Mini 35 vs. Micro 35

Yuval Shrem

Yuval Shrem

Active member
I'm planning on shooting a feature with a couple of HVX200 cameras, and am assuming P+S Technik will come up with a proper adapter for the HVX200 very soon.

Dose anyone have some experience with the Mini35 and/or Micro35?

I have a few key questions:

1) is there a quality difference between Mini35 and Micro35?
2) How significant is the quality loss using these adaptors (soft focus etc..)
3) will it be effective for HD shooting (for film out purposes), or does it produce an overly soft image?
4) which zoom lenses would be the best to work with, and where can I get them (not rental)

?????

Thanks ! :)
 
Question

1) Big difference. The micro35 is good if your goal is to go to dvd. There is no data yet that it can transfer as good as the P&S mini35.

2) About 1 1/2 to 2 stops loss of light

3) I spoke with the P&S folks at a cinematography workshop and they recommend using the PRO35 for HD based projects instead of the mini35.

4) Can't really answer that question. Most folks rent Cooke or Digi Primes. I'm not sure about zoom lenses.
 
Despite what they say regarding the pro35 (which is designed for 2/3'' chips anyhow), the JVC mini35 footage looks great. For the hvx, you'd probably still go with the mini35. The price is a big difference, too, as is the fact that the hvx has a built in lens.

While I'd agree that the micro35 definitely doesn't look like it can match the mini35 in image quality, the m2 (updated micro35) sounds VERY promising. I'm not supposed to go into specifics (heck, I couldn't, I know next to nothing so it probably doesn't matter), but I'd ask for info on that before making a decision since it sounds like a great improvement and ideal for HD. It sounds much better in terms of optical quality, but we'll have to wait a few months to find out more. I'm keeping an eye on it, though.

As for good zooms, you can't afford them if you're thinking of shooting on an hvx unless you rent. Nikon makes a pretty killer f2.8 70-200mm VR lens that's around $1,000, however, but it's an SLR lens, not a cinema lens, although it's still what I'd recommend if you want to buy, along with some faster Nikon primes. They probably have a 28-70mm zoom, too, for under $1,000. Not sure, I shoot Canon and can't afford good glass.
 
You must be careful with zooms on the mini35. Some of them have an unequal light distribution which can cause certain areas of the frame to go a bit dark. Primes are a much better solution.

The mini35 is built for 1/3 inch chips whereas the pro 35 is made for 2/3 chips. So you wound use the mini35 with the hvx200, not the pro35.
 
Yuval Shrem said:
1) is there a quality difference between Mini35 and Micro35?
Click to expand...
Remains to be seen. For the 10x increase in price, one would certainly expect there to be a quality difference! If there's not, then the Micro35 is one heck of a steal. Side-by-side testing will be done once all three products (G35 also) are on the market.

2) How significant is the quality loss using these adaptors (soft focus etc..)
Click to expand...
There are two things to consider. One is: how much does the adapter soften the overall picture? The other is: how likely are you to ruin a shot because of the unbelievably tighter tolerances on focus when using a mini35-style device?

For the softening, we posted some with/without shots of the Mini35 on the HD100 over at DVInfo, so you can judge for yourself. There is a softening.

For the ruining-the-shot factor, that depends on how good you are, and how good your lenses are. It's *much* more demanding to shoot with 35mm lenses at wide-open apertures. The prospects of blowing the shot are much higher when using the mini35 style of devices. And if you're trying to pull focus on a still-camera lens (which was never designed for such a purpose) it can be an overwhelmingly difficult task.


3) will it be effective for HD shooting (for film out purposes), or does it produce an overly soft image?
Click to expand...
Again, view the samples at DVInfo. But keep in mind that those samples were shot on an HD100. The HVX recording format offers 50% more luma resolution and three times as much chroma resolution than the HD100's HDV format does.

4) which zoom lenses would be the best to work with, and where can I get them (not rental)
Click to expand...
A proper cine zoom lens is the only type of zoom lens that would be appropriate to work with. Look at the major cine lens manufacturers, such as Cooke and Angenieux. And prepare for a heart attack when you see the prices.
 
Barry_Green said:
Remains to be seen. For the 10x increase in price, one would certainly expect there to be a quality difference! If there's not, then the Micro35 is one heck of a steal. Side-by-side testing will be done once all three products (G35 also) are on the market.


There are two things to consider. One is: how much does the adapter soften the overall picture? The other is: how likely are you to ruin a shot because of the unbelievably tighter tolerances on focus when using a mini35-style device?

For the softening, we posted some with/without shots of the Mini35 on the HD100 over at DVInfo, so you can judge for yourself. There is a softening.

For the ruining-the-shot factor, that depends on how good you are, and how good your lenses are. It's *much* more demanding to shoot with 35mm lenses at wide-open apertures. The prospects of blowing the shot are much higher when using the mini35 style of devices. And if you're trying to pull focus on a still-camera lens (which was never designed for such a purpose) it can be an overwhelmingly difficult task.



Again, view the samples at DVInfo. But keep in mind that those samples were shot on an HD100. The HVX recording format offers 50% more luma resolution and three times as much chroma resolution than the HD100's HDV format does.


A proper cine zoom lens is the only type of zoom lens that would be appropriate to work with. Look at the major cine lens manufacturers, such as Cooke and Angenieux. And prepare for a heart attack when you see the prices.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed replies!! :laugh:

I tried to watch the examples you've posted on DVInfo. I downloaded the m2t files but can't seem to be able to open them :shocked: . What kind of a player or codec do I need for that? Where is it available for download?


Also, is the M2 on the market yet? What is the G35?
and finally, which of these adapters seems to maintain the best image quality? (regardless to the price differences)

Thanks,

Yuval.
 
Barry_Green said:
The DVInfo clips play in Windows Media Player. I think Mac users recommend downloading something called VLC...
Click to expand...
I tried changing the file extention to .wmv and it does show the clips, but also crashes both Explorer and Windows Media Player, so I never got to see all of them. Is there any other (better) way to view these clips? (on a PC)
 
Yuval Shrem said:
I tried to watch the examples you've posted on DVInfo. I downloaded the m2t files but can't seem to be able to open them :shocked: . What kind of a player or codec do I need for that? Where is it available for download?
Click to expand...

Would someone please be kind enough and post the link for these m2t file here?
Thanx.

@Yuval: Download the files onto your Mac and convert them with MPEGStreamClip (www.alfanet.it/squared5/mpegstreamclip.html) to any codec that suits your needs. Can be DV, Avi, or demuxed Mpeg, or whatever is within the scope of your QT installation on your Mac.
To download the files with a mac mouse, place your mouse cursor over the link, press the CTRL-Button on your keyboard and d/l the file. Instead, with a two or more button mouse, you may also press the right mouse button and d/l the file.
Don't think .wmv is the appropriate file ending as this apparently is no wmv-file.

Hope this helps. :thumbsup:
 
Thanks for the reply, but... I don't have a MAC. I only have a PC.
The Windows Media player I have is fully updated (I checked) and after changing the file extention, it does play a little bit of these clips, but then crashes...
If anyone knows abut a PC solution please let me know.

However, I'd try to keep this thread about the mini35 vs. Micro35 vs. Guerrilla35

I finally found the Guerrilla35 website (after everyone only called it G35) :)
It looks interesting!

Barry, I saw on their forum that you've had the chance to try one of their beta versions of the G35. The QT demos look very good, though I have no idea as for how it will look blown up to film and projected on a big screen. In other words, if the resulted image would be sharp enough, and grain-free enough.
Do you have any educated guess about its usability in conjunction with the HVX200 for a feature film with a theatrical release? (as far as the image quality and workflow)? Watching the Micro35 demos (Not M2), it seems to me the Micro35 will not be a good enough solution (too much softness and grain generated by the adapter). does any of these adapters solve these issues well enough?

*(Barry, I know that you said that you'll compair the three once they are all out on the market, but not knowing when that would be, I need to make a decision so that I will know if it will be worth waiting for and delaying the production, or not).



Thanks!

Yuval.
 
HTML: 
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

VLC is one of the best players for every platform (Mac, Windows, Linux, etc.).

If you can't sees m2t files in Windows Media Player it may be because you don't have a MPEG2 codec installed.
 
Barry_Green said:
A proper cine zoom lens is the only type of zoom lens that would be appropriate to work with. Look at the major cine lens manufacturers, such as Cooke and Angenieux. And prepare for a heart attack when you see the prices.
Click to expand...
Barry,

I did go to their websites and even googled the specific models, but couldn't find any pricing information. Could you please re-direct me to a place which actually sell these lenses and have an on-line price-list?

Also, what is your take on the quality difference between the M2 (with the moving ground-glass) and the G35 (with the static ground-glass)?

I would think that the M2 will produce less static grain, but would defuse and soften the image, while the G35 would add more static grain but should maintain a sharper and more detailed image. is this correct? :huh:

Which of them in your opinion would be more suitable for large-screen film-out projection (for a narrative feature film project)?


BTW, I've read the article on VDInfo and watched the videos and it is greatly helpful! :thumbsup:

Thanks!!

Yuval.
 
IMHO I think that the P+S Tecknic Mini35 is artificially inflated in price, one of the reason is that (in my view) when it first came out it was unique. It was'nt untill the now infamous Agus over at Dvinfo dared to prove that the principal was really... well simple and he further demonstrated that you could get really good images with $15's of junk!!

lol and now we know where that led to.

And heres another thing.. The mini35 flips the image in the correct way (I believe) therefore your losing more light due to more optics, these mini35 and g35 don't bother with that and thus save on light loss (in theory) and throw into the mix that people have been experimnting with so many different types of "ground glass" we've ended up with MicroCrystalline Wax!

My view is that: bottom line is the quality difference is *PROBABLY* minimal, OK so I will wait untill conclusive tests are done, then I'll chuckle when it turns out that I was right :)
 
It's more complicated than that, though. There are a host of issues which come up when making these things (trust me, since I've tried):

Achromatic diopter quality: Can result in distortion, chromatic abberation, softness, or worse, the entire center (or alternatively the entire edge) of the image being weirdly out of focus and distorted.

GG Quality: "Ghosting:" another image visible through the ground glass that has a much deeper depth of focus, which just looks weird and ugly. Spinning ground glass can bring highlights up to an unacceptably high level (film crushes blacks so this looks washed out and very undesireable, although diffused highlights look nice), and create noise "patterns" that are even more distracting than static grain. If you compare the micro35 and m2 you can see just how much difference a better GG makes. None of the micro35 footage have deep blacks, all of the m2 footage (and g35 footage) have deep black. Honestly, static wax solutions produce much better results than GG in terms of contrast and overall "look" but they may also produce grain that's not visible in DV at f1.8, but is highly visible in HD at f4 and totally unacceptable. For that reason, a static solution might be great on the dvx, but unacceptable for the HDX. Certainly "ground glass" static adapters will be unacceptable, microwax ones may be rendered useless as well.

Condenser strength: too strong and you have weird edges that are majorly distorted, too weak and you have intense vignetting, especially at closed apertures. The balance is hard to find and never really perfect.

By the way, I honestly agree that you can make a great adapter with about 50 dollars worth of materials (nice achromat, capillary action wax screen, nikon mount, some pvc pipe). Choosing the right parts, though.....that's hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top