am very pleased with it. Image quality is really nice, Barry isn't exaggerating. In my opinion there is nothing like using a format/film size/target area as big as possible. However good the chip of a camera is, if it is small you get a certain look.

As far as cost goes, I consider the Mini 35 to be a $10k camera, with a $3k film magazine/digital back on it. The mini 35 is larger and heavier than the DVX100, so the camera is the accessory. Just my way of looking at it.
 
Re: Mini-35 Adapter

Well, that's an interesting way to look at it... ;)

Prices have changed though. The mini35 for the DVX is $10,000 all by itself. Then you add $3400 for the "magazine" and you're at thirteen and a half grand for it, which is an awful lot. It's a great system though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top