mini35 Adapter comparisons

[eppdidit]

Wanted to hear from some of you who have experience with the mini 35 adapters. I've read many posts in here and I'm seeing at least 3 different versions of these adapters:

Redrockmicro.com has the Micro35
P & S Technik has the Mini35
Guerilla35.com has the Guerilla35

What does any one of these have an advantage over the other besides cost?

thanks!!!

[thisiswells]

Only one of them is available to buy/use right now (P+S Mini35). The others aren't.

The others are expected to be shipping by end of summer, likely earlier than that. The one from Redrockmicro.com appears to have the advantage based on the frame grabs I've seen on this website and that it costs less than the one from Guerilla35.com. Oh, and the recorded image is upside down on the Redrock and Guerilla models. Yes, that's a bummer, but it makes available a capability I wouldn't be able to own otherwise. (using 35mm lenses with DV) Renting a Mini35 has always been an option, of course.

The "regulars" on this forum have debated this topic tirelessly. (which is better, etc.) I would encourage you and others who stumble upon this thread to search the forums for the opinions of many. The darndest truth is only a small handful of people have beta tester versions of the forthcoming models and they ain't talking. Hope this helps.

[Jay Rodriguez]

:undecided <--- that's me trying to find loose change in my car to save up for a micro35....

I like the one from Redrockmicro.com as well...... :thumbup:

[thisiswells]

Come on.. cash in a few more of those downgraded shares! :)

[Dizkoteck]

I do have a few questions regarding the models other than the P+S(cause of the price).

Based on their screengrabs, footage and some knowledge of construction from both, which has the advantage over the others? Is there that much of a difference?

Also, using Nikon/Canon lenses, will I be able to attach a mattebox over them? Sorry about this question is dumb, havent gone that far into exploration.

[ddh]

The issues on static non-moving screen adaptors (G35) and rotating/vibrating screen adaptors (mini-35 & micro-35) has been noice, loosing light at the F stops, needs for rail support and a host of other issues covered well by a lot of experimenters ever since the Augus-35 was built. My interest is to get the best possible (DOF) image with the least amount of hassle. "macgregor" on this forum has G-35 footage up that's pretty impressive. The Fall is around the corner, so, I'm scaping as much money as possible together to move along with the HVX and some form of adaptor.

[Policar]

I talked with a DP today who told me that he usually likes to shoot 35mm at f4 and 16mm at f2.8, while all of us are dreaming of shooting at f1.4.

Let me tell you, I've tried it, and it's a pain. While ultra-shallow DOF is a nice tool to have, deep focus cinematography is much trickier and more professional looking than shallow DOF.

Considering f4 at 35mm is about equal to f1.8 on a 2/3'' CCD, I still think using a varicam or something with standard lenses is a much better solution, although obviously cost prohibitive. I'm going to get a 35mm adapter, but I'd rather have a deeper DOF, since stopping down beyond f2.8 causes grain and I'd like to be able to shoot some scenes at f5.6 (and probably still will.) Also, in progressive mode and with a 35mm adapter, the ASA of the dvx will effectively be somewhere between 60-120 probably. If I want to shoot at f5.6 and not f1.4, that's like 15-30ASA. Yikes! Better buy a lot of lights.

[Shaw]

I couldn't agree more Policar. If I buy an adapter I'll be using it at f4 or higher most of the time. f1.4 is great for some situations but shooting an entire movie at "wide open" is a bad idea IMO.

[Dizkoteck]

G35, static no moving parts - Micro35 and Mini35, spinning rotating parts

It seems both do the trick, but what and why the differences?

[Shaw]

Static is hard to achieve because the screen you focus on needs to be nearly grainless. This is very hard to achieve. The spinning versions use motion to blur the grain so you don't see it.

[thisiswells]

Based on their screengrabs, footage and some knowledge of construction from both, which has the advantage over the others? Is there that much of a difference?

That's a reasonable question. What do you think? Which looks subjectively "better" ?

http://www.savvyproductions.com/g35grabs/sethC.jpg
http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/apple/p3sm.jpg

[Daniel Skubal]

I wouldn't really compare those two images... both very different contexts. I think the only true successful comparison would be a side-by-side of the same image. Be patient, there will be comparisons. :)

[thisiswells]

hehe. yeah.

[Policar]

Besides, the first image is from a dvx, the second from an HD camera. Comparisons should wait. I bet both will do pretty well, honestly.

What worries me most is the grain issue. As bad as static grain is, motion grain can be even worse. Vignetting isn't too distracting, but if you can see rotating noise (as you could in early micro 35 tests), well...that's no fun. I know both adapters will do great at f1.4, but as I said...I don't want to shoot at f1.4, I want to shoot up to f5.6 and possibly with a fast shutter speed. Versitility is an issue, and being limited to an extremely shallow DOF is a pain. The one nice thing about static grain is that it can be removed to some extent in after effects, but I'd really rather deal with no grain at all. Resolution, of course, is also an issue, as is size and portability and usefulness without rails (honestly, I'd rather not deal with them for steadicam shots.) Both designs show potential, though.

[onelightfilm]

Just a thought... can't you run the Micro35 without spinning the glass? it seems to me that you get the best of both worlds as far as that goes. I personally like the whole rod support deal too. AND, the G35 doesn't list OCT-19 as a lens mount. I really dig those lenses and they are cheap. The G35 may be a smaller unit (we haven't seen it yet) so that could be a benefit in some cases. I bet they both give good images.

[Daniel Skubal]

Onelightfilm: To answer your question, YES.... You can run it without the spinning GG, but the grain shows up bigtime. They could use better ground glass with hardly any visible grain, but it would severely drive the cost of the product up and wouldn't make a difference when spinning. To be honest, I think both units are going to be EXCELLENT tools to work with.

Both companies are working night and day to make top-of-the-line products at the lowest possible price they can and I don't feel either's performance will be a dissappointment.

[onelightfilm]

I will be really interested to see a side-by-side. I agree that they will both be great products.

[Policar]

Dj, the other issue with finely ground glass is that there's more light loss. So with spinning ground glass, a rougher surface is often better.

[bikefilms]

mounted mine (w/ rods) to the glidecam yesterday. f*ck yeah. That was kinda the "last frontier" for the adapter. It has a 16mm weight to it, or maybe up to that of a 2/3" cam. Still light enough. I have noticed that the angle of view is wider w/ the 35-80mm lense: so no need for a wider-angle lense, and smooth moving shots. cool.

[JHouser]

I don't mean to cross post. Here is a link to a commerical shot a few days ago. Gives you a good idea of what the G35 is capable of. I'm pretty sure it was shot with an FX1

http://jonalden.com/Miguel/spotsoren400.mov

[Dizkoteck]

JHouser
I like to see some of the actual Adapter pics posted up. Im extremely interested and was wowed by Macgregor and your sites footage. Any details on availability? pics? website updates?

[Policar]

Hmm...look what I found:

http://www.jonalden.com/IMG_4471.JPG

[Policar]

Looks like a good design to me, but could be considerably shorter and could use a rail mount attatchment. From what I can guess, after the 72mm ring at the bottom there's a 52mm achromatic diopter attatched to a tube, then a projection screen (wax between glass probably) surrounded by other pieces of clear glass to prevent dust getting on it. The end looks like a Nikon mount, and I like the little knob you can use to presumable detach the lens.

Not sure about the jar of urine on the left.

[kaos1000]

Policar,

Is that the production model?

[Policar]

I don't know but I don't think so. I hope not--it's longer than it needs to be.

[Jack_Felis]

The urine's to serve as lubricant for the spinning GG of course!:laugh:

[Teeck]

I used the mini 35mm at NAB and it was nice. The build quality is Top Notch, comes with rails. I even asked the guy if i could shoot some stuff so i can see how it works in real world, I shot some stuff on my own dv tape with the dvx100a and now I have it for comparisions. From what I have seen the mini 35mm is just a bit cleaner than anything else. I havent used the g35 but the thing I like about its images is the grain looks very natural, I like the grain it produces. The images are clean. The micro looks good too, but all of the stuff I have seen has the the cd spinning strobe. With any moving ground glass you get to stop more down before you start seeing grain. I have a Maxwell screen static adapter, that I built which is amazing but once you pass 2.8 you see the grain and the dust gets to be a problem. Im sure the g35 is sealed though. Also people have started really exaggerating the shallow deapth of field and I dont always want to use f1.4, I might want to stop down to get a little more DOF which is where the static adapters have problems, but maybe the G35 is made so it works with this, I dunno.
Thats what I have gathered from seeing the samples and reading about them.
I wonder how the G35 works when moving the camera beacause there are times when you will see the grain pattern, especially when its at f2.8 or less. I presonally feel more confident with moving. Im going to be shooting a film and my oscillating mechanism isnt done yet so I not going to use the static cause I dont think its for serious stuff, especially If im going to do a steaicam sequence where, I dunno, there is something in the frame where the grain is visblle. Latley ive gotten sick of the insane shallow DOF shots, its being used in a way where it attracts attention to itself. I think people are going crazy with the SHAAAAAAALLOW DOF to the point where it just looks wierd, overuse, or maybe its just me.....