New Indian adapter screenshots

[Postmaster]

Having that free Indian adapter sitting on the shelf for a while and some free time I decided to fiddle arround with it a bit.

I took some ultrafine emery sponge and resurfaced the plastic disc, than I tuned the back focus and gave it a try.

Well it aint soooo bad at all.

Problem1: The Disc. Still too rugh - what makes the higlights bloom to much and softens the whole picture like a nylon stocking in front of the lens.
But if you like that Hammilton Look - here you go

Problem2: I use a Nikon to M42 adapter ring to use my fast Petri lens.
The ring messes up the back focus enough that everything farer away than 3 meters is out of focus. No chance to adjust the back focus on that. With Nikon lens it is O.K.

Lens: 1.7 50mm Petri Prime, Zoom 85, Focus 22, Prime and camera iris full open (it was pretty dark - only one small window), shutter 180.

Frank

[PaPa]

not too shabby. Does this thing lose a lot of light? Your last grab shows some sufficient Chromatic aberation, perhaps that is part of the lower cost? Lower quality achromat?

[dwilliam]

how come the images are mirrored? maybe some outside footage?

[Noel Evans]

not too shabby.

Really? I thought soft and ugly. Nothing I liked here at all.

[Postmaster]

how come the images are mirrored? maybe some outside footage?

I only flipped them upside down not horizontal.

@papa: it depends on the prime you use, but I would say about 1 stop.
And yeah, I think the achromat that comes with it is not the real McCoy.
But instead just holding it in front of the lense like last time, I mounted it properly (more or less - stil have no stepdown ring) to the camera

Frank

[dwilliam]

just seems odd that the letters on the cigarette pack are mirrored?

[Postmaster]

A adapter flips both ways, horizontal and vertical.
For the screenshots I only flipt upside down.
Thet´s why it is mirrored.

Frank

[armisiano]

Really? I thought soft and ugly. Nothing I liked here at all.

See, I liked it. I think the combination of hi-def video with that adapter worked out very well in the sense of a very film-looking result. Seriously, if you look at one of the screen grabs, it does not look AT ALL like hi-def video to me, and I like that. I think if you were to show one of those images to someone they would assume it were from a feature film, where as too often I think that these ultra crisp images we're always seeing on here are just too, I dunno, "synthetic" looking. I have some beefs with hi def. I don't want to see an actors EVERY pore. Let life be glorified by the magic of a cinematic experience. Light, glass, celluloid, and life. It's a perfect combo.

[Jon Neely]

old thread, Im sorry but they still look very video to me, but armisiano, I know what you mean, That is my biggest buff about HD, to me it seems harder to get a film look from an HD cam(like the EX1) rather than a dvx, I know that film has more resolution that SD, but for some reason when shooting with DVX and My Sgpro, with some CC and effects I can put that up on a projector and It looks pretty AC.35mm, When shooting with my friends V1u, and a canon A1, they still even in 24p look video ish with a brevis on there, I think the bet for HD right now for a true film look is the HVX, but then again, I will never own an HVX because of the obsolescence of the P2 cards and computers, Im waiting for the HCM, that should be real nice, then Im going to go HD!(or the Scarlet, whatever comes out first and is best for me!)


Jon

[Jon Neely]

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091022.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091203.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091317.jpg

This Is the results of what I feel really look life film, and its not all resolution, I love SD till I shoot Red, then I hate SD...


Jon

[Jon Neely]

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091455.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091521.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091383.jpg

[Postmaster]

I have learned a view lesons rgarding film look.

1. Resolution means nothing!
2. Motion is THE factor.
3. Then comes DOF

Resolution is nice to have but the analog human interface (eye) is not able to tell the difference between SD and HD if it is farer away then 4 times the screen diameter.

When we started to invest in our HD studio equipment, we did big time tests befor. We tried that with Plasmas, TFTs, CRTs, interlaced and full frames in any resolution.

We had 10 poeple (from housewifes to colorists and professionell pixel counters) stearing at screens in different setups for 2 days.

Different screen sizes and resolutions up and down rezed by software, hardware, DVD-players, the screen hardware and what not.

In a nut shell- The outcome was a bummer.

If you tell them wich one is HD they "can see" a difference.
If you don´t tell them - they don´t.

If you show them SD (uprezed) and tell them it´s HD they "can see" a difference.
No one was able to tell the difference between SD and HD when downrezed.

We had an editor and a colorist that swear that a PAL DVD uprezed by the player (on a plasma) is HD and better looking than the PAL version on SD Screen. They where shocked when we told them what they saw.

Everybody saw the differences when they are 3 foot in front of the monitor, but after 3-4 times the screen diameter distance they only can "see" it if you tell them that it is HD (even if it is uprezed SD)

So if you belive it´s HD you "can see" it - even if it is SD (if your nose is not touching the screen).

So I say HD is more a religious experiance ;-).

If you look at Film in a theatre that picture is only a small portion of the 35mm negative.

The Super35 negative is ony 24.89 x 18.66 mm
CinemaScope is uses only 21.95mm horizontal of thet negative
Techniscope only uses 8.47mm of the vertical resolution

So you are looking at only 1 third of vertical resolution of a 35mm negative in a theatre, projected at a 50 foot wide screen with about the vertical resolution of PAL SD.

Have you ever heard someone complayn about the crapy (vertical) SD resolution in a theatre?

See - resolution is nothing.

oh yeah - and having interlaced footage on a Plasma/TFT drops the resolution in half, no mather how good the interlacer is. They always throw half of the resolution away (at a certain motion threshold) and guess what should be there by differnt interpolating methods.

If you got quick motion or (even worse) a pan the resolution can drop to SD.


Motion:

Take a DVD software player and your favourite (24 frames) feature film.
Speed it up to 30 frames. It instantly looks like a "making of" shoot on cheap video.

The same is true if you got a TV that does frame doubling (or whatever they call it).

The set, light, camera, colors, latitude lens and even DOF (everything we think thet is important for the film look) is still there but it looks like video.

So it´s not only the 24p but the even when "in between" or aditional frames are created.

24p seems to be a "sweet spot" (thou I´m still puzzled about that caus in theatres we see each fram at least twice and it still works).

The difference between Video and Film is like a transistor radio and an old valve type radio.

I tried many cameras and found that right out of the box the HVX with 1080 25p over 50i does the best film motion job. Add an adapter plus some CoCo and it comes damed close.

Look at real film frames and compare them to your HD shots.

Stearing at pixels of HD cameras made us blind for what film looks.

I bet that most of us would look at a film frame and say ahhhh what a bad adapter and what crapy color/sharpnes/andwhatnot.

phew - I need a beer now.

just my ct2

Frank

[Anhar Miah]

All very true, but your forgeting Projection size,

When you project SD vs HD on something bigger than 100 ft screen, you most certainly can tell the difference. SD simply does not have the pixel information and will fall apart.

On a average flat screen, your right not much difference.

[J.R. Hudson]

I have learned a view lesons rgarding film look.

1. Resolution means nothing!
2. Motion is THE factor.
3. Then comes DOF


24p is mandatory. I subscribe to that hugely.

I have started to be more flexible on whether or not the moving image has a shallow DOF or not. Of course, it helps immensely, but the big thing I find that works is contrast and latitude.

[tommetass]

I feel that the shutter settings have a lot to do with the "film look" as well.

I have two examples.

Shot with 25p and a shutter at 1/24 I think... which sucked. Looks like 30p or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFIIGMcD00


this is 25p with 1/50: (Huge difference in the motion The slow motion is 50i with 1/120 though)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih_PBDleYec

[Jon Neely]

I agree with Tom, Shutter angle has to do with the film look, I have found the threshold at 1/48th (NTSC) also I think 1/158th look great with the Sgpro for those saving private ryan stuff.1/60th and 1/24th give a rounded video look to me even in 24p...Anhar bring up a good point too, when projecting over a 2k projector to a 150' screen, you can see its down falls, not terrible, but they are there, it kind of falls apart... but usually people when viewing those size of screens are far enough away to not really care... I really enjoy HD just to have that ability to push the scaling and CC with 4:2:2 and even 4:2:0 is better than SD in my opinion.

jon

[TimurCivan]

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/29852/1204091022.jpg


This Is the results of what I feel really look life film, and its not all resolution, I love SD till I shoot Red, then I hate SD...


Jon

If youve ever shot real film, you will find that its not contrasty at all. infact Good Kodak Vision2 or Vision3 is actually quite pastel and razor sharp.

As far as "Film Look" see this thread.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=112521

Pay attention to the images you posted. they have lots of texture, and youre probably subliminally reading the textured images as "film look".

[kk5hy]

Hi,
I just bought one of these adapters and was wondering, did you take emery and smooth out the GG?

Thanks,
Jake

[Tim Naylor]

Yikes. That's some scary footage.

[Noel Evans]

24p is mandatory. I subscribe to that hugely.

I have started to be more flexible on whether or not the moving image has a shallow DOF or not. Of course, it helps immensely, but the big thing I find that works is contrast and latitude.

Couldnt agree more John. IMO - if your image looks like rubbish in black and white then its probably not so good. Its all about the gradients.

I do love shallow DOF - but its like any esthetic, it has to work FOR the shot. And Ive made this point before. Soft works great for example on our heroin, but on our villian soft just doesnt work to portray him as a villian. You need to have the option to shoot soft or not and be able to control it with precision. When you start out all soft and theres no where to go - then...

Just IMO btw.

[John Caballero]

Film is actually very sharp and crisp. A lot of adapters don't really get it as they soften the image too much.

[ecking]

Yeah I can't handle when people say that film is soft and hd has too much res so it doesn't look film-like. Wow.

[ODDNAME]

I think the softness that ppl think is film is the dof, and then they think soft is all. So a soft image = good for them.

[PaPa]

it's not that film is sharper, it just has a ton of resolution with random grain, which means no pixels. So the image comes from grain that is non-uniform, while digital is uniform on set pixels, which gives it the sharp jaggies syndrom. Film has more detail, digital just looks sharper.

[cinebuddy]

Been a long time since i've seen film "grain". Where are you seeing grain on these new vision stocks. No Country and Assasination are so clean its ridiculous. But they are a different clean from say Crank which looks amazing as well.

[Texanite]

Been a long time since i've seen film "grain". Where are you seeing grain on these new vision stocks. No Country and Assasination are so clean its ridiculous. But they are a different clean from say Crank which looks amazing as well.

PaPa isn't saying that he sees grain or that film looks grainy, he's saying that images on film are made up of randomly dispersed grain instead of uniformly lined up pixels.

[Tim Naylor]

24p is mandatory. I subscribe to that hugely.

I have started to be more flexible on whether or not the moving image has a shallow DOF or not. Of course, it helps immensely, but the big thing I find that works is contrast and latitude.

Not sold on 24p being the best frame rate. It only came about because in the first days of sound, 24 fps was the slowest you could run a projector and not get a noticeable fluctuation in sound (wow and flutter). Prior to that 18 fps was the standard as people felt is was the slowest you could run and not get unacceptable motion blur.

I've shot some film projects at 30p and at stops high enough and lenses wide enough to get everything in focus. And guess what? It didn't look like video. Still looked very much like film. What it had that video doesn't is better highlight compression and texture. Nobody would ever accuse Citizen Kane of looking video like even though it as shot for deep focus beginning to end.

Regarding resolution, in the 70's one of the Japanese electronic giants tested its HD sets against SD sets before a test audience of lay people and engineers. Virtually all favored the SD image. The one variable that made them go for the SD image was deeper contrast. It had a bigger impact than resolution.

Granted resolution mean something once you get to big TV's, but I feel contrast is perhaps one of the most important variables rarely mentioned. I still have my 200lb Sony trinitron in my living room because I love the picture despite being Sd.

Tim

[cinebuddy]

PaPa isn't saying that he sees grain or that film looks grainy, he's saying that images on film are made up of randomly dispersed grain instead of uniformly lined up pixels.
Gotcha I thought he meant that grain inherently makes things filmy.