Want to get that film look with video?

[Dawg]

Reading a book at a Barnes and Noble, I found out about something that maybe some of you already heard about. Want to get film look with video by achieving varying angles of view, focus, and a shallow depth of field (DOF) – an often-used cinematic technique where the objects the filmmaker wants to highlight is in focus, where everything else is blurred? One is called the Mini35, but a cheaper one is called the Micro35 at the following site: http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35.html It is an adapter for various digital video cameras so that you can use 35MM lens! I don't know how much the Mini is, but the Micro is $550 and you still have to buy a $250 15mm IRIS ROD SUPPORT BASE as well as the 35MM lens. Or, you can buy a guide with plans to build your own for $45. I would love to do this, but the GL1 doesn't seem to be supported, but they claim many cameras work, you just need to ask. Dawg

[Danny]

i prefer it the other way round ala 28 days later myself, but since the x-1 or whatever itst called was discontinued 2 years ago id have to cough up more for the latest version.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The Canon XL2 is the upgraded version of the XL1s which is what was used to film 28 dayslater which has an interchangeable lens system. You can also get the film look by using the Panasonic DVX100 which has a 24 frame per second setting on the camera.

[Danny]

yeah the XL1 thats what i was on about.

[LD-50]

A word to the wise about these systems. It is not a magic bullet that will give you a beautiful image every time. I have seen some stuff that looked really bad shot with cine lens adaptors. You have to know what you are doing, the characteristics of the lens, etc. You'll need a separate focus puller, and dependng on the rig, might not be able to shoot hand held. And lens rental isn't cheap. Not saying it is bad to use these systems, I have seen some great stuff shot with them. But it isn't as simple as just popping a cine lens on and going nuts. Do your optics homework first, you'll be glad you did. Also, understand that dof is related to focal length, a cine lens does not have an inherently shallower dof than any other type of lens, but will have longer focal length than a lens designed for a smaller sensor. So for instance, in the case of the dvx100, the lens ranges from 4.5-45 mm in focal length. If you want any shallower a dof, focal length would have to start at 50mm. this is considered a standard size for 35mm film, so it is common, but keep in mind the size of the shot in composition will then be larger than the stock lens at maximum zoom, in fact it would be equivalent to about 300 mm in 35mm photography, extreme telephoto. Zooms are even more interesting because the image gets slightly degraded at both ends of the scale. The other way you can manipulate dof is aperture. Open to reduce dof, close to increase. of course the same thing applies, you don't wan't to shoot wide open , or through a pinhole, because that also begins to distort the image. And you will also lose at least a stop through the adaptor and lens, meaning a bigger lighting budget. These are cool tools, but you must come corrrect.

[MinionZombie]

Aye, that's my plan, to get the new DVX100 so that I can then shoot proper short films, I did have adapter lenses in my mind, but like LD said, something to properly research and all that jazz...now I just need to get to see a DVX100B "in person" and then I can advance in my quest for that very Panasonic. And aye, 28 Days Later went through a whole bunch of processes, during production and in post, so it's a tad deceptive on the surface when they say it's all done with DV (which it was, but heavily fiddled with DV).

[LouCipherr]

Son of a.... thanks, LD-50, now my f'ing brain hurts. All I can say is, listen to that man. He knows what he's talkin' about.

[7feet]

This is one subject I've looked into a lot, and there are a lot of misconceptions if you don't know how they work. The simple rundown - The image from the camera or cine lens on the front of the adapter is focused onto a groundglass inside the adapter, so that image is the full standard size for the lens, and takes advantage of all the depth of field variations you can normally get out of it. Wide open aperture, shallow DOF, close it down some, the DOF gets larger (a caveat - most adapters start showing vignetting if you stop down too far). The groundglass is (generally) moving, so that you don't see it's grain pattern, either rotating or vibrating in the image plane, depending on the style of adapter. What your camera is actually shooting is a macro image of whats projected on the groundglass. Some cameras work right out of the box, some need closeup adapters on the front of the cameras lens, depends on the model. Last feature I did FX for, we shot with an HVX-200 (24p HD, natch) with a Redrock M2 adapter and some nice old Nikon still camera lenses. Btween the HD and the adapter, it looked really nice. Probably more Super-16 than 35, but a far cry from any sort typical video look. Just being able to properly rack focus makes a huge difference. A few things to think about. One, you want the fastest lenses you can find. Most adapters will lose you at least a stop or 2 betwen the extra optics and the groundglass, so you need to keep that in mind. Also, most require you to have a set of rods (like you'd use on a big ol' matte box) to keep everything stable, and that often is an extra expense you need to throw in there. Not all do, but one thing it needs to be is stable. They can be fiddly to set up, and it's critical that everything stay at the proper difference and alligned or it'll go all screwy. That also means you have to lock down the zoom and focus on the camere, you don't get to use them any more while the adapter is on there. This is one place where a manual focus ring is pretty much essential. Redrocks tip on locking down the focus? Gaffer tape the focus ring. How high tech is that?

[LD-50]

Last feature I did FX for, we shot with an HVX-200 (24p HD, natch) with a Redrock M2 adapter and some nice old Nikon still camera lenses. Btween the HD and the adapter, it looked really nice. Probably more Super-16 than 35, but a far cry from any sort typical video look. Just being able to properly rack focus makes a huge difference. With or without a mini 35 you should be able to reliably rack with the hvx200, unless you are racking from 3 ft to infinity. If you are unable to repeat focus changes smaller than this, you might need to service the camera.

[EvilBread]

You guys seen this? http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/lookguide.html

[7feet]

LD-50 - It's not that couldn't focus, it was new out of the box and worked great. It's just that, across the board, small sensor video cameras have a much wider dopth of field than, say, a prime for 35mm film wide open. If you really want to isolate the subject, a 1/3" sensor isn't going to do it unless you're going pretty telephoto, and that doesn't do it under normal shooting circumstances. It also does other things. It can increase the amount of apparent latitude a bit, a function of the image going through the groundglass I think. It changes the way lights or specular reflections bloom when they are out of focus, and straight up kills that "star filter" look you can get on bright light sources in many video cameras. And IMO it just looks better, and if you use them right it transfers up to film beautifully, you can be hard put to tell it wasn't originally shot on film. If I could afford to shoot on film, I'd still do it in a second, but even 16 as compared to a decent HD setup is a killer for feature stuff.

[LD-50]

LD-50 - It's not that couldn't focus, it was new out of the box and worked great. It's just that, across the board, small sensor video cameras have a much wider dopth of field than, say, a prime for 35mm film wide open. If you really want to isolate the subject, a 1/3" sensor isn't going to do it unless you're going pretty telephoto, and that doesn't do it under normal shooting circumstances. It also does other things. It can increase the amount of apparent latitude a bit, a function of the image going through the groundglass I think. It changes the way lights or specular reflections bloom when they are out of focus, and straight up kills that "star filter" look you can get on bright light sources in many video cameras. And IMO it just looks better, and if you use them right it transfers up to film beautifully, you can be hard put to tell it wasn't originally shot on film. If I could afford to shoot on film, I'd still do it in a second, but even 16 as compared to a decent HD setup is a killer for feature stuff. I said you should be able to RACK focus properly, due to the fact that focus marks on the barrell of the lens correspond in a meaningful way to actual focal length, even though it is not a true mechanical linkage. Therefore, you should be able to repeat focus moves, which is a rarity in the world of prosumer dv, as the focus rings on most prosumer cameras use servos which are not very accurate to change focal length. Incidentally, sensor size has nothing to do (directly) with dof, although this is a common mistake. Aperture and focal length are the things that affect dof. The reason people make this mistake is because the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length to get the same shot, for instance 50mm is considered the "standard" focal length in 35 mm photography. it corresponds most closely with what the human eye naturally sees. To get the same shot (same field of view) in 16mm photography, you would have to use 25mm. Therefore the same shot in 16mm, a smaller "sensor" so to speak, would have less dof at the same composition and stop, because it is less telephoto. The image plane influences it only in the sense that you use a shorter focal length to acheive the same composition, the smaller the image plane. 50mm on a 1/3" sensor is quite telephoto indeed, as I stated earlier and will give a rather shallow dof when open to a larger aperture, but because of those factors, not as a result of the size of the chip. An "prime for 35 mm" would have LESS dof then the dvx stock lens at full telephoto if it's focal length was less than 45 mm, which is the maximum focal length on the dvx. As far as increasing apparent latitude, the lattitude increase is just that, apparent. It can seem to give you more lattitude, at the sacrifice of resolution, which is a result of the spinning ground glass. I am little skeptical about mini-dv transfers to film as well, but that might just be a matter of aesthetics. I wouldn't want to do a filmout on anything that was captured with a prosumer ntsc camera. I also think you can shoot 16mm just as cheap or cheaper than renting a pro hd camera (2/3") and lens package, support gear etc. and then paying for a filmout, or renting or buying a prosumer hd camera, support gear, mini 35, lens package, and filmout. If you can't afford 16mm you probably can't afford a 35mm filmout either.You could maybe finish to 16, but that can be just as expensive. Living in Brooklyn should afford you plenty of opportunities to buy short ends cheap. People are also doing a lot of cool stuff with 8mm these days, there are lots of options. For most independent films, there will be no theatrical distribution, so a film print is moot anyway. If I had a choice between originating and finishing on film, I'd choose origination every time.

[7feet]

Hey, I'm just the special effects guy... Actually, I have the concepts down, but I suppose sometimes my explanations go a little awry. The camera would have been fine as is, but it was always the plan to sue the adapter on that shoot. The DP was dubious at first, but he came to like the setup pretty well once he got used to it. Got that with the sensor size not really being the issue, but absolute focal length determining the DOF. It's just an easy way to get the point across to folks who don't care about the technical bits. I see a lot of people looking at the published "35mm equivalent" on vid cameras and thinking they're going to get comparable results. I was never talking about miniDV filmout, the particular project I was referring to was with the HVX-200, shooting 1080p. Well, a few shots were 720p where they needed to use the variable frame rates, but there wasn't tons of that. I'd be pretty dubious about a miniDV transfer, too. As far as the costs, I just look at the possibility of doing a respectable filmout from HD if theatrical distribution happens to come up. Then you throw the extra money at it. But if it turns out it's straight to video, you can get a nice look for a lot less money than shooting on film. Scanning the film in if you are going to cut digital can cost a fair bit too. DV isn't too bad, but HD or 2K can cost a bundle. Hell, I just an old film head, and would much prefer to shoot on film. But it's nice to have it feasable to go out to film if that possibility happens to arise. Certainly not counting on it. Everything else aside, if I had a budget that would cover buying it and the gear for it, I'd just get me a Red. Providing it turns out to be as good a camera as it looks like it should be. Of course, for me it's all moot unless I could raise a good chunk of cash, and the amount determines it. A couple hundred thou, it's staying on video. Get toward a mil and it's film all the way. Anything I would really want to shoot has lot's of other expenses besides what the flick is shot on, so there have to be some tradeoffs. It's just that the "getting the money" part is the one thing I really suck at. So it's all just fantasyland until I get some. I do like that adapter, HVX-200 combo though. On the project I was talking about, the camera, Mini35 and P2store were all bought by the editor for his production company and they got thrown in there. The only thing on the proper budget was the rental of the P2 cards and buying the lenses. That was helpful in stretching the budget out and left more money for the rest of the production. Like getting paid.