35mm adapters for HV20 comparison chart?

[peterfromcanberra]

Hi,
I just came back from an “HDV with 35mm Lenses” workshop and I came to realize that some professionals in the film industry don’t appreciate independent filmmakers and their low-budget problems at all.
At the bottom line HDV is crap and he wouldn’t go for Canon or Nikon lenses at all (they are not fast enough) only prober PL film lenses are the answers to a true filmmaker and for the 35mm adapter: anything cheaper than the P+S Technik 35mm is just shit. He mentioned the Redrock M2 to be absolutely useless.
That is all fine and good when you work for a company where you can borough such proper equipment over the weekend for free or you are a Millionaire and spending 50k for a camera setup means nothing to you, right?

I am somewhat new to filmmaking but seriously want to shoot short films with lots of “production value” for fun. Don’t have the intension to earn money with them.
After reading about those 35mm adapters I come to realise that this is the way to go for me to achieve that kind of look I envisioned for my films.

However I am still a bit confused about which 35mm adapter might work best with the HV20 and a steady cam (like Merlin or Calicocam). Do I always require a rail system with such a setup?
Does someone already have some experience with this?


Maybe we could start a 35mm adapters for HV20 comparison chart. I believe that would be useful for everybody here.

Cheers,
Peter

[dr jones]

your workshop teacher is right, nikon/canon lenses are crap compared to real film lenses. and in no way are they a substitute for the real thing. unfortunately, it's all we (indie filmmakers) have until we can afford a $50,000 panavision primo




[B]However I am still a bit confused about which 35mm adapter might work best with the HV20


each adapter on the market (including DIY adapters) are different. and each one has it's own advantages and disadvantages. there is no perfect adapter, not even close.

when you say "comparison chart" do you mean a comparison of the adapter specs? or do you mean footage comparison?

[Worley]

You workshop leader is an arse.

You must compare performance against cost to be able to make sensible comparisons.

A £200 DV Sony camcorder is crap compared to a £2000 VX2100, but it shoots video very well. It manual controls will be worse, its optics will be terrible, but it meets the needs of the demographic at who it is marketed.

Does a well-made DIY adpapter costing £200, stuck to a £700 HV20 really produce images that are 10 times worse than a pro set-up?

It's just snobbishness IMHO!

[tkmslee]

I agree with Worley. Rich filmmakers with a lot of money (yeah they can use the best equipment...but to even just rent a powerhouse of professional equipment for a real feature film would probably cost more than my house) and I think that because they have made a name for themselves, they subsequently become the biggest snobs on the planet!

I think the Redrock, Brevis,and Letus are all great adapters and they have great footage to prove it.

But even if you can get a DIY one made, it's a really good start for the indie film maker. Both Twoneil and myself make a fairly nice static adapter and sell it. So look into all of your options, research alot, and don't let the pros tell you what to do (how do yo think they ever made it...listening to rich snobs" I don't think so). Listen to your artistic self man!

[peterfromcanberra]

Of course I would not have expected an $800 lens to be anywhere near a $10k lens but then again for whom I am shooting anyway? As an indie filmmaker you need to know your audience and the places where your work is going to be screened. I'm certainly not expecting my HV20 work being blown up to 35mm print and shown in big cinemas.
Please let me clarify that a discussion about HV20 compared to professional video equipment was not my intention.

But the really important question is what can I do to get as close as possible to those $50k setup images?
A 35mm adapter is certainly a part of that answer.
That is why I think a specs comparison chart would be quite helpful for a newbie like me :hv20-smilie01:

Ok that’s what I found so far:

Letus35 Extreme
Upright Img: YES
F-Stop loss: .5
Weight: 1360g
Price: $1200
Quality: ?

Redrock M2
Price: $1300
Quality: ?

Cinevate Brevis35
Upright Img: NO
F-Stop loss: .7
Weight: 290g
Price: $1100
Quality: ?

P+S mini35
Upright Img: YES
Weight: 1500g
Price: $7300
Quality: very good

Does this make sense?
And can I use it with a low-budget steadycam as well?

[mattias]

i've shot a lot with the p+s adapter and in my opinion it suffers from the exact same problems as the cheaper ones. it's very well built, has all the adjustments you need to keep the image sharp, and if your camera has an rs connector it starts and stops automatically, but it causes light loss, is prone to flare, ghosting, noise, and everything else. it's probably the best adapter there is, but the gap isn't huge if at all significant.

as for cine lenses he has more of a point. there are still lenses that are as bright and sharp as some of the best cine ones but they cost almost as much, and there are certainly pl mount lenses that are cheaper and thus not as good. i've used angenieux zooms that truly sucked. however, cine lenses are compatible with all follow focus systems and such, they have longer travel on the focus rings for precision, they don't breathe, and they are very easy to mount and unmount. the only reason to use slr lenses is that it's cheaper, which is a great reason. ;-)

/matt

[Worley]

If you make your own adapter (or buy one from one of our trusted members) then you will have a choice of what lens to stick on the end. Within limits, of course.

If you can, find an 1:1/2 lens. That will be quite bright. I have a 1:1.4 Nikon lens and I find that plenty bright enough indoors.

"The Zombie Diaries" was a budget film made with a Canon DV camcorder. Check out www.makingthefilm.com for more information. It goes to show that if you're determined, you can make a worthy film with a consumer camcorder.

[zephyrnoid]

This discussion is sorta funny to me. Both sides are really right. If cost is not a constraint and the best in technical image quality is a key requirement, then sure, off-the-shelf still camera lenses slapped onto DIY 35mm adapters are not gonna make the grade. Then again, the prime objectives of Indie Filmakers on a shoestring and big production studios are quite different.
What really matters is to achieve the prime objective- to communicate something of great value to one's audience. All my years of experience in the visual arts have taught me that this objective can be accomplished with very little resolution as all OTHER factors of a piece are of far greater importance. I give lectures on why I watch TV on obsolete B&W sets when a Big HDTV is well within my means ;)

[threadhanger]

Here's my two cents:

Bokah = Me broke'h. ; )

Shallow focus and the 35mm adapters to achieve it aren't cheap. It almost defeats the purpose of buying a consumer camcorder. For some reason it makes me think of putting a rifle scope on a handgun.

35mm Adapter Pros:

Bokah/Shallow focus
Control of aperture at all times when in shutter priority
Makes your camera look more substantial/professional
Gives you a nice way to focus instead of the knurled roller on the HV20
Softer look due to 35mm lens glass..may be more cinematic
Allows you to add a wide arrange of lenses..wide to telephoto

Cons:

Cost for adapter and lense(s)
Bulky apparatus on your camera that will need support and room in cam bag
Possible image flip needed
Needs lots of light
Possible battery noise picked up by mic
More glass in front of your camera may degrade image quality
Makes focusing more critical...may need external field monitor


The non 35mm adapter way of achieving shallow focus:

Deep focus...zoom out and use a tripod
Open your aperture all the way up...may need a ND or polarizer outside
Use a macro filter for up close/small subjects or objects
Keep your subject further from the background
Gaussian blur using software..not perfect but has it's uses I suppose

Attaching a foam focus wheel (as described by one our members) on your HV20 and using a tripod for deep focus goes along way in achieving a pseudo 35mm adapter look. This is what I've done and am quite happy with the results. It's not practical in every situation but neither is a 35mm adapter.

A lot of people seem to forget the whole purpose of bokah is to make your subject look better by making the background unnoticed via the focus. You can also acheive the same goal by good composition/framing and by lighting. Place your subject (e.g. a actor) against a plain background like a interesting wall.

Squat down and use the sky.

If you have a controlled shoot you can also use good lighting instead. Make the background darker and your subject lit up with nice soft light.

Just some thoughts.

Then again, if your production has a weakness in one area (assuming your making a indie film) try making it up in another.

Good sound and music is 50% of the picture it's been said. Actually have good acting and a original idea. Shoot in a nice location. Use some nice dolly shots. There are workarounds and many ways to achieve good results. Limitations lead to creativity.

[mattias]

good advice but zooming out to get deep focus is the opposite of what the 35mm adapter achieves, and if deep focus is what you want then large apertures and nd filters are not your friends. :-)

/matt

[threadhanger]

One other thing to do is shoot in black and white. We live in a color cluttered world full of plastic signs, gawdy fashion trends, plastic packages, etc. There's nothing like B/W to to atleast unify it visually and not make is so distracting. Using the HV20 in its colorless mode and 24p is the most cinematic it can achieve IMHO.

[HalD]

Tkmslee;
I've been wondering - is it possible to completely seal a ground glass during assembly so that dust on the GG would not be a problem later?
Thanks,
Hal

[dr jones]

i built my static adapter last month for under $200 and the results are amazing for the price. i'm going to upgrade it to a vibrating adapter next month.

[tkmslee]

Tkmslee;
I've been wondering - is it possible to completely seal a ground glass during assembly so that dust on the GG would not be a problem later?
Thanks,
Hal

I have actually been considering this myself. However, if condensation ever got in for some reason, it would suck to get it out.

Anyone else try this yet?

[RockyRoad2929]

i built my static adapter last month for under $200 and the results are amazing for the price. i'm going to upgrade it to a vibrating adapter next month.

Dr. Jones,

Are you going to buy one (vibrating one) or builting one? If you are builting one, how much do you figure it will cost since you stated you've built one static for $200 with amazing results?

Thanks.

[Charles Papert]

I agree with Worley. Rich filmmakers with a lot of money (yeah they can use the best equipment...but to even just rent a powerhouse of professional equipment for a real feature film would probably cost more than my house) and I think that because they have made a name for themselves, they subsequently become the biggest snobs on the planet!

It's sort of funny that the "indie" world thinks it's the "legitimate" industry that holds all the attitude when I read things like this.

A well-budgeted production has nothing to do with one's personal riches. There is no question that better equipment is more reliable and will stand up to the higher demands present in high-stakes filmmaking. Those of us who have the energy to straddle both this and the indie world have plenty of respect for those who can make great images with inexpensive or even DIY adaptors, and are making great looking films on a shoestring--more power to you guys. However when it comes to 35mm adaptors, many newcomers like to overuse the technology and "force" their films to have arbitrarily shallow depth of field, which shows their inexperience. It's a tool like all others. And if one's final product is saddled with soft focus (due to the difficulties of pulling and viewing critical focus in the field), vignetting, visible groundglass or screen artifacts etc., one should really judge whether that "cool" shallow focus was worth the tradeoff. There's also a sacrifice in speed; did you lose any setups on a given day having to change lenses, take marks, do additional takes for focus etc.? Give up a Steadicam shot because your rig won't support the additional weight? (might be worth mentioning that unless you have a remote focus system that very few 35mm adaptor have access to, you will be very limited in what you can actually shoot with a "set and forget" focus" on a stabilizer, which is another limiting factor--might be best in these situations to remove the adaptor and shoot your stabilizer shots with the built-in lens).

[mattias]

i seem to have the energy both for this, the indie and the studio/network world (focus puller at the top, director in the middle, and dp down here in the green grass) and it's the same snobbery everywhere. i'm very proud to have seen it all, and it's a lot of fun to always be able to challenge the common way of thinking. pisses people off for ten seconds, then they always become interested. ;-)

/matt

[Tosh Layton]

If you look on the special features of the Pulp Fiction dvd you will find a cut scene that Quentin shot on a crappy old Camcorder. He talks about how he loves the look. The shot is in black and white and it does look cool, sort of B&W 16mm esque.

Point is:

Expensive camera setup, expensive lenses, expensive everything mean NOTHING in the hands of an idiot, BUT in the hands of someone with talent, a shot done on a crappy camcorder will look awesome.

the guy doing the seminar is an idiot.

his setup:
Camera setup 150,000
light package 15,000
professional gizmoes and whatsits that really aren't needed 50,000
talent 10.50

total invested: hundreds of thousands

Your setup:
Camera setup 1,000
pretty good 35mm adapter 700 - 1000
indie light setup maybe 500
homebuilt gizmoes and whatsits, who knows maybe another 1000
talent and ingenuity.. millions and millions.

total investment value millions and millions

I am pretty sure Robert Rodriguez could take an HV20, a Redrock, and a few people and make a blockbuster.

To hell with what the snobs think.

[Worley]

I lack talent and money.

By my optimism is boundless.

[Ian-T]

I lack talent and money......Dunno about the money part....but was it not you who won an award for your video work recently? I rest my case.:hv20-smilie03:

[mattias]

total invested: hundreds of thousands
zero is more likely, nobody buys pro gear. in fact it's rather stupid to spend thousands on hv20's, 35mm adapters, lenses, tripods, and so on when you can rent a full xl-h1 package with mini-35 and ultra primes for $400 a day. but it's fun. something many pro shooters have forgotten. :-)

the fact that talent is more important than equipment is a no-brainer. the question only gets interesting when the same person has access to both. surely you're not saying that pulp fiction had been better if only it had been shot on vhs?

/matt

[peterfromcanberra]

Tosh: Very well spoken.

Just finished "Rebel without a crew" from Robert Rodriguez and got the feeling that this book converted me to a somewhat rebel "mariachi" style director as well.
Its truely inspiring and I can only recommend it.

[Worley]

Dunno about the money part....but was it not you who won an award for your video work recently? I rest my case.:hv20-smilie03:

Compared to the many brilliant videographers who have posted their footage here, I am but a very lowly amateur.

There is but a trickle through my artistic stream; my reservoir of technical talent is replete.

I read, I watch, I learn, I yearn.

[mattias]

remember that rodriguez borrowed his camera and everything else, and he used 16mm because it was the best format he could afford. he could have made the film for $1000 had he shot on hi8.

a present day mariachi rebel doesn't buy a hv20, he borrows a red one, xdcam, xl-h1 or whatever. :-)

nobody replies to my posts, is it because i'm too right or too wrong to comment?

/matt

[threadhanger]

I'd say you are wrong. You can't just borrow the Red camera. It needs too many extras to just borrow...and it would need a helluva learning curve.

The Xl-H1 doesn't produce an image that is that much different from the HV20. It has more conveniences, control, and is 10x more pro looking, but it basically has the same engine under the hood. Download the demo clips from Canon's website to see what I mean.

El Mariachi wasn't that great. It would have been much better with a HV20. He would have gotten better performances from his actors due to being able to actually record the dialogue on set and by being able to record multiple takes withouth having to worry about running out of film.

I've seen several posts in the footage section of this site I would love to see developed into a full length "film".

For the money you save by buying the HV20, you can spend the rest on lighting, wardrobe, a good microphone, good editing equipment, etc. The camera is only one part of the production.


There. I replied to your post. Are you happy now? : )

[mattias]

I'd say you are wrong. You can't just borrow the Red camera. It needs too many extras to just borrow...and it would need a helluva learning curve.
and the arri s needs no extras and there's no learning curve? give me a break. :-)


The Xl-H1 doesn't produce an image that is that much different from the HV20. It has more conveniences, control, and is 10x more pro looking, but it basically has the same engine under the hood. Download the demo clips from Canon's website to see what I mean.
it's still slightly better and much easier to work with, and since you're borrowing it, remember, it's cheaper than buying a hv20 too.


El Mariachi wasn't that great. It would have been much better with a HV20. He would have gotten better performances from his actors due to being able to actually record the dialogue on set and by being able to record multiple takes withouth having to worry about running out of film.
i don't quite agree, getting rid of the sync sound hassle gives you energy and momentum, and a low shooting ratio saves you time, which means it's easier to find great locations and great actors. but it's beside the point. using el mariachi as an example to advocate hv20 filmmaking just doesn't quite make sense.


For the money you save by buying the HV20
last i checked the hv20 cost around $900. that's money spent, not money saved.


There. I replied to your post. Are you happy now? : )
very. :-)

/matt

[Tosh Layton]

Tosh: Very well spoken.

Just finished "Rebel without a crew" from Robert Rodriguez and got the feeling that this book converted me to a somewhat rebel "mariachi" style director as well.
Its truely inspiring and I can only recommend it.

Hey thanks, I loved that book. I defiantly love the Mariachi style of film making so I get annoyed when people become snobbish and say there is only ONE right way to do things. People like that tend to shoot ONLY on Panavision and ONLY on 35mm. I just don't like snobs. Yes I would love to shoot on a Genesis, Or a Red, but for now I shoot on my HV20 with my 400 dollar 35mm adapter and I achieve AMAZING results. The way I look at it, if I can get great results with my tiny rig that I have now, how will stuff I shoot look when I am able to move into more professional gear?

Snobs just blow..

[Worley]

last i checked the hv20 cost around $900. that's money spent, not money saved.

But if you rent, you spend $400 a day.

Lets say it takes just three days to shoot all the scenes for a very basic film. You've spent $300 more than it would have cost to buy an HV20.

And if you have to return to shoot some shots for cut aways (very likely if you don't have enough footage from the original shoot, or there's a problem - dropouts - in the footage) then you'll have to spend another $400.

So, after the initial outlay, buying saves over renting.

[Tosh Layton]

Lets say it takes just three days to shoot all the scenes for a very basic film. You've spent $300 more than it would have cost to buy an HV20.



Just as an exercise I took one of my scripts and created a shot list and from that I determined that just to shoot my 90 minute feature will take 11 shooting days, and that is shooting a LOT during each day. Now lets say I shoot only on the hv20, no 35mm adapter. I spent 1100 something on the camera when I got it the day it came out, I don't remember what it cost, but lets say I add to that another hv20 at 900. Thats 2000. if I had rented I would have spent 4400. I saved 2400 that I could have used to pay one of my friends from film school to do some killer special effects. Maybe I spent it on better props, or better lights, who knows. But my 10,000 no-budge feature was made possible and made better because of the HV20.

Don't know if I had a point to all that, but I think if your end result is a nice clean 1080 24p feature for under 10 grand, the hv20 kicks butt.

[tcindie]

I agree. Buying vs. Renting is generally a savings -- in the long run. Ultimately it depends on whether the camera is used enough to justify it. Which, in the case of an hv20 doesn't take much to exceed the breaking even point.

As for rental, typically rental houses charge less on weekends -- a boon for those of us who shoot primarily on weekends. I can get all my rental gear for 2.5 days (Friday evening through Monday morning) for the cost of one rental day.

That being the case, lets use Tosh's example and check it out. If Tosh is willing to spread that 11 day shoot over 5 weekends, that would total $2000 for rental. But Tosh would break even at that point, so if there are any remote plans to shoot anything else in the future, it makes good business sense to buy the gear.

[Tosh Layton]

If Tosh is willing to spread that 11 day shoot over 5 weekends, that would total $2000 for rental. But Tosh would break even at that point, so if there are any remote plans to shoot anything else in the future, it makes good business sense to buy the gear.

I think one thing to consider also is that each person will do something different with his/her project. I do recognize that my hv20 will breakdown much faster than say a pro camera or rental equipment. for me and the way I do thing it makes sense for me to buy, but for someone else who may not want to store all the gear and can shoot only on weekends then maybe renting makes sense for them. When I work on a project I go strait through till the end, which for me is a pretty good deal because I don't like days off. So I will go the 11 or 20 or even a month strait. Doing it that way owning makes sense for me. But I also just look at my HV20 as a stepping stone to a RED. Someday. someday.

[mattias]

But if you rent, you spend $400 a day.
we're talking about robert rodriguez and el mariachi. he borrowed his camera so it cost him nothing. he could have bought a hi8 camera instead, but he didn't. go figure. and mind you hi8 cameras of that time produced some pretty cool looking images, especially since he was aiming for direct to video.

btw the $400 i mentioned is with mini 35 adapter, ultra primes, tripod, monitor and a basic light and sound packages. buy the most basic versions of all that and you end up with more than it costs to rent the package for a two week shoot, so basically you still have to pay more to use cheaper equipment. how rebel is that?

look, i obviously own an hv20 myself and i love it, and i'm planning on using it on a feature so i'm just trying to give people some perspective, not talk them out of anything. most filmmakers on all levels don't own any equipment at all, an important but seemingly not so obvious fact that's worth remembering.

/matt

[mattias]

Just as an exercise I took one of my scripts and created a shot list and from that I determined that just to shoot my 90 minute feature will take 11 shooting days, and that is shooting a LOT during each day. Now lets say I shoot only on the hv20, no 35mm adapter. I spent 1100 something on the camera when I got it the day it came out, I don't remember what it cost, but lets say I add to that another hv20 at 900. Thats 2000. if I had rented I would have spent 4400

sorry to sound like a corrupt mp3 but what if you had borrowed? *like rodriguez did* :-)

(btw if you pay for 7 days a week at your rental place you should look around for other options. 4 days at the most, some only charge for 3)

/matt

[mattias]

I agree. Buying vs. Renting is generally a savings -- in the long run.
what long run? how many features are you planning on making?

If Tosh is willing to spread that 11 day shoot over 5 weekends, that would total $2000 for rental.
for a complete semi-pro package with all i mentioned above, plus matte box and follow focus. i haven't found a place that rents hv20's but for reference a pd150 package with tripod, mic, boom, a redhead kit, costs $75 a day. that's $375 for the 5 weekends.

this is actually starting to become a very interesting discussion. what i'm really getting it is that if you already own gear because it's your hobby, like most of us here, it makes perfect sense to use it of course, but lets not poke fun at indies who rent pro gear, because they don't spend much more and even if some people don't think pro gear is better surely you must agree that it's not worse? ;-)

/matt

[Fletch78]

When I shot my 40 min short flick I bought or built everything I needed. I had the equipment ready long before shooting so I had time to really test everything out. For example a western dolly a friend of mine built, the microphones I bought, the Manfrotto tripod and those cheap 500W lights you can buy at the hardware store (I used gels) and so on. By using my trusted camera (an old Panasonic 3CCD back then) I knew exaclty how it behaved in different situations. If I had rented pro equipment and a camera I never used before, I would have never known how to use it properly. Of course I could have rented it 2 weeks before shooting, but that would have been very very expensive. Only with the knowledge I have today I'd consider renting better equipment.

I'd say that it requires a lot of know how and experience before you can safely spend the money on rentals and make proper use of it. I once had a job at a video production studio and they didn't buy equipment, neither they rented it. They hired experienced and trusted crew along with their gear, professionals who knew how to use their stuff.

[SpiritCatcher]

Amen WORLEY, I work in television(which is its own bs club), and almost everytime one of these film cats come around...it is the same attitude. It is a club, of mostly rich kids and their friends. Which is why 80% of what is produced is not worth the retina wear and tear.
They hate that the "groundlings" have the chance to tell stories, with low cost engaging images. You can learn alot from the "extras" on dvd's/get the course info and buy BOOKS and lots of time in the field/set, using your equipment, and your 50,000-100,000+ richer (film school). Happy Shooting.

PS I have seen, more interesting content on youtube than any of the many film festivals I have been to. It is a new world.

[tcindie]

I'm merely saying that if you plan to use your equipment more than one time, it will generally end up being more cost effective to buy rather than rent. I'm not saying that renting is stupid, and in fact sometimes it is the best possible option.

I've rented lights, dollies, jibs, etc several times, and for my first project (which sadly will never see the light of day) I spent several thousand dollars over the course of a couple weekends renting camera and supporting equipment.

[mattias]

tcindie, i've agreed with you all along, though i'm playing the devil's advocate a little. this thread started with the incorrect assumtion that everybody owns their equipment, so i felt it was necessary to explain that most films on all levels are made using borrowed or rented gear, and in fact investing thousands of dollars on consumer hdv gear might not necessarily be as guerrilla as you may think. my advice for low budget feature filmmaking stands: if you got a camera, use it. if you don't, don't buy one unless you think it's fun, cool or whatever, both being better reasons than the strictly crass ones.

/matt

[tcindie]

Gotcha.. :)

[threadhanger]

Another route one could take is to buy your camera, like the HV20 or XH-A1, and pay for cinematography/lighting classes. What good is renting a pro camera if you haven't practiced on it or really don't know what you are doing.

Most guitarists, for example, buy their guitar and pay for lessons. It takes a lot of practice with your a musical instrument or camera to become competent.

The desire for 35mm adapters is a little like guitarists craving for the latest and greatest amp. Bokah is sort of like a "wah wah" effect for video/film people.

Just trying to steer this thread back to the original topic.

[Ian-T]

Honestly, I've been reading this thread since it started...and I really don't believe anyone of you answered the original topic. A comparison between each 35mm DOF adapter was one of the questions and which one goes best with the HV20. I think this might of been discussed in another thread....not sure though. He also asked if a rail system is necessary with this type of setup. I don't have a DOF adapter but I would say the answer is "it depends." Size and weight of the adapter would be a factor...could cause wear on the camera and strip it...just guessing. But I will second his question...or suggestion...to maybe put up a comparison chart (as a stikie maybe) of all known DOF adapters and what might be needed (accessory) to accomodate the HV20 specifically (based on user experience).

Edit: Though I am enjoying this "other" off the cuff discussion...

[Halsu]

I've been shooting more or less professionally (well, at least i've usually gotten paid for it ;-) for almost 20 years. The equipment i've used has always been either owned by production company or rented.

So, HV20 is my first own camera. Eh, actually half owned by a production company i freelance for...

The main reason we bought it was that it was actually cheaper to buy HV20 than rent an HDV cam (or player) for long enough to capture footage for two biggish productions we're currently editing (they were shot on rented HDV equipment, mostly - almost a hundred hours of footage total).

The fact that HV20 is a fine little camera that we get to keep was a bonus - we actually ended up using it quite a lot in our last shoots, as 2nd unit camera and/or picking up extra shots here and there.

And this brings me back to the topic at hand - i've really enjoyed trying to get HV20 to give results that rival professional equipment. So far, quite succesfully i think. It is not as robust or controllable as the big ones, but the resulting images are stunningly good - in many cases equal to big HDCam and DVCPro HD cameras.

The biggest difference in the images (in my opinion) is the DOF characteristics - one really has much less control than with 2/3" cameras or film. Shooting with open aperture helps to some extent of course, but that's what i usually do with big cameras too.

So, i built my own DOF adapter - dayum, that was fun. Not sure if i ever will use it "for real" - i actually might, but not before extensive testing.

The next time we shoot with i.e. HDCam / Pro35 i will take my little rig with me, to make comparisions... if there's no hurry, and no client present (which is unfortunately rare case).

***

Uhh... what was my point again? I dunno... it's all good ;-)

[mattias]

Another route one could take is to buy your camera, like the HV20 or XH-A1, and pay for cinematography/lighting classes. What good is renting a pro camera if you haven't practiced on it or really don't know what you are doing.

sure, but that's another story. if you're considering making a feature film or similar i'm sure you at least think you know what you're doing already. :-)

/matt

[Watermoore]

Technology aside. Film making is about telling a story. All the 340,000 dollar film cameras and lenses in the world wont make a crappy story better. As film makers we have to get our heads in the viewers. We don't goto the movies to see how crisp a movie is or how interestingly the cinematographer composited his shots, although they are appreciated by many, we go see movies because we want to see a story being told. I was told one by a director that mastering film making is really about learning how to make movies that are distraction free. By that he meant the technology had to be good enough that you didnt have to sit and stare through the plethora of distractions: crunchy audio, shallow sound, soft focus shots, over use of bokeh, poor composition, shaky camera's, and bad acting to get the story.

Movie making is about telling a story.

In a sense what Charles quoted is correct. People get so caught up in making movies that are "filmic" they just obsess about finding a DOF adapter just to sprinkle bokeh in every shot to really nail that "Hollywood" look and that its just distracting. But in defense the same is true in reverse. having everything in focus or your shots too wide or too tight can scream amateur which pulls from the film too. Audiences expect a certain level of production and I have seen it achieved with HDV and DOF adapters. Alot of people have gotten distributed that are indy especially with HDV and DOF adapters. I have even seen it achieved with Prosumer HDV cameras alone. Its about getting a point across successfully and in a sense that the audience isn't subconsciously thinking, "this is an amateur film".

Finding that balance isn't easy but I guess it comes with experience. Each time I walk away from a project I find something else to focus on that I missed. Something that was blatantly ineffective, and thats where I think we become better filmmakers improving on our mistakes. :hv20-smilie70:

[Duke]

It's the STORY, and it all starts with the SCRIPT! Write that on your hand. Get the engaging story into the Script. :hv20-smilie77: Everything else is about getting the audience to believe or suspend their disbelief.

If you have a great engaging story we only need a high enough quality final version that it isn't distracting in any way. The picture can't be too crappy, the sound can't be tinny or muffled, the costumes too ridiculous, the acting too lame, etc.

The camera is just the means to the end. No one needs microscopic quality. The HV20 can capture HD in high enough resolution (especially with a Blackmagic card) at 24 fps to transfer to film without looking pixelated.

The DOF adapter gives a film like look, AND (by blurring the objects not the focus of attention) makes you concentrate on what the director wants you to concentrate on (just like your eyes/brain do). :hv20-smilie58: {i.e. In a romantic comedy the director wants you to look at two young lovers at a table, the DOF adapter makes them in focus and the people behind them out of focus.}

It all depends on whether you have a good script to start with. Without it you'll end up with dung no matter what you do or what camera you use.:hv20-smilie68:

Duke

[mattias]

filmmaking is story *telling*. not story. this is a camera forum, not an audience appreciation forum, right? :-)

/matt

[Erik Bien]

Without in any way disagreeing with Watermoore and the Duke, I agree with matt more ... :hv20-smilie29:

"It's the story, stupid" is a worthy sentiment, but it's less appropriate on a thread ostensibly comparing the performance of 35mm adapters on an HV20 than it would be in a screenwriting or general filmmaking thread. I think/trust/hope we can all take that 'as read.' :hv20-smilie24:

[Worley]

Stephen king says in one his stories (the story that includes a story about a pie eating contest, I think) "It's not the story, it's the storyteller".

If you have a way with words, the story will work.

[cinemasteve87]

Pfffft anyone that says that consumers camcorders with a lower budget can't accomplish anything solid is an idiot. I made a 40 min. short film with a Panasonic GS300 (extremely standard dv) and my film blew many film students/filmmakers with very expensive stuff out of the water. It's all about knowing what you are doing when shooting a film, creativity, and patience. People can buy all the most expensive equipment in the world, and still make a shitty film. Budget is a factor, but NOT THAT MUCH of a factor. Get what I mean?

[Worley]

Yes, I know exactly hat you mean. I've seen someone who has never used a camcorder before, never used an NLE before, produce two absolutely brilliant films. No dialogue, but good sound, and great picture.

Shot using a cheap Canon DV cam (£150) and edited on Magix Movie Edit Pro (£22).

Much better than anything I have ever filmed. Better than those who have their £3000 sony prosumer HDv cams.

[sonu2c]

still nobody talking about the 35mm adapters comparison which one is better i wana know so i can make a decision to get one , i wanted to go with Redrock M2 HD indie bundle but havn't heard about it much on here for $1200 i think its ok deal cause seem to me the one you try to build or get another brand end up costing the same

[peterfromcanberra]

Hi sonu,
I finally bought the Letus Mini which is especially build for the HV20.
As soon I have it I will let you know (through the Letus Mini thread) how it performs.
From my google research I found only the Brevis35 or the Letus to be most appropiate solution for the HV20. But the Brevis does not flip the image upright at a simliar price like the lutus mini.

[Dr. Benway]

Well said Worley. And Nikon lenses aren't crap; I am a pro photog and have stunning lenses, all high contrast, fast prime lenses.

Where I come from the term 'film wanker' is common parlance to describe industry snobs. I have even seen them wearing t-shirts that say as much, now that's owning the term!

[sonu2c]

Thanks "peterfromcanberra" i can't wait for you to post your experience with Lotus Mini and kinda narrowed my search a lil
hope you post a footage also with Lotus mini cause that be a lot of help.

[citidon]

I'm also in the same boat. For those who are off topic, please don't reply to this thread.

cheers :hv20-smilie70:

[visugeek]

"At the bottom line HDV is crap and he wouldn’t go for Canon or Nikon lenses at all (they are not fast enough) only prober PL film lenses are the answers to a true filmmaker and for the 35mm adapter: anything cheaper than the P+S Technik 35mm is just shit. He mentioned the Redrock M2 to be absolutely useless.

Peter[/QUOTE]

Actualy, as someone with a background in practical FX work, I can tell you that Nikon still lenses are routinely used to shoot visual effects for motion control and miniatures. Panavision and PL mount lenses are great, but they are very expensive. That is why most VFX houses have their mitchells converted to Nikon lens mounts.

Canon Optics are as good as the Nikon, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Lens speed varies by the lens. Cine lenses have t-stop markings that show actual light loss on a per lens basis, something that most still manufacturers don't do. You should calibrate your own lenses so that you know when you change them out how much of a lighting change you will have. Stick to primes where you can, they will have fewer elements and be much faster than zooms.

If you are worried about the lens being too slow, add more light. Use a 650 or 1k instead of a 300. The HV20 is slow to begin with, so if you use an adapter you are going to need more light. There are lots of ways to get more light, but since you want the DOF to be shallow anyway, you only need to get your light to f2 or 2.8 at most with the adapter. If you don't need the low DOF, then go without the lens adapter.

CGI companies like Digital Domain have tracking departments that also calibrate spherical abberation and focus accuracy on every lens that they shoot VFX with. This is a simple test done with either a checkerboard pattern, or a horizontal and vertical line grid, the camera moved to 5,10,15,20 ft, etc from the grid and a frame taken. I would recommend doing this with an adapter anyway, just so that you know how accurate your measurements on the lens are with your adapter in place.

If Nikon lenses are good enough for the majority of VFX miniature work done in the last 20 years, they should work well for you too.

V

[Troglored]

Here's my two cents:

Bokah = Me broke'h. ; )

Shallow focus and the 35mm adapters to achieve it aren't cheap. It almost defeats the purpose of buying a consumer camcorder. For some reason it makes me think of putting a rifle scope on a handgun.

35mm Adapter Pros:

Bokah/Shallow focus
Control of aperture at all times when in shutter priority
Makes your camera look more substantial/professional
Gives you a nice way to focus instead of the knurled roller on the HV20
Softer look due to 35mm lens glass..may be more cinematic
Allows you to add a wide arrange of lenses..wide to telephoto

Cons:

Cost for adapter and lense(s)
Bulky apparatus on your camera that will need support and room in cam bag
Possible image flip needed
Needs lots of light
Possible battery noise picked up by mic
More glass in front of your camera may degrade image quality
Makes focusing more critical...may need external field monitor


The non 35mm adapter way of achieving shallow focus:

Deep focus...zoom out and use a tripod
Open your aperture all the way up...may need a ND or polarizer outside
Use a macro filter for up close/small subjects or objects
Keep your subject further from the background
Gaussian blur using software..not perfect but has it's uses I suppose

Attaching a foam focus wheel (as described by one our members) on your HV20 and using a tripod for deep focus goes along way in achieving a pseudo 35mm adapter look. This is what I've done and am quite happy with the results. It's not practical in every situation but neither is a 35mm adapter.

A lot of people seem to forget the whole purpose of bokah is to make your subject look better by making the background unnoticed via the focus. You can also acheive the same goal by good composition/framing and by lighting. Place your subject (e.g. a actor) against a plain background like a interesting wall.

Squat down and use the sky.

If you have a controlled shoot you can also use good lighting instead. Make the background darker and your subject lit up with nice soft light.

Just some thoughts.

Then again, if your production has a weakness in one area (assuming your making a indie film) try making it up in another.

Good sound and music is 50% of the picture it's been said. Actually have good acting and a original idea. Shoot in a nice location. Use some nice dolly shots. There are workarounds and many ways to achieve good results. Limitations lead to creativity.


Although I think you meant shallow focus, whatever, I know what you meant and you're exactly right. I bought the hv20 because under US $700 for an HD moving picture camera is just freaking amazing and too difficult to pass up. I'm moving far far away from all this "film look" stuff and more toward "good look". I'll. Be. Damned.... if I pay more than I did for the hv20 in the first place just to get some background blur. Anyone in the market for a $80,000 Honda Civic? There's guys who've spent that much and more! I'm not discounting how much fun hopping up an hv20 to where it looks like this tiny silver nub inside a huge, railed gizmo might be. I'm discounting what it has to do with creating art instead of a series of test footage.

If I have an idea that requires film, I'll get a $500 Scopic off ebay and shoot with film. The lens on the Scopic is worth that.

Or a $400 Nizo 8mm.

And I'll film look ya to pieces. Them RED guys too.

[Charles Papert]

There's a difference between a film look and a large format look. We tend to equate one with the other because we are used to the shallow focus of 35mm, but now that there are true 35mm sensor HD cameras in every day production, it's become all about making pleasing pictures.

I do believe that the past few years have seen the prosumer/indie crowd become unnaturally obsessed with shallow depth of field with the proliferation of affordable adaptors; there are way too many shorts on the internet that feature over-the-top rack focuses and massively soft backgrounds with blatant disregard to the overall scheme of things. It's like being introduced to garlic for the first time and proceeding to slather it on everything. Shallow depth of field is a tool just as deep depth of field is another tool (and long/short focal lengths, shutter speed, and about a million other aspects of cinematography are all tools that should be considered for any given shot). When making a comedy, maybe the super-shallow backgrounds are distracting or inappropriate for the mood. Maybe it's more interesting to feel the environment. Likewise, not using an adaptor and arbitrarily moving the camera 20 feet away on full telephoto may be a poor choice as it can distance one from the action.

A long time ago I posed the question on another board: which delivers an image that is more "filmic", shooting with a 35mm sensor/adaptored HD camera, or a Super8mm camera? Certainly no-one will ever mistake Super8 for video; yet it may be entirely possible to mistake the HD camera for film. 35mm optics and resulting depth of field will probably go a long way to selling this illusion, 24p is obviously another important step, and the rest is up to the skill of the DP. (Whether or not one elects to mimic film is another debate, let's just assume that is the goal here). The Super8 camera has about the same depth of field characteristic of a 1/3" camera, and it is arguable that today's crop of 1080 camcorders have more resolution than Super8, yet the images will be strikingly different.

This could go one forever, but to clarify my opening argument, it's not about making your footage look exactly like film, but about creating the FEEL of film, which we identify with a specific set of emotions and experiences and visual cues. If HD is shot properly it can satisfy the vast majority of viewers who would, if asked, agree that they have experienced a "cinematic" experience. Whether or not that requires shallow depth of field is entirely up to the project at hand and the particular aesthetic one is embracing.

I can't say as I agree with Troglored's feeling that it is ridiculous to spend more than the cost of the camera on the optics; it is a function of the marketplace and technological advancement that a camera with the specs of the HV20 is available for such little money, but to expect that the peripherals will nosedive proportionately is a bit unfair. I think it's much more realistic to revel in the fact that such a package is now MUCH cheaper than if one had to go with a full-size camcorder as was the only viable option a few years ago. Just a few years ago we were all thrilled to have actual 24p built into an (SD) camcorder for $5000.

The 35mm adaptor route for the HV20 is a tough consideration. Certainly it will be a more desirable look for many, but the increased lighting and hardware (support, optics) considerations, not to mention the compromise in working speed means more shooting days, more equipment and thus more money. I've shot many projects on 1/3" cameras both with and without 35mm adaptors and while I feel like many of them would have benefitted from the adaptor, in certain cases it was a conscious choice not to use it for the above reasons (I own a P+S Technik Mini35).

So on that Troglored and I agree: focus (no pun intended) not so much on a textbook film look, but instead set your sights on the best look you can achieve, and consider that with the time and money you save by not using an adaptor you might be able to improve the film in countless other ways (more setups, more lighting time, better craft service and a happier crew)!

have fun...

[Troglored]

The 35mm adaptor route for the HV20 is a tough consideration. Certainly it will be a more desirable look for many, but the increased lighting and hardware (support, optics) considerations, not to mention the compromise in working speed means more shooting days, more equipment and thus more money. I've shot many projects on 1/3" cameras both with and without 35mm adaptors and while I feel like many of them would have benefitted from the adaptor, in certain cases it was a conscious choice not to use it for the above reasons (I own a P+S Technik Mini35).

So on that Troglored and I agree: focus (no pun intended) not so much on a textbook film look, but instead set your sights on the best look you can achieve, and consider that with the time and money you save by not using an adaptor you might be able to improve the film in countless other ways (more setups, more lighting time, better craft service and a happier crew)!

have fun...

Great points. I certainly was overstating it a bit. Pretty easy to spend more than the cost of an hv20, and that wouldn't necessarily mean that someone is going too far down an unrewarding path.

Where I'm at is, if someone becomes more focused upon how their rig looks (the rig itself or the test footage), as opposed to how their product looks, they're heading down $80,000 Honda Civic Boulevard. And it's pretty easy to get there, too. I'm not going to pretend I'm immune. I've done it myself with guitars and several other things. I understand the attraction.

I suppose one way to tell is that if you have nothing but a dozen tests 6 months from now and that's your product....

[Charles Papert]

That is indeed an excellent point. I hear many times that people's clients are impressed when you show up with a big elaborate rig, or that actors will step up and take a project more seriously when the camera gear looks impressive. While that may be the case in certain circumstances, I can't help but think that this stuff often has more to do with the person behind the camera and what presence they create when they step on the set.

A lot of folks are just gearheads, I think. I should know--it's sort of impossible to be a Steadicam operator and not be one (I seem to be moving out of that phase, slowly but surely). But for many who get involved in digital filmmaking, it's easier to get caught up in the toys and the dazzle and rarely get around to what was supposed to be the point: just making movies.

[sonu2c]

seems to me Brevis and Letus are most popular but P+S Technik seems lil more profesional so got to decide between these 3

[JRJ Photo]

I hear many times that people's clients are impressed when you show up with a big elaborate rig...I can't help but think that this stuff often has more to do with the person behind the camera and what presence they create when they step on the set...for many who get involved in digital filmmaking, it's easier to get caught up in the toys and the dazzle and rarely get around to what was supposed to be the point: just making movies.

And this is coming from a pro, so I'd listen to him. Mr. Papert, outstanding resume. I've always respected camera operators and double points to you for being a Steadicam operator.

However perhaps a gearhead, I am personally far more interested in telling a story and expressing my vision artistically with tools that will allow me to do so (and on budget). I want a shallow depth of field in an emotional scene between a man and a woman...she is broad lit on one side and in sharp focus...and the man, standing behind her, is completely out of focus, silhouetted by a dimly lit wall with floral wallpaper, as a catchlight captures the sheen of a single tear that rolls down the face of the first character. And the camera is white balanced against orange so everything has a slight greenish tint...or I'll shoot it vanilla and do the look while I'm color timing in post. They still call it that, right? It's just digital now. Or maybe the light is enough to create the needed "separation" physically, aesthetically and emotionally. Oh yeah, I can see that.

Now I need to hurry up and buy the HV20 so I can...SHOOT something. And the HV20 can give indies that film look without hurting their budget. When I'm searching for info on the camcorder or 35mm lens adapters, I find myself flooded with people nit-picking certain technical aspects of the camcorder rather than just using it to make a movie with. Someone once said that if you want to make a movie then go out there and make a movie.

As I stated in another thread I don't care enough about not having true 24p in Final Cut Express. What I care about is the aesthetic of the movie. I don't care about how ugly my rig looks as I shoot through women's stocking pulled taught over the lens and attached with superclamps and duct tape. What I care about is the soft, earthy look of the movie. If I had the money, the backing and the inclination to shoot a true 24p HD movie, I wouldn't 1/8 arse it with a little HV20. I'd go rent a Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta with Panavision lenses or, even better, rent 35mm film gear with Arris and whatnot, hire a crew and go from there. But I don't have the budget, and I don't have the time. I can't take a year off from work to pre', produce, post' and release a movie. And I personally hate air travel so I wouldn't do very well flying to LA and NYC to pimp the movie on talkshows, however nice it might be to meet Conan. But now I'm ranting. (Now?!)

So yeah. Much more interested in staying super low budget but still having adequate enough tools to get the job done technically well enough to allow my vision as a filmmaker to be expressed adequately. And I think the HV20 can do that. I don't NEED an expensive camera to tell my story, I don't NEED a Hollywood budget. What I need is IMAGINATION, a good script and some free time to finish the damn thing. :)

[Charles Papert]

In re-reading I think I should clarify something in my previous post, where I said that I hear about clients or actors being impressed by the more pro looking gear etc. By "I hear" I mean that I read people's posts about that sort of thing on message boards like this. My personal experience has been quite different. Certainly I have been working with gear that no-one would mistake for anything other than "pro"for many years, but in and around that time I have done various projects big and small with handheld camcorders and never experienced any raised eyebrows from clients, nor indifference from actors.

In fact, many actors love the speed and simplicity of small-format filmmaking because it becomes more about performance and faster-moving, less sitting around for them. It's part of the reason why you are starting to see more material like "The Landlord" coming out with recognizeable talent in front of and behind the camera; it's a fun way to work and it's all about the material. For those of us who like to polish the images, it can be a fun change of pace but not necessarily something you would want to do all the time. I got tossed into this pool with the recent Seinfeld "TV Juniors" clips that were all over NBC prime time last month; when I came on board to DP them, the director had established a look with DVX100's that was all handheld, no supplemental lighting and moving fast. My only suggestion was to move up to the HVX so that the material could be archived in HD, if not broadcast that way (it wasn't). Thus I found myself having to shoot in a hotel in NYC with no lighting, and scouting the vicinity for the best available light possible, which turned out to be a service corridor. The only comment from any of the talent was Rene Zellweger, who dryly noted the fluorescents ("gee, great lighting") but actually, it looked just fine and Jerry loves working with the speed of small format.

Anyway--just wanted to clarify that these little cameras carrry little stigma to those in the industry, so my supposition is that the attitudes are coming from those OUTSIDE the industry who are acting snobbishly because they think it makes them seem like they are in the INSIDE! Ironic indeed.

[JohnnyDiamond]

So for some reason everyone keeps talking cost. It's expensive, it's cheep, it's whatever...

speaking of snobs:
I would like to know why everyone is charging $500 or more dollars for there DIY adapters. I feel that when I look at some of the adapters, they are nothing more than tin cans with glass inside. If you really want me to pay pro price for a tin can, I would hope you would make it more ascetically pleasing. After all, it seems like that is the real deciding factor for mass produced items.

Take Redrock for example. Sure, they look amazing, and have nice pictures and what not but are they all that different on the inside from what I can make myself? NO....

On lenses however, those are harder to make. I have yet to understand why people want motion picture lenses on there digital camera. If the HV20 was a 12MP 4k camera, then truly it would matter if you had an f1.2 or an f8 lenses.

Sure, it takes a lot of work to make the camera not be automatic; but having a $50,000 lense isn't going to make you shoot any better. Though I would like to see the difference.

In the end, I would like to see a DIY adapter that is not priced 1200% above cost, but ill probably have to make that one myself.

[mattias]

I would like to know why everyone is charging $500 or more dollars for there DIY adapters. [...] I would like to see a DIY adapter that is not priced 1200% above cost

um, the actual cost for building your own adapter is around $200. that's only a 150% margin labor not included. the reason some more industrial adapters are almost as cheap is because they make the parts themselves, or buy large quantities. vibration systems, focusing screens and achromats cost money.

/matt

[Charles Papert]

I feel that when I look at some of the adapters, they are nothing more than tin cans with glass inside. If you really want me to pay pro price for a tin can, I would hope you would make it more ascetically pleasing...
Take Redrock for example. Sure, they look amazing, and have nice pictures and what not but are they all that different on the inside from what I can make myself? NO....

So is it about what it looks like on the outside or what's on the inside? Most people would not be able to make an adaptor that has the build quality of the Redrock. If ruggedness is important to you, then it is worth the extra money over something made out of a tin can. I don't quite understand your use of the term DIY in referring to adaptors sold complete by others--by definition DIY means homemade...?


On lenses however, those are harder to make. I have yet to understand why people want motion picture lenses on there digital camera. If the HV20 was a 12MP 4k camera, then truly it would matter if you had an f1.2 or an f8 lenses.

I think it's safe to say that virtually nobody is putting motion picture lenses on their HV20's, unless they already have access to them for use with other cameras. If I had a mission-critical project that would be appropriate to use cine lenses I would not want to deal with the complications of locking the HV20's gain function etc, I would move up to a more robust camera. In the meantime it seems that for "down and dirty" work, still lenses are a better match (certainly economically) for an HV20/adaptor combo. I just did a shoot with the Redrock and the Zeiss still lenses and it worked out well (with the EX1).

No sure if you meant to say "f1.2 or f8"...not sure what the correlation with these two examples would be. Lens quality, type (still or cine) and maximum aperture are all independent from each other, although emperically it is true that a faster lens is generally more expensive and rarely cheaply made. The Cooke S4 lenses are highly regarded and very expensive film lenses, but they are all T2, a full stop slower than the much cheaper Zeiss Superspeeds.


Sure, it takes a lot of work to make the camera not be automatic; but having a $50,000 lense isn't going to make you shoot any better.

What does one have to do with the other?

btw, if you really want to weep over prices, consider the unit that started the 35mm adaptor craze: the P+S Technik Mini35, which costs a cool $10K (still available and in use).