Jump to content


Photo

Mini35 on Z1 using 35mm Film Lenses


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Andreas

Daniel Andreas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Santa Monica

Posted 24 January 2006 - 06:12 PM

I have used the Pro35 adapter on my SDX900 for a short film and was very PLEASED with the beautiful shallow dof and the 35mm look I got out of the camera (on 24p).

Now we are planning a music video in Europe with the idea to use the Mini35 adapter
shooting either with the Sony's Z1.

1) Does anybody have any experience / recommendations with shooting on the Mini35 adapter
using Zeiss Primes on the Z1?
2) any links to footage shot with the Mini35 with primes on the Z1?
3) any reviews on that combo?
4) what rental house do you recommend in Los Angeles?

Thanks!
[size=2]
  • 0

#2 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:43 PM

I think P+S technic makes a special adapter for the Z1, but on their site, there isn't a pic of it yet.

It shoud work pretty much the same way it worked for you with your SDX 900 camera.
  • 0

#3 Daniel Andreas

Daniel Andreas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Santa Monica

Posted 25 January 2006 - 05:47 AM

I think P+S technic makes a special adapter for the Z1, but on their site, there isn't a pic of it yet.

It shoud work pretty much the same way it worked for you with your SDX 900 camera.



Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php

I think P+S technic makes a special adapter for the Z1, but on their site, there isn't a pic of it yet.

It shoud work pretty much the same way it worked for you with your SDX 900 camera.



Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php

I think P+S technic makes a special adapter for the Z1, but on their site, there isn't a pic of it yet.

It shoud work pretty much the same way it worked for you with your SDX 900 camera.



Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php
  • 0

#4 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 26 January 2006 - 02:33 PM

Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php
Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php
Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php



Wow! A triple post, inside of one post!

thanks for the clearup though. I was wondering why there were 2 different ones. My bad on the misinformation.
  • 0

#5 warner brown

warner brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Other
  • petaluma, CA

Posted 02 February 2006 - 02:03 PM

Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php
Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php
Well.... kind of but not really -- especially looking at the format & price...
Also, the Pro35 has a B4 mount and is designed for 2/3" chipsets where as the Mini is for small DV Cameras either projecting THROUGH existing lens (DVX100s, Sony's HDVs) or mounting onto camera (Canon, JVC).

More info on Mini35:
http://www.pstechnik...5-converter.php

More info on Pro35:
http://www.pstechnik...lfilm-pro35.php


this is probably a stupid question, I've been looking into the mini35 and since 35mm lens are quite unaffordable do you know if the mini35 is compatible with regular or wide digital lens for an FX-1, and could it yield similar results?
  • 0

#6 Isaac Chung

Isaac Chung
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 February 2006 - 11:35 AM

last year, I used the mini35 with an FX1 and had good results (used Zeiss lenses):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0759955/

personal likes:
-use of zeiss primes

-Ability to shoot on video--good when production demands many long takes.


personal dislikes:
-I'm not sure if this is normal, but the field of view seemed cropped--a 35mm lens seemed to provide a 50mm field of view and so on.

-terrible loss of light; around 2 or 3 stops.

-inability to shoot anything at or above f4; otherwise, the spinning ground glass becomes visible.

-again, shooting on video rather than film


suggestions:
-Tape focus ring on camera to avoid back focus issues; this happened a few times.
Critical focus seemed to happen at 1.3m (or was it feet? it's been a while--) on the camera.

-I used a deinterlacing program to achieve 24p; it improved the project dramatically.

I don't have any clips online, but I can send you a film if you'd like.

isaac
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 February 2006 - 12:02 PM

Hi,

I just did a writeup for Showreel magazine which may be of interest.

Until you get a chance to read it, all I would say is look elsewhere than the Sony camera. I have a Z1 here and it's got the nastiest "cineframe" mode in the world. It's ergonomically horrible and the lens isn't that great. I'd certainly look preferentially at the JVC GY-HD100, which at least does tue 24p.

I hope to be able to look at a Canon XLH1 with regard to recording its uncompressed output, which might make it worth looking at if you can make that happen, but I don't know. You'd have to test to see whether XLH1 footage deinterlaced (its 25p mode is also poor, but less poor than the Sony) is sharper than the JVC, given that you can record the XLH1 uncompressed and the JVC you can't.

Phil
  • 0

#8 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 21 February 2006 - 01:26 PM

-I'm not sure if this is normal, but the field of view seemed cropped--a 35mm lens seemed to provide a 50mm field of view and so on.

just guessing but maybe the z1 has a longer zoom than the camera the adapter was originally designed for? or the adapter doesn't cover super 35 which you might be used to? or you were tricked by the fact that you were looking at a 16:9 image rather than a 4:3 one? again, just guesses. maybe they'll lead to an interesting discussion?

/matt
  • 0

#9 Stepan Sivko

Stepan Sivko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:34 PM

I have comment to number 1

1) I just met one very unhappy frind of mine...he had the sony Z1 and he bought the PS technik converter...thr truth is ...Because u can not remove the lens from the camera PS technik is forced to supply additional Lens based converter and kind of cover the lens with it....who knows opticsknows the truth....too many optics too bad...the result is very unpleasent fuzzy image, if i can recomend go with either the HDV by canon or jvc...they both have the option to remove their original lens...which in the case of canon is a very good thing.
S
  • 0

#10 Isaac Chung

Isaac Chung
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:56 PM

To note, I'd rather not use the p+s technik again (at least, with the FX1). Given the choice between that rig and shooting super 16, I would rather go with super 16.
  • 0

#11 George Stratford

George Stratford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:36 AM

I don`t know about that. I have an FX1 and a Micro 35 adapter which gives similar results to P.S. technik. I took apart the adapter and gave it some serious tweaking , found a few vintage nikons and the picture came out quite sharp. The problem is if your camera is NTSC and you want to deinterlace 60i to 24p in post, (not the crappy sony cineframe way) You will lose half the vertical resolution, Almost defeating the purpose of HDV.

Coady Marshall
  • 0

#12 Sandy Thomson

Sandy Thomson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:16 PM

To note, I'd rather not use the p+s technik again (at least, with the FX1). Given the choice between that rig and shooting super 16, I would rather go with super 16.

I'm shooting HDV (FX1) and Super 16 and editing both in HDV. The important stuff is shot on film and where I need something very portable I shoot with the FX1. What's wrong with the lesnd on the camera?

Sandyt
  • 0

#13 Steve Parker

Steve Parker

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 March 2006 - 10:01 AM

In response to "what's wrong with the lens on the camera?" ? nothing if you want to shoot wedding videos, or even news and fly-on-the-wall stuff. If you want to do high-end drama or anything where you might want a film-out, you'd be advised to look at one of the cine adaptors. Most HDV camera lenses breathe quite heavily, the 1/3in chip means you are limited to wide DoF shots, and the optical quality could be bettered.

There are a number of different models available. In the March/April of Showreel, we looked at the P+S Technik Mini35, the Red Rock Micro M2, the Cinemek (Guerilla 35) and the Movietube from South London Filters. We used them variously with the Sony Z1, JVC HD100, Canon XL H1 and the Panasonic HVX200. The tests were carried out by DPs Taylor Wigton and Rodney Charters (24's DP) on the set of 24 during the shooting of season five.

The test (parts one and two of a three-parter, the third looking at post issues with HD/HDV) are currently on our website, with part one free to read (part two is available to subscribers only until all our magazine and site subscribers have had chance to read it). However, if there are any specific questions, I'll ask Taylor if he might address some of them here.

Steve Parker
Editor, Showreel magazine
steve@showreel.org
articles at: www.showreel.org/memberarea
  • 0

#14 warner brown

warner brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Other
  • petaluma, CA

Posted 20 March 2006 - 11:59 PM

The problem is if your camera is NTSC and you want to deinterlace 60i to 24p in post, (not the crappy sony cineframe way) You will lose half the vertical resolution, Almost defeating the purpose of HDV.

Coady Marshall


Would it be any different with a PAL camera, or is there a way of getting around the vertical res loss on NTSC?
  • 0

#15 Sam Martin

Sam Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Director
  • London, UK

Posted 23 March 2006 - 02:52 PM

Would it be any different with a PAL camera, or is there a way of getting around the vertical res loss on NTSC?


If you are based in the UK give a call to the guys at DECODE hire, they are based in london and they have a full 35mm lens adapetr kit from next month April. They haven't gone the mini35 route but bought at least 1 or 2 movietubes. Universal mount you can use pretty much use any small 1/3 CCD camera. Their website is www.decodedigital.co.uk

I hope it helps..
  • 0


Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Abel Cine

Glidecam

The Slider

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc