>Shooting my first HD feature in Taiwan with the Varicam and pro 35 adaptor and a grab bag of lenses (32mm ultra, 40mm 2.1, 50mm 1.3, 60mm 2.1, 85mm 1.3, 135mm ultra). Just so you know there aren't any on-set engineers in Taiwan and I rarely have time to even look at the monitor. Anyway, during the first day everything seemed pretty honky-dorey colour/lighting-wise. All interior, mostly working with existing light. but by the end of the day, when we were doing a night for day interior, I peeked at the monitor and noticed that the image was way off.
>The top half of the screen had a magenta cast and the bottom had a green cast. When I brought it up with the a.c. from the rental house, he explained to me that the Varicam should only be used with the Angenieux adaptor and Zeiss ultra lenses. I tried switching from our 50mm super speed to the 32mm ultra but the effect was the same. We tried switching the "high colour" setting off and things looked more or less acceptable. I decided to leave the "high colour" on so that we'd have more flexibility in post to lower our saturation.
>The problem is that with the exception of that one shot, everything I saw on the monitor on set was alright. However, the post guys called us and said the problem is visible on EVERYTHING we shot!
>I’m very confused because I’ve used the pro 35 in DV and DigiBeta without any issues; I’ve also used the adaptor with all sorts of different lenses. I’ve also used the Angenieux adaptor with different (non-ultra) lenses in DigiBeta and HD without any problems.
>So, my question to you... what's going on? How do we fix what we've already shot? What should we do to insure that it won't happen on anything else that we shoot?
>I pressed the director and producer for tests before we shot, but of course they feigned "low-budget syndrome" and now it's come to bite us in the proverbial ass.
>I am no engineer, but it sounds like an internal problem w/ the camera.
>I do know that we have sent our P + S Protenik Pro-35 adapter out w/ our Varicam countless times with a variety of lenses from different manufacturers, and have not experienced any issues like this.
>Did you prep your package? Maybe doing a prep and camera test at the rental house before leaving with the gear would have revealed the problem.
Director of Development
class="style11">> I peeked at the monitor and noticed that the image was way off. The top >half of the screen had a magenta cast and the bottom had a green cast.
>Was the monitor moved or rotated? Did you degauss it?
class="style11">>Was the monitor moved or rotated? Did you degauss it?
>He mentions the editors saying the effect was in everything they shot so it sounds like an on-tape issue.
>I've never used the Pro35 adapter, but you don't mentioned whether you took the time to take the adapter off and shoot a couple of quick shots in order to see if the adapter was actually the problem. I'd do that before I did anything else.
>This sounds to me like it could be a camera issue, but until you take the adapter off and roll half a minute of footage to send back to editorial we'll all be guessing.
class="style11">>He mentions the editors saying the effect was in everything they shot so >it sounds like an on-tape issue.
>Wasn't paying attention.
eCinema Systems, Inc.
>Same problem an Varicam with Fuji 7.6 - 137 HD zoom. Highlights in the BG had magenta on top , green on bottom (out of focus FAR ). When focus is racked to bring the highlight out of focus on the CLOSE side the colours inverted i.e. green on top magenta on bottom. This led us to believe it was a back focus issue. No luck. All manner of back focus setting and tests did not improve the problem. We then changed lenses. Same effect.
This is my personal camera that came straight from Abel in NY (brand new).
>Just wrapped today on a six week shoot. The problem seems to be emphasized at wide apertures and the hotter the highlight the more the effect.
>Would be interested to see what people have to say,
>On the Varicam the 'High Colour' setting provides a boost to colours above the knee point. It is not an overall saturation adjustment. With different camera setups, it can have radically different results.
>I have seen a problem something like the one you are talking about. It that case it was a flare issue with the lens. Is the contrast washing out when the colour casts are present?
DP- San Francisco
>Nicholas Gardner wrote:
class="style11">>Highlights in the BG had magenta on top, green on bottom (out of focus >FAR ). When focus is racked to bring the highlight out of focus on the >CLOSE side the colours inverted i.e. green on top magenta on bottom. >This led us to believe it was a back focus issue.
>Perhaps a prism issue since it doesn't follow the lens change?
>Sounds like some bad colour fringing at any rate.
class="style11">>the top half of the screen had a magenta cast and the bottom had a >green cast.
>If you can duplicate the problem while shooting a full-frame white or grey card with proper white balance, you might be able to invert the colour and the luma, and use the inverted image data as a "mask" for cancelling out the problem in post. Check with your post folks to see whether they've ever done this before.
>Plan B : just convert everything to trendy Black & White (I'm being only half-facetious).
Marin County, CA
>Sounds like some kind of chromatic aberrations, probably something to do with the lens adaptor, if you're mostly seeing the discoloration on out of focus objects in either the foreground or background then it's definitely bad optics probably associated with the Pro 35 adaptor either not attached correctly or simply bad lenses.
HD Video et al
I know it isn't an HD reference, but I have often seen such shifts in the eyepiece of film cameras that had a video split prism. Usually side to side though, but still it sounds like a prism issue, much as Mark Smith said.
>A video camera makes it's pictures by adjusting the electronics. Flip a two times extender in a camera and you don't simply add an element. An electronic adjustment is also made by a small micro switch which compensates for the change. All lenses affect the electronics of a camera hence why the camera has settings for particular lenses. Your problem is an electronic issue.
>I am not there so I can not say what you have done, but ask an engineer to look at the problem.
BlueSky Media, Inc.
class="style11">>Highlights in the BG had magenta on top, green on bottom (out of focus >FAR ). When focus is racked to bring the highlight out of focus on the >CLOSE side the colours inverted
>Sounds like a severe White Vertical Shading issue with the Pro 35 Adapter/Lenses. Have seen the problem when mating some single focal plane lenses to a prism based camera. Most recently, when setting up the HD camera for Bob Primes first HD shoot, a short he shot at his home, the Hasselblad (sorry for mangling the spelling) lenses that had been selected for use with an adapter, displayed such shading errors, that I didn't have enough range in the camera to correct them, so I compromised the others to minimize the problem. As a result, the piece contained the exact phenomenon throughout. If that is the problem, there is no way to correct it.
>I would guess that neither the Pro 35 Adapter or the film lenses used in this case were nearly as bad as the Hasselblad's, and probably could be corrected for in prep but ONLY by someone who really knows video setups at the root level, and who knows how to remove those corrections after the shoot is over.
>GEORGE C. PALMER
HD and Digital Imaging
HD Rx for your HD Pix www.hdpix.com
>There is a vertical white shading problem when using the pro 35 adapter and almost every film lens.
>It can be corrected in the camera lens shading menu. It really doesn't matter witch camera you are shooting with you still need to do a proper lens file when sooting with the video camera/adaptor/filmlens.
>Shoot a grey card and turn the saturation up on the monitor and you will see it very clearly.
Dagsljus Filmequipment AB
>I'm shooting a short film in a week and a half with this setup, and of course no money for an engineer.
>Can somebody give me the steps I need to take to properly setup and use the lens files so as to not have this problem? Or is this going to be out of the realm of normal mortals?
>The problem seems to be emphasized at wide apertures and the hotter >the highlight the more the effect. Would be interested to see what >people have to say,
This points to the knee saturation related issue mentioned by another Varicam owner when in "colour boost" mode. Other camera related possibilities include white shading errors, or incorrectly set clips.
>I hope everyone realizes that the presence of a waveform monitor on set, and someone who knows how to use it (Video controller, DIT, engineer-Whatever you call us these days) would render an INSTANT diagnosis, instead of the endless theorising on these pages. (More likely, a qualified "shader" would simply, and reflexively "tweak" this error out without causing the production a moment's loss of shooting time by even mentioning it until lunch---More than earning the money "Saved" by not hiring one!)
>By the way: Was swapping out the Pro 35 adapter tried to see if it was that? Also, if shutting off "colour boost" seemed to fix it, why the hay did folks continue using "colour boost", knowing this was aggravating, or causing such a problem?
Video Engineer/DIT USA
class="style11">>I hope everyone realizes that the presence of a waveform monitor on >set, and someone who knows how to use it (Video controller, DIT, >engineer-Whatever you call us these days) would render an INSTANT >diagnosis...
>Absolutely right. but I bet that DP's just trying to survive that understaffed situation. I'm amazed how in the last year it seems more and more productions allow the hiring of very minimal crews sans DIT/VC. Its a bothersome trend as the pressure then falls on the DP to figure out too many of the technicalities when in fact we should have more important things to do than fiddle with the menus and figure out a post workflow for an unhelpful post house (can ya tell I'm still bitter about my last understaffed & overscheduled job ?).
>OK, so we all like to do some menu tweaking - and I'm not trying to belittle what DIT's/VC's do, but that's their gig while a DP has many other important responsibilities.
>Wish there was an IA minimum staffing requirement for a DIT unless there were very specific and approved circumstance not to have one.
LA based DP
>Mark Doering-Powell writes:
>Wish there was an IA minimum staffing requirement for a DIT unless >there were very specific and approved circumstance not to have one.
Absolutely. When they can't lay it on the DP, more and more producers are trying to lay it on the already very busy AC.
I also second what Lew Comemetz said about how easy and avoidable this would have been with the proper staff and tools.
>Ultimately a lot of the responsibility lies with the manufacturers and their unrelenting hype about how easy it is and how much time and money can be saved -- until something goes wrong.
>Have the rental house set up the camera with the adapter.
Do a test recording and check to make sure it meets your approval.
>Not sure why commonsense disappears when HD arrives on set. Must be the bandwidth.
Author "Goodman's Guide to the Panasonic
>Thanks guys for your help, both on this forum and in private replies. Yes, this problem was an issue of improperly set white shading and that was the result of not having any prep time OR an on set waveform and engineer!
>The problem however, is that in Taiwan there is no such thing as an on-set engineer. So of course HD isn't being shot to its full potential because nobody has the time or training to fully understand what it's capable of.
>I finally had a chance to see the existing and affected footage; yes there is magenta and green in the image, but it's actually fairly minor. In fact, if the post dudes had called me privately and we never told the director, I don't think he would've noticed.
>Anyway, with a little de-saturation, I’ll be able to rescue that portion of the footage. On the off-day, the assistants were able to mount every lens and set white shading files for each type, i.e. one each for the ultras, the super-speeds, the 2.1 and 3 macros, and the Cooke zoom. We didn't try swapping the pro 35 for the Angenieux because, on the day we got "the call" from the post dudes, we didn't have the opportunity to get a second adaptor "flown in." T he remaining scenes for that day were all crazy colour bar scenes, so what the hell, right? Bring on the liquor!
>To address the reason why I left the camera set in hight colour... on the one and only scene where we noticed the flaw on set (a night for day interior so we thought it might've been an issue of lower-key lighting than the previous scenes), I tried turning off the high colour and saw that the flaw went away. however, I left it on (and will continue to leave it on for the rest of the picture) to maintain more freedom in post. if leaving high colour off de-saturates the picture by, let's say 20 percent, that's one thing. If I leave it on, in post, I have the freedom to de-saturate the image 10 to 15 percent, and that might be enough to solve the problem with the earlier footage.
>It's been brought to my attention that I’d be better off leaving the high colour off and adjusting my chroma through the matrix settings (or just leaving all that junk off). Well the fact is that we've already shot a considerable portion of the film, the director and executive producer are ecstatic about the footage, and if I start playing with things now, I might also invite other headaches in post. Either way, I’m sticking with the original settings (with the exception of the white shading!) for this particular project. As I learn and understand the settings more, I’ll shoot later projects differently.
>As far as the comments about us DP's being maxed out in terms of responsibilities, let me remind you that for the 25-30 shots we average everyday, I’m lucky to get a peek at the actors through the monitor for about five of those shots!
>Thanks, Robert, I will do that. I was really hoping your book would be available before we shoot, but to no avail! I definitely look forward to picking it up once it's released.
>This is DEFINATELY a white shading issue. I run into this all the time. This happens on ALL HD cameras using the Pro-35. YOU MUST create a lens file if using the F900/950 or create a "white shading" correction if using the 27F/V (and I assume Viper as well). This is NOT a camera problem but a simple shading correction done 'in-camera'. At Clairmont Camera, I ALWAYS check the camera with the Pro-35 to be used for the shoot. It is a simple V-MOD tweak but Oooooooohhhhhh so important for good results!
>Hope this info helps.
>Michael Condon, SOC
>>Michael Condon, SOC
class="style11">>This is DEFINATELY a white shading issue. I run into this all the time.
>Jesper Holstroem's comments are pretty much exactly in line with my experience. The Pro35 has some shading problems. As others have pointed out: Although the shading problems are irritating, they are actually correctable in an advanced post suite or maybe with some tweaking in camera.
>The lateral chromatic aberrations produced when using a HD lens with the Varicam (or any other 3 chip HD camera, my unscientific tests have shown no difference between the Viper, F900, F950, LDK6000 and Varicam in these matters) and NOT the Pro35 and a 35mm Film lens is not correctable in any post suite.
>Hey, nothing is perfect.
>Cheers, Aasulv Wolf Austad
DP, Los Angeles
class="style11">>The lateral chromatic aberrations produced when using a HD lens with >the Varicam and NOT the Pro35 and a 35mm Film lens is not >correctable in any post
>Any chance you can elaborate a bit more? What are the differences (i.e. do the chromatic aberrations *look* different with HD lenses vs the Pro35/film lens combo?) And what makes them different as far as post tools are concerned?
class="style11">>Any chance you can elaborate a bit more?
>The subject matter has been widely covered before at CML so I will try to keep it short for fear of being utterly boring. Hey, what am I saying? The subject matter IS utterly boring, so read at your own risk!
class="style11">>What are the differences (i.e. do the chromatic aberrations *look* >different with HD lenses vs the Pro35/film lens combo?) And what >makes them different as far as post tools are concerned?
>My experience is that the Pro35 seems to have a tint that affects the entire picture with a colour difference between the top and bottom. The tint is very subtle. HD lenses for 3 chip cameras seem to give a clean image of what is in focus, but tinted on out of focus highlights. I am currently not aware of any post tool that can colour correct specific highlights based on how much they are in or out of focus and their shape and intensity.
>The best way is to take a look at these artifacts yourself. Here is a simple unscientific way :
>First : Put on a HD prime or a very good HD zoom lens. Make sure the lens is wide open and that there are no filters in front. Place a white piece of paper in the lower half of your frame against a black or dark background. Make sure the upper edge of the white paper is horizontal. Make sure the camera reads the paper as white. Focus on the paper. Then slowly move the focus to the background and watch how the colour changes on the edge of the white paper. Then slowly move the focus in front of the paper and watch how it changes to a different colour on the edge of the white paper.
>Some other tests could be to place the edge of the paper vertically and then almost vertically and see how the colour of the edge of the white paper does or does not change with focus changes. You could also take your Mag lite and look at the bare bulb and see how small highlights are much less prone to these effects than large highlights. This could give you some ideas on how to minimize the lateral chromatic aberration when you want the superior speed, sharpness and resolution of f.ex. a DigiPrime.
>Then you could repeat the steps with the Pro35 and a comparable 35mm lens.
>From what I understand the lateral chromatic aberrations in 3 chip HD cameras are related to the prism and not the lens. I am sure that if you could find a cinematographer who has experience shooting 3 strip Technicolor, he could probably tell you a lot more tricks on how to deal with this.
>Aasulv Wolf Austad
DP, Los Angeles
>You describe vertical shading phenomena and also reference lateral chromatic aberration. The vertical shading phenomena are, most likely, causing the top-to-bottom flat field type coloration shifts in chromatic performance due either to the (non HD prism type) lens mated to the Pro 35 Adapter, or to the Pro 35 Adapter itself; only testing can differentiate. The lateral chromatic aberration issue is, obviously, apart from that, however, as it describes (usually) left to right horizontal "registration type" shifts between the colour channels attributable to either or both the prism or the lens of a multiple chip HD (or SD) camera, most prominent at wide open apertures.
>Any discussion of lateral chromatic error must, however, acknowledge the extremely improved and minimal orders of error in modern HD and SD lenses and prism style HD and SD cameras as compared to such cameras, say, 5 years ago. Lenses have vastly improved, and camera makers have vastly improved both the manufacturing and electronic control over those artifacts in recent times. There is no fix, that I know of, in post for either, however.
>GEORGE C. PALMER
>Using Film Lenses on HD Cameras Does not look Good
>I have yet to see any Film Lens via any method of attachment on any HD Camera look Acceptable to me.
>So the Big question is What is it worth to you to Get "Shallow DOF" How badly must your image suffer to get shallower DOF When does the trade off become not worth the image degradation.
>After the big film shows are in the field and its your turn to get your set of film lenses from the rental house guess what you have to pick from... The leftovers.
>Film lenses on HD Cameras will benefit greatly from Lens Files and the ability to white shade the lenses and correct mild inconsistencies. But they cannot make up for Centre or edge softness, Chromatic Aberration, Contrast, inconsistent lens coating, portholing, ramping, Flair, Coma, Stigmatism, or blooming.
>An HD Camera requires HD Lens that were built to the very demanding tolerance required of the capture medium.
>I say Again and I know this is subjective (you might like the "Look") But I have not yet seen any film lens out perform HD lenses on any HDCamera.
>Don't believe me, Test it for yourself
>B. Sean Fairburn SOC
Director of Photography
>Sean Fairburn writes:
class="style11">> Using Film Lenses on HD Cameras
> Does not look Good
>I couldn't agree more. The optics are not compatible.
class="style11">> I have yet to see any Film Lens via any method of attachment on any >HD Camera look Acceptable to me.
>That's another issue entirely. As you are no doubt aware, lenses used on the Pro35 adaptor are not attached to the video camera, but to the Pro35. You capture the image made by a film lens on the Pro35 with an HD lens on the HD camera.
>I can see where someone might feel the way you do about the look, but please allow for others who may not care for the look of video -- in any of its manifestations.
class="style11">> So the Big question is What is it worth to you to Get "Shallow DOF"
>The big answer is "A Lot". It's also Panavision's big answer. Zeiss' big answer. Cooke's big answer, etc. And you can expect to see a lot more companies with the same answer. Some people don't want their close ups etc. to look like the local news. And apparently lens manufacturers are willing to invest millions of dollars creating lenses to satisfy this craving for shallow DOF without sacrificing quality.
class="style11">> How badly must your image suffer to get shallower DOF.
>It doesn't have to suffer at all..
class="style11">>When does the trade off become not worth the image degradation.
>It is not an either or situation. Shallow depth of field does not equate to image degradation anymore than deep depth of field equates to image enhancement. Surely you've seen Collateral by now.
class="style11">> After the big film shows are in the field and its your turn to get your set >of film lenses from the rental house guess what you have to pick >from...The leftovers.
>Come on, Sean. What's up with that.
>If I took a beat up "leftover" F-900 and a put a brand new set of DigiPrimes on it and told you that no HD lens ever made could improve the look of that camera, you'd be crying foul.
>If all you are offered is "leftover" lenses, I would suggest trying another rental house, or a rental house in another city, and not misplace blame.
class="style11">>Film lenses on HD Cameras will benefit greatly from Lens Files and the >ability to white shade the lenses and correct mild inconsistencies.
>We're not talking about film lenses on HD cameras, but film lenses on a Pro35. And we are especially talking about a situation where the camera and the Pro35 have not been properly set up.
class="style11">>But I have not yet seen any film lens out perform HD lenses on any HD >Camera.
>And I have not seen an HD lens out perform a film lens on any film camera. So what.
>Brian "Horses for Courses" Heller
IA 600 DP
class="style12">>First: Put on a HD prime or a very good HD zoom lens.
class="style12">> Some other tests could be
Thanks, much appreciated! Will try some of that next
time I get a chance!
>Sorry for responding late to that topic; I’m at the Athens Olympic Games and have a poor internet connection... Funny is, that I’m staying in Kinetta - couldn’t find Jeff Kreines or any HD cameras here
>Because I have supported many shots with the Pro35, here are my 5cents on that :
>- Lens discussions (incl. the Pro35 Adaptor and the lenses used with it) are mainly subjective, except talking about technical specs so I disagree with Sean (sorry), I’ve seen really excellent projects shot with the Pro35 on HD, I agree with you on the "test it for yourself"
I’ve heard many DP´s talking about really poor old film lenses and using them on that special project because of "the tobacco touch" or "sensitive softness" these lenses have
>- Nothing is for free : you buy the look of 35mm DoF by losing a stop of light and by adding a "adaptor" to your system - if you don’t want that - don’t use it!
If you want that, remember the physics which make that happen and get back a powerful creative tool you’ve been using in film all the time :
selective focus / shallow DoF
>- The optical quality of the Pro35 adaptor is mainly influenced by which film lens you use, and it can be used on ANY HD or SD camera using a regular 2/3"Lens-Mount and you can use almost every 35mm lens with it
>- It´s not the Pro35 that has a shading problem - it´s because every video/hd camera is set up for the shading/specs of a HD/video lens and correct it in the "standard" lens file - so if you put the Pro35 on the camera you’ll get the inverted colour shading because the Pro´s lenses are "neutral" and the camera was "expecting" a video lens
>- Every rental house should know this and only give out proper adjusted cameras with a Pro35 Lens file active - so the setup of a Pro is not finished by just putting it on the lens mount...
- If anyone needs a "how to" on create a lens files for the Pro, there’s a white paper available. You get it from P+S Technik, ZGC or I can send it by mail to anyone interested - (btw:... it is based on Michael Condons tests with the early Pro´s at Clairmont)
+++ Florian Rettich +++
+++ Europe based DIT / vision control +++
>Florian Rettich wrote:
class="style12">>Funny is, that I’m staying in Kinetta - couldn’t find Jeff Kreines or any HD >cameras here
>We drove by a few years back, on the way to Mani... but the name didn't come from there.
>Okay, I'm confused. I understand how the Pro35 works, and gives 35mm format dof.
>But how do these other film lens adapters do it? And do they really? How can you do it without a focusing screen?
>Simply adapting the lens with a direct optical path shrinking down to 2/3rds imager format is going to give you 2/3rds imager dof. As it was for the Panacam, as it is for a Panavised 900.
>What am I missing here?
>A 35mm lens mounted on the Pro 35 makes an image on a ground glass that has the same image area as 35mm film which is rephotographed by the HD camera.
>The apparent depth of field is that of 35mm film because the HD camera is in essence taking a picture of a picture.
>Enjoy Athens its a once in a lifetime opportunity so take good pictures also.
>You should mention to people that you are the PS Teckniq REP so you have a vested interest in supporting your product and that's fine.
>Also you misrepresent the truth as you oversimplify the problem and describe how your product fixes the alleged problem.
>Shooting Film Lenses on an HD Camera doesn't make it look any more like film than hiring a "Film Actress" makes HD look like film.
>It is also in your advertising and it is just incorrect "Want a film look with HD? Then you have to use 35mm film lenses"
>I say Again … Film Lenses on HD Cameras by any connection means don't look Good.
Yes its subjective and yes you should look for yourself
This is my opinion having tested it myself so my opinion is just as valid. I couldn't afford to loose the resolution sharpness clarity evenness of field and cleanliness as well as the 2 f-stop's to shoot with PS Tec.
>Florian the Lens File is not just for the PS Teq but for every lens you intend to put on the PS Teq some of which cannot be fully corrected at all. Doing it once just wont cut it.
>Someday there may be a project that may require that much degradation to create the look But then again I can also shoot through a dirty Mitchell C filter also (For those keeping score That statement was misrepresenting the truth on my part and for those that take me too seriously It was wrong to say. for those that know me and my exaggerated sense of humour it helps overstate my point. Florian I'm just kidding with you.)
>So in closing I hope that people start shooting with Film lenses on HD that way my work with Zeiss and Fujinon will look all the better.
>I look forward to seeing what can be done with the Genesis as the bigger imager should do 2 things Better dynamic range Shallower control of DOF (if your hung up on that) But it does it without loosing the 2 Stops of the PS Teq.
BTW does John Swartzman's work look more like Video because he shoots everything at a f-4 ??? I don’t think so
Why does he shoot everything at no less than an f-4 ???
John said to me that's where the lenses in his set performed best.
>I enjoy his work very much.
>So Have Fun and test everything
Be safe, Wear your Kevlar and Flak
>B. Sean Fairburn SOC
Director of Photography
>"Steven Bradford" wrote:
class="style12">> Simply adapting the lens with a direct optical path shrinking down to >2/3rds imager format is going to give you 2/3rds imager dof.
>That is how the Zeiss/Angenieux Adaptor is working. It is optimized for an optimal performance using the Zeiss Prime Lenses (I think the Ultraprime series). Same angle of view, DoF like a HD-Prime Lens...
>The Pro35 works with every 35mm lens and creates DoF similar to 35mm Dof, because the "target"-size is equivalent to a 35mm frame. The structure on the "target"-glass (similar to a ground glass) is optimised to imitate the 35mm Circle of Confusion so you can work a you are used to work in 35mm.
>Same angle of view, same DoF. Only limitations are high T-stops or high shutter speeds (because of the physics that this system is using).
>+++ Florian Rettich +++
+++ Europe based DIT / vision control +++
>B. Sean Fairburn HD DP" wrote:
class="style12">>You should mention to people that you are the PS Teckniq REP so you >have a vested interest in supporting your product and that's fine.
>You´re right and you’re not: I’m getting hired from P+S Technik as a technical consultant and I’m supporting them also on trade shows, in the support of their customers and on workshops - but I’m also getting hired on that topics from companies like Band Pro Munich which (you know) are selling DigiPrimes and that is a similar relationship as you have for example to the Santa Fe workshops, right?
class="style12">> "Want a film look with HD? Then you have to use 35mm film lenses"
>I did not say that and I’m sorry if someone understands my post in that way - I just said that I (personal) have seen excellent productions/images from shots using the Pro35 - and yes, this is subjective. And MAYBE you’re getting closer to your PERSONAL meaning of the film look.
>A film lens on a video/HD camera does NOT mean automatically good pictures, but creative people need tools for their work as a creative tool I titled the adaptor.
>There are two hearts in my breast on that topic: one is the technician’s, which likes the precision and perfect images the Digiprimes (for example) create, the other one is a (lets call it) emotional one, which likes that special look of a proper used Pro35 as well - I would never say that there is only ONE way to do it.
> ... well as the 2 f-stop's to shoot with PS Tec.
>O.K., one stop is marketing, but it’s definitely less than two stops, but test it for yourself and you’ll find out. As I said - nothing is for free Same thing on resolution/softness: test it and find out for yourself
> ... Lens File ... doing it once just wont cut it.
>I agree on that: I would say it is necessary for each TYPE of lenses, for example a kit of primes from the same series. If you want to be even more accurate, feel free to create even more, but from my personal experience I would say it’s more important to have a lens file for the Pro35 instead of using it with no or default/wrong lensfile. Less cameramen change lens files by changing from a Canon to Fuji Zoom in reality, too.
class="style12">> Be safe, Wear your Kevlar and Flak
>+++ Florian Rettich +++
+++ Europe based DIT / vision control +++
class="style12">> "Want a film look with HD? Then you have to use 35mm film lenses"
>Wrong. Less depth of field does not create a film look. Lighting, composition and a properly set up camera contribute to the look but depth of field alone does not a film look create.
>I understand there are film DP's who don't shoot everything wide open who would agree with me.
>Art Adams, DP [film|hidef|video]
San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"
>My feeling after using the Pro35 with a set of Zeiss SuperSpeeds for which lens files were not created on the Varicam is that the single biggest drawback are the compression artifacts(especially in the blue channel) that are apparent on planes of even middle grey exposure.
>There seems to be something funky going on between the Varicams compression codec and the oscillating texture of the Pro 35s ground glass.
>That said, it is a unique tool with a unique look that may or may not be appropriate for the job at hand. I like it very much. But like Sean says, test it yourself. Then decide for yourself.