Jump to content


Photo

JVC 200 with HD-CA13U vs. JVC 100 with mini 35


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Iskra Valtcheva

Iskra Valtcheva
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin, TX

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:16 AM

Hello,

I am shooting a short dance film at White Sands and have the option to choose between two camera packages: JVC 200 with a HD-CA13U adapter, or JVC100 with a mini 35 adapter. Will be using 35mm Zeiss primes. The setup is basically three dancers on top of a table in the middle of the desert. So, day exterior with lots of subject and camera movement (including steadicam). I've shot almost exclusively film so far, would love some advice on shooting HD wit the JVC. Which camera/adapter combo would you pick and why? Which one deals better with motion blur? How about overcranking? What is the latitude like on these cameras? Do you recommend using a vectroscope monitor, or do you go by the zebra marks for exposure?

Many thanks,
~iskra
  • 0

#2 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 December 2007 - 10:13 AM

The 200 definitely gives a better picture. It has a deeper bit depth to its DSP, which yields superior color rendition. The CA13 adaptor allows the use of 16mm format PL mount lenses. It is very sharp and loses almost no light, but it does not provide any change in depth of field. It is designed to allow you to use very good optics to bring out the best in the camera and does so quite well. The 100 is a good camera and works well with the Mini35. That device loses about 1.5 stops of light and uses 35mm format lenses, providing the shallower depth of field of that format. It is nice but not nearly as clean as the other system. I like the 200 and the CA13.

Motion blur should be the same. The 200 will allow more option in overcranking. Lattitude is about 5 stops on the 100, 6 on the 200. I like a vectorscope but only if you really know how to use it. Zebras work fine on both.
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 December 2007 - 11:25 AM

I used a mini35 on a 250 and found it generally painful and unpleasant - but most of them are supplied with fairly awful lenses. I'd lean toward the straight lens adaptor.

Mitch, do they not have any issues with the lenses not being set up for three-chip blocks?

Phil
  • 0

#4 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 December 2007 - 01:15 PM

Mitch, do they not have any issues with the lenses not being set up for three-chip blocks?

Not at all. The design is just a miniature version of the CLA-55 optical adaptor that Angenieux made a while back to put 35PL lenses on B4 mount cameras, this bore the Pro35. Image sharp & clean with field of view retained, but since it used an arial image plane instead of a surface such as a ground glass there was no change in depth of field for the format.
  • 0

#5 Gary McClurg

Gary McClurg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Producer

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:07 AM

Not at all. The design is just a miniature version of the CLA-55 optical adaptor that Angenieux made a while back to put 35PL lenses on B4 mount cameras, this bore the Pro35. Image sharp & clean with field of view retained, but since it used an arial image plane instead of a surface such as a ground glass there was no change in depth of field for the format.


Except for the mount would the JVC adapter work on an XLH1... probably not.. but it never hurts to ask...
  • 0

#6 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:49 AM

Mitch,

I'll have to disagree with you here. Using the lens adapter does indeed change DoF characteristics as I and Tim Dashwood (et al) discovered in our extensive tests with this adapter. I did separate tests from Dashwood, just to clarify. His results are here, I have yet to write mine up.

http://www.bluesky-w...om/HZ-CA13U.pdf

DOf field characteristics due to the adapter make the camera act like a 16mm film camera. Also this camera takes not only 16mm lens but also 35, at 16mm characteristics.

I would say after using this adapter that I could never use one of those spinning screen adapters again. The optical difference is like plastic children's sunglasses compared to the best optical glasses you can buy. Like film, a video camera is really a box with a lens. It's the lens that gives you the biggest equation in the MTF characteristics as I see it. Nothing beats a quality lens. Spinning screen adapters are nice for consumer cameras and those that don't mind struggling to achieve effects that quality lenses offer, but for a pro camera like this, you'd be getting only a portion of the ability, and suffering trying to use a spinning screen adapter properly and reliably compared to a high quality lens simply attached to a camera. Just the optical quality gives your picture a look and feel that no adapter can. Frankly I find the DoF characteristics of these spinning adapters to be so over exaggerated as to sometimes be cartoonist. I implore you to investigate using this camera with a lens adapter. Any other way is just faux filmmaking as I see it.

And a good introduction to the lens adapter here:
http://digitalconten...107/index1.html
  • 0

#7 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:39 AM

If anyone is interested in renting the JVC adaptor we have them available at Abel in New York.
  • 0

#8 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 December 2007 - 12:24 PM

Fantastic - but not a lot of good to me. Anyone closer? :)

Phil
  • 0

#9 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:03 PM

I think Anna Carrington in the UK bought one from us. You know her, right?
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:38 PM

She was my AC when I took that 250 out for Showreel.

Didn't know she'd done that.

Cool.

P
  • 0

#11 Michael Maier

Michael Maier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 18 January 2008 - 12:09 PM

The 200 definitely gives a better picture. It has a deeper bit depth to its DSP, which yields superior color rendition. The CA13 adaptor allows the use of 16mm format PL mount lenses. It is very sharp and loses almost no light, but it does not provide any change in depth of field. It is designed to allow you to use very good optics to bring out the best in the camera and does so quite well. The 100 is a good camera and works well with the Mini35. That device loses about 1.5 stops of light and uses 35mm format lenses, providing the shallower depth of field of that format. It is nice but not nearly as clean as the other system. I like the 200 and the CA13.

Motion blur should be the same. The 200 will allow more option in overcranking. Lattitude is about 5 stops on the 100, 6 on the 200. I like a vectorscope but only if you really know how to use it. Zebras work fine on both.


How would you rate the CA13 and Mini35 with the JVC cameras in terms of ASA?
  • 0

#12 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 January 2008 - 09:53 PM

I have not tested the camera in a while, but the Mini35 eats about 1.5 stops of light while the CA13 eats practically nothing, maybe a 1/4 of a stop.
  • 0


Technodolly

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Opal

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

CineLab