A 35mm adapter that'll be compatible with the HVX

[The Machinist]

I know this one has been mentioned several times before on the board but a new website has been put up for the G35 adapter. There are a few sample photos taken with a DVX, the Adapter, and some Nikon lenses.

I'm sure alot of people already know about it but for the sake of posterity...

http://www.cinemek.com/

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Looks cool! How much? =)

Oh and this looks awesome!...

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/refocus/

[JackFoley]

A Nikon F-mount to dvx100 setup will be less than $1300 (+Tax). So I expect about the same for the HVX200. That is super-cheap compared to the Mini35 (which is about 8 times that amount) and I personally even like the G35 footage better than the one from a Mini35.

So for me the G35 is a must have.

[smelni]

Anyone know how this performs as compared to the M2 micro adapter?

[Steve Shovlar]

From what I can gather the G35 is still vapourware. Not heard any reports about it yet, other than a load of talk. I would like to test one myself.

I own the M2 and have been using it from day one. Bloody fantastic bit of kit and a "must have". At an amazingly low price point I doubt the G35 will get near the M2. The "indie Bundle" is $850, which includes the adaptor plus rods, acromat, base plate and a cap thrown in as well.

The new GG that has just been released is also pretty sensational, with no ghosting at all.

http://www.redrockmicro.com/

As I say though, would love to test the G35 and see how it compares.

[Isaac_Brody]

No vapourware here. Check out the footage yourself.

http://www.cinemek.com/?demos

Also check out Macgregors videos on the Sony cam section of DVXuser. I think the quality looks much better than the M2.

[Shiloh Arts]

Is that Guerrilla35 adatper that everyone's been talking about for almost years now?

[tigeba]

Is that Guerrilla35 adatper that everyone's been talking about for almost years now?

Yes, Cinemek.com == Guerilla35.com

[The Machinist]

A Nikon F-mount to dvx100 setup will be less than $1300 (+Tax). So I expect about the same for the HVX200.

Yea 1300 seems to be the concensus.


As far as the M2 here is a thread at the Cinemek forum about the G35 and M2 comparisons.

http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119

I have not used either however the M2 supposedly produces a low hum that can interfere with audio recording. The G35 has no moving parts or battery operated humming which is a big advantage if true.

I have an engineering friend who visits the board and is planning on constructing his own 35mm adapter. He's said he will make the plans publically available if it works and it will be significantly cheaper than the G35 or M2. However not all of us are engineers so for the consumer market the G35 is a big advancement.

Plus it appears to be a pretty solid design.

[rgdfilms]

I can tell you just by judging the videos between the M2 and the G35 with my little eyes, the G35 is clearly the winner here. While those M2 guys were rushing out their product just to make sales, the G35 guys were ACTUALLY trying to make something of quality. The m2 is crap. Look at the picture, fuzzy, grainy, dull, vignetting, ugh, ughly - the g35 looks like freaking film when used with the Sony HDV cameras. Amazing. This adapter will change orbits. My money is in quality, even if it means spending $400 more than the m2 guys. And who wants rods and spinning glass and batteries and all that crap, the g35 is sweet and elegant, just like a fine cup of lady.


*I do not work for m2 or g35

[5ive]

Has anyone else seen this:
www.movietube.com

[The Machinist]

Thats an adapter more in the league with a mini35. Plus its advertising the limited model as costing 6380 euro. Thats a hefty hefty pricetag and not even for their premiere model.


And looking at the screenshots i think i'd still prefer the G35.

[Zack Birlew]

Oh man, well as far as the audio issues go with the hum, if you're using a 35mm adapter, won't you be professional enough to also be using external microphones as well? No offense, but it's kind of a "duh" issue. I wouldn't use the onboard microphone with all that junk in front of the camera lens and possibly the microphone itself.

The M2 is here and it works, the new GG gets rid of a lot of those past issues. The G35, though nice looking, is still up in the air and now costs more than originally planned, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, there's pros and cons with the static versus vibrating issue. Some like the look of static better and some prefer vibrating. I myself would go with vibrating just to be safer from dust buildup being noticeable and whatnot. Plus, I don't like the idea of the thing using wax (right?) for its GG element, though it will take a lot to melt it or freeze and crack it, would you even take the risk? That's just my Average Joe view of it, I don't know the science behind wax properties. But hey, it's all about what looks good to you.

But I don't think we've even touched the topic's subject, will these work with the HVX200 or not?

[Steve Shovlar]

Well the results are now in on the M2 and are pretty fantastic.
http://www.firre.com/new_m/frail_m.mov

There's a few frame grabs here as well.
http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=999

[tigeba]

Oh man, well as far as the audio issues go with the hum, if you're using a 35mm adapter, won't you be professional enough to also be using external microphones as well? No offense, but it's kind of a "duh" issue. I wouldn't use the onboard microphone with all that junk in front of the camera lens and possibly the microphone itself.

The M2 is here and it works, the new GG gets rid of a lot of those past issues. The G35, though nice looking, is still up in the air and now costs more than originally planned, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, there's pros and cons with the static versus vibrating issue. Some like the look of static better and some prefer vibrating. I myself would go with vibrating just to be safer from dust buildup being noticeable and whatnot. Plus, I don't like the idea of the thing using wax (right?) for its GG element, though it will take a lot to melt it or freeze and crack it, would you even take the risk? That's just my Average Joe view of it, I don't know the science behind wax properties. But hey, it's all about what looks good to you.

But I don't think we've even touched the topic's subject, will these work with the HVX200 or not?

From what I understand, the G35 is completely sealed so dust should not be an issue, or at least a very small issue. Nobody really knows what the GG is made of, but most folks feel that it is using some sort of microwax to get the performance that it has. I am not sure about freezing, but I understand the melting point of a lot of these to be around 150-180F, so the G35 isn't really the only thing I would worry about under those conditions :)

My understanding is that the initial release of the G35 will not have HVX support, but having a modular camera mount will allow them to release it in the future.

[redindian]

http://www.letus35.com/

looks like its similar to G35...

anyone used it?

[The Machinist]

Oh man, well as far as the audio issues go with the hum, if you're using a 35mm adapter, won't you be professional enough to also be using external microphones as well? No offense, but it's kind of a "duh" issue. I wouldn't use the onboard microphone with all that junk in front of the camera lens and possibly the microphone itself.


Like i said before I've never used an M2 so i don't know how loud of a hum it is. But if i had to choose between two adapters providing equal performance (not to say that the performance of these two adapters is equal but for the sake of my hypothetical situation let's roll with it) I would want as little extraneous ambient noise as possible especially when recording with external microphones (shotgun boom mic not so much i'm sure but if the situation called for an omnidirectional condenser mic it could pose a problem.) Unless of course i wanted to incorporate that ambient noise into the story somehow but i can think of no reason off the top of my head i would wish to do so.

However maybe the hum isn't that noticeable in which case this is a moot point. But i know that if i was shooting in a space with a newer air conditioner (some of the newest models are as quiet as a purring cat) i would def want to turn it off unless of course it was......i digress.

bottom line: I wouldn't want any unnecessay ambient noise that i could avoid with a quiet adapter like the G35. And even if using an external microphone i think there is still a good chance of picking it up.

[Angrius]

[QUOTE=Steve Shovlar]From what I can gather the G35 is still vapourware. Not heard any reports about it yet, other than a load of talk. I would like to test one myself.

Steve if you are going to talk shlt like that, at least do some proper research. There is a lot of test footage from the G35.

[Steve Shovlar]

[QUOTE=Steve Shovlar]From what I can gather the G35 is still vapourware. Not heard any reports about it yet, other than a load of talk. I would like to test one myself.

Steve if you are going to talk shlt like that, at least do some proper research. There is a lot of test footage from the G35.


Show me where I can buy one tomorrow and have it delivered within a week.

There might be test footage but that doesn't mean jack if you can't purchase it.

The Machinist. There is a very small hum coming from the M2, but if you are more than a couple of feet away from it you can't here it. yes, it would be picked up by the onboard microphone, but no one in the right mind would use it in partnership with the M2 anyway. Lavs or a mic on a boom pole would be the way to go. It's pretty negligable anyway, but it is there.

[Isaac_Brody]

In all fairness, quite a lot of people ordered the M2 and waited over 12 weeks before receiving it.

[The Machinist]

Searching the forums its not easy to get a definite answer on whether the adapter will work outright with the HVX although they reiterate several times that the G35 will support the HVX.

Will try to get a more definitive answer.

[The Machinist]

There is a very small hum coming from the M2, but if you are more than a couple of feet away from it you can't here it.

Rock n Roll that's good to know.

[Can Scanner]

The DVX100 uses a 72mm thread size, while the HVX200 uses an 82mm (right?). Could it be as simple as adding a stepdown ring to use any of the 35mm adapters?

[Shiloh Arts]

...who wants rods and spinning glass and batteries and all that crap, the g35 is sweet and elegant, just like a fine cup of lady.


*I do not work for m2 or g35

Actually, I kind of like rodz, I think they make your setup look pretty cool!:laugh:

[The Machinist]

Actually, I kind of like rodz, I think they make your setup look pretty cool

You can't argue with that logic.

[Steve Shovlar]

The DVX100 uses a 72mm thread size, while the HVX200 uses an 82mm (right?). Could it be as simple as adding a stepdown ring to use any of the 35mm adapters?


Yes I can't understand why t couldn't. Surely it just attaches to the front of the HVX200 lens by using a step down ring? The M2 sits firmly on 15mm rods, which also support the matte Box, lens support and follow focus.

In fact the I should think the M2 supports every single fixed lens camcorder.


Isaac. Yes I agree there is one hell of a waiting list for the M2. i waited 12 weeks and got mine in the first batch to come out, so lucky me. i think they have now got the wating list down to around 6 weeks. But it proves one thing. The M2 is a roaring success. If mine and everyone elses had been a heap of crap, Red Rock would have been out of business by now, instead they are thriving. (Though I wish they would employ more staff to get the waiting list down for everyone)

I am very keen to test drive the G35, and once they actually do go onsale will probably place an order. But I have yet to see one actually sold and out there.

[The Machinist]

I am very keen to test drive the G35, and once they actually do go onsale will probably place an order. But I have yet to see one actually sold and out there.

Yea that is a big factor when looking at these adapters. The M2 is selling and while i'm sure a large part of that has to be the low cost of the adapter it must be a solid product or people wouldn't be investing in it.

The G35 has been delayed for months since the Summer when they first projected its release and people were waiting anxiously and checking the forum everyday looking for footage or to catch a glimpse of the adapter. Patent issues are the reason given for the delay but now that pictures have been released and people can see what it looks like and a few examples of what it can do there is still no definite release or timetable for pre-ordering this particular adapter. So until that information becomes available this is one device that is open for speculation and little more.

[lboyce]

I just ordered my M3 from Redrock about a week and a half ago and Brian told me that it will be compatible with the HVX. If nothing else, the beauty of Redrock is that you can upgrade your adapter at any time to use new parts, etc. without having to go buy a whole new one. That was a big selling point for me. Also, keep in mind, as far as footage goes, the person doing the footage has alot to do with how it comes out. You can't particularly judge the quality of the 2 products 100% from the footage itself. Not to mention that most of the G35 footage is done with Sony's HDV camera and most of the M2 footage is from the DVX. So there's more differences than simply the adapter itself.

[lboyce]

Well the results are now in on the M2 and are pretty fantastic.
http://www.firre.com/new_m/frail_m.mov

There's a few frame grabs here as well.
http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=999

WOW! Hadn't seen that footage yet. Spectacular!

[The Machinist]

You can't particularly judge the quality of the 2 products 100% from the footage itself. Not to mention that most of the G35 footage is done with Sony's HDV camera and most of the M2 footage is from the DVX. So there's more differences than simply the adapter itself.

Actually three of the screenshots and video samples on the Cinemek website were done with a DVX and not the FX1 so i think its possible to do as fair a comparison as you can given the screenshots and video samples for both products.

[lboyce]

Actually three of the screenshots and video samples on the Cinemek website were done with a DVX and not the FX1 so i think its possible to do as fair a comparison as you can given the screenshots and video samples for both products.

Possibly, I just know that I've seen M2 footage that looks absolutely horrible and I've seen M2 footage that looked exactly as good as the G35. My point is just that I think there are alot of factors to consider before judging the product based solely on the footage. The cinematographer, the lens used, the camera used, the camera settings used, the amount of practice used in working with the adapter itself, etc.

[The Machinist]

The cinematographer, the lens used, the camera used, the camera settings used, the amount of practice used in working with the adapter itself, etc.

Well said. The adapter is merely a tool the artist makes the footage.

[JackFoley]

The G35 has exchangeable mounts on both sides, so it works with DVX100, Sony Z1, XL2 or whatever (if they make an mount for it) and the HVX200 mount is high on their list. On the other side they will start with Nikon F mounts and others like Canon can follow if there is enougth demand.

I have no problem with the patent stuff taking so long because the HVX200 isn't here either, and will not be here till March in Europe. So I hope they take their time and make it right.

We encouraged the CineMek people on the G35 forum to get in touch with Panasonic so that the G35 can be included in an "Indy" package they could come up with. It would make perfect sense. A HVX200 without a G35 will be half the fun if you ask me.

[JHouser]

Greetings everyone. I was directed to this thread by a member on our forum. Just so that there are no questions about it, yes, we are releasing an HVX mount. The reason we are making camera specific mounts is because every camera is different. In order to maintain the best optical path the distances are critical. Also, our mounts have a focus ring guard built into them. ( A feature others will most likely imitate). Anyone who has used these adapters knows that the focus on the camera is critical. So, there will be a slot on the bottom of the collar to access the focus ring so you don't accidentally bump it while you are shooting. Also, keeps you from having to gaff tape it. Please feel free to post on our forum if you have any other questions. Our moderators Kevin and Jesse will do their best to answer your questions. Thanks! I understand its fun to speculate as well. :thumbsup:

[Knock Out Films]

I'm sure everyone is very excited to get your G35.

When will it be avalible?
When will the HVX version be avalible?

As you can imagine, between the HVX and your G35 we are all stewing. :)

Cheers,
Chris

[Justin_Kirch]

This argument will continuously go back and forth regarding what is better, who wants what, so on and so forth. Apparently if you own either adapter you will have a bias towards it. I prefer the G35 because the footage is excellent. Yes, it depends on the skill you have resulting in good footage, but I know I can make just as good footage as the rest of the G35 stuff. So I will gladly fork out that much money to enhance my skills.

[Anhar Miah]

The one thing I do know is that for low light M3 is superb, I watched a clip that was shot with nothing more than a PC monitor and fag lighter.

I've seen wicked footage from both adaptors and the letus35 and you know they are all even. This is just another X vs Y thingy.

Anhar

[The Machinist]

As far as G35 HVX compatibility Jonathan has posted on the Cinemek forum that the HVX mount for the G35 will be available by the HVX's release date or very shortly after. Hopefully this will hold true but only time shall tell.

[Emanuel]

As far as G35 HVX compatibility Jonathan has posted on the Cinemek forum that the HVX mount for the G35 will be available by the HVX's release date or very shortly after. Hopefully this will hold true but only time shall tell.Why not to believe in it? If he says so:


Greetings everyone. I was directed to this thread by a member on our forum. Just so that there are no questions about it, yes, we are releasing an HVX mount. The reason we are making camera specific mounts is because every camera is different. In order to maintain the best optical path the distances are critical. Also, our mounts have a focus ring guard built into them. ( A feature others will most likely imitate). Anyone who has used these adapters knows that the focus on the camera is critical. So, there will be a slot on the bottom of the collar to access the focus ring so you don't accidentally bump it while you are shooting. Also, keeps you from having to gaff tape it. Please feel free to post on our forum if you have any other questions. Our moderators Kevin and Jesse will do their best to answer your questions. Thanks! I understand its fun to speculate as well. :thumbsup:C'mon!...

[Jarek Zabczynski]

http://www.letus35.com/

looks like its similar to G35...

anyone used it?


Hmmm....the DVX footage looks really nice...and for $300 buck for the base unit? What's the catch?

[holyzoo]

Hmmm....the DVX footage looks really nice...and for $300 buck for the base unit? What's the catch?

Parts of it are made of plastic that others have already complained of breakage. My prediction is letus35 owners getting mighty pissed in no time, over this invention falling apart on an important shoot.

In addition, I kind of got the brush off as a prospective customer from him. Buyer beware.

My choices would be:

http://www.dandiaconu.com
http://www.redrockmicro.com
http://www.cinemek.com

I have the MPIC with follow focus and gears for Nikon lenses, on order from Dan and awaiting.

[The Machinist]

Why not to believe in it?


The reason is that currently G35 does not have a very good track record in terms of meeting projected deadlines. In their defense however they never committed to a specific release date so i guess you can't fault them too much for the long wait fans of the G35 have endured. I'll put my faith in Jonathan one more time.

[Steve Shovlar]

I agree Machinist. When I was considering buying the G35, I was also considering the M2. I waited a few weeks thinking I would hear reports on the G35, but nothing was forthcoming and I went for the M2, a decisionn I have never once regretted.

It did take 3 months to arrive from Redrock, but as soon as I opened the parcel I realised I had made a good decision and the device is superbly made.

There was an original problem with the newer ground glass of the two provided. It was so clear it caused a ghosting issue. I swapped out the glass and used the original one, and results have been fantastic. Now of course they have issued a new version 3 of the GG, which is by far the best yet and has no (virtually no) light loss.

To be honest I am suprised it sells at the price point it has, because Redrock could charge quite a bit more and still have full order books. Guess a new company has to find its feet before it takes this move.

I am very interested in the G35, and if there is going to be an opportunity to try one out at a show in the UK then I will be there for a play with it. If I like it and i think it's better than the M2 I will buy it and sell the M2 on Ebay (and they have gone for way over the retail price!)

So I will keep watching and waiting.

[Teeck]

I have been making and viewing 35mm adapter footage for 2 years now and I think the G35 is the best. The Letus has had alot of Crommatic abberations. The M2 has always had this low-rez look to it. The G35 has this nice astetic that I think is coming from the microwax. From all the Footage I have seen the G35 is superior in sharpness, color and filmic quality. I dunno about the new GG in the M2 but from the stills I saw they looked like there was some Artificial sharpening going on.

[Shiloh Arts]

Well the results are now in on the M2 and are pretty fantastic.
http://www.firre.com/new_m/frail_m.mov

There's a few frame grabs here as well.
http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=999

Did Firre buy one, last I remember I think he said he built his own? Firre you have a M2 also?
:thumbsup:

[arkham]

As far as the low-res look from the Micro35, I don't think it is much worse than the original Mini35. All these adapters are kinda softening the picture, which is a good thing in my opinion. I do personally own a micro35, and I am quite pleased with the results so far. I am also considering getting a G35, but as a DP, I can't believe people are thinking about doing serious work with it. Why?

Simply because, in my humble opinion, RODS AND Follow Focus are a MUST. The lenses I am working with (cine lenses) all weight several POUNDS. How can you seriously consider putting all that weight (lens + G35 adapter) on the tiny 72mm filter thread? G35 is fine though when you only work with cheap lenses... unless you get a rod system and support! (quite expensive anyway)

As far as follow focus is concerned, I just don't think many people here have ever shot 35mm. Such a shallow DOF isn't easy to handle when actors are moving (which is common in movies, isn't it?), and without a good focus puller and follow focus, you're just malking your life even more dificult. It really can become a nightmare!

Can the ground glass on the Micro35 be improved? Quite possibly. Is the G35's ground glass better quality! My eyes seems to think so! But I also know the Micro35's GG is very easy to upgrade, so I am confident there won't be ANY visible difference in the footage quality pretty soon.

As far as noise is concerned, you guys made me laugh. The M35 is extremely silent! It is so quiet I always forget to turn it off (fortunately, there is a red LED to indicate activity)! Frankly, unless you put the microphone right next to it, noise will NEVER be an issue, IMHO ;)

As a personal conclusion, the M35 is quite solid, and the rods it is delivered with make this system much more appropriate for serious fiction work. But the G35 seems to be tempting too, so I may end-up getting both adapters. Different tools for different uses :)

[Steve Shovlar]

Agree with all you have said Arkham. And the quality of the redrock rods is top notch.

Attaching an 80-200 Nikon lens to the front of the M2 has been worrying, as the lens weighs a faor whack, but now Redrock are providing lens supports from the 15mm rods to let the lens sit firmly and securly, taking any weight away from the M2. This just wouldn't work without rods IMO, as eventually the weight of the lens would cause problems. If i ws using cinema primes, then the weight would be even more and something would fail eventually.

With Redrock about to launch a follow focus to complement the M2, it will be a fantastic package.

[tigeba]

As far as the low-res look from the Micro35, I don't think it is much worse than the original Mini35. All these adapters are kinda softening the picture, which is a good thing in my opinion. I do personally own a micro35, and I am quite pleased with the results so far. I am also considering getting a G35, but as a DP, I can't believe people are thinking about doing serious work with it. Why?

Simply because, in my humble opinion, RODS AND Follow Focus are a MUST. The lenses I am working with (cine lenses) all weight several POUNDS. How can you seriously consider putting all that weight (lens + G35 adapter) on the tiny 72mm filter thread? G35 is fine though when you only work with cheap lenses... unless you get a rod system and support! (quite expensive anyway)

As far as follow focus is concerned, I just don't think many people here have ever shot 35mm. Such a shallow DOF isn't easy to handle when actors are moving (which is common in movies, isn't it?), and without a good focus puller and follow focus, you're just malking your life even more dificult. It really can become a nightmare!

Can the ground glass on the Micro35 be improved? Quite possibly. Is the G35's ground glass better quality! My eyes seems to think so! But I also know the Micro35's GG is very easy to upgrade, so I am confident there won't be ANY visible difference in the footage quality pretty soon.

As far as noise is concerned, you guys made me laugh. The M35 is extremely silent! It is so quiet I always forget to turn it off (fortunately, there is a red LED to indicate activity)! Frankly, unless you put the microphone right next to it, noise will NEVER be an issue, IMHO ;)

As a personal conclusion, the M35 is quite solid, and the rods it is delivered with make this system much more appropriate for serious fiction work. But the G35 seems to be tempting too, so I may end-up getting both adapters. Different tools for different uses :)

Not sure to what camera you would be referring here, but the G35 is available as a bayonet mount for the DVX100. I believe Jonathan has mentioned that you can attach a rail mount to this adapter, so this line of reasoning is essentially moot, at least for a DVX :)

[JHouser]

Not sure to what camera you would be referring here, but the G35 is available as a bayonet mount for the DVX100. I believe Jonathan has mentioned that you can attach a rail mount to this adapter, so this line of reasoning is essentially moot, at least for a DVX :)

That's correct. I'm not sure why people are getting this misconception. The G35 has several different ways to connect to a camera. 58mm threads that can be stepped up or down and camera specific bayonet mounts. Also there is a 3/8" boss on the bottom to allow for a mini-bridge support for rods. We will be producing rod system, however any ArriMini spec system will work. What we do say is you do not have to use rods. With smaller primes such as Zeiss MkII or Nikon you are just fine. Hope this clears up any confusion.

[The Machinist]

Once again prompt and thorough with that useful info Jonathan.

Without the answers people speculate and speculation is confused for fact and thats where the misconceptions come from.

[escozooz]

anybody bad mouthing the M2 is gonna have to deal with me :evil:

Just wait for dvxUSER to make an article comparing all of the adapters under the same conditions. Res/Color Charts etc.

mini35 vs. M2 vs. G35 vs. Letus etc.

There are so many variables as to good results. Lenses, lights, cameras, back focus, woola, etc. We need some semblance of consistant test conditions.

IMHO. HVX + Any Lens Adapter makes me happy. :laugh:

[Thomas J. O'Hara]

all i gotta say is, i've been watching this whole 35 revolution unfold, and i really like the way the G35 guys have gone about it. they never promised a release date, just said "we hope to have it coming soon..." or something to that effect. so many things are not in their control, and we have to realize that. instead they've been taking every measure necessary to make something really kick-ass, and hopefully when it's released, their product will be amazing.:laugh:

on the other hand, the micro35...well, let's just say it's not called the "micro35" anymore...m2, or is it m3 now? :undecided

i'm not trying to say their product sucks...it's just I don't like the fact that they rushed it out, and had problems and had to fix everything. they are fine gentlemen for fixing the problem for everyone, i just think they could have gone about it differently.:)

[arkham]

Many thanks Jonathan for your information. I never heard about that before! This makes me consider the G35 even more :)

"it's just I don't like the fact that they rushed it out, and had problems and had to fix everything"

Rushed out? I REALLY don't think so... Was it perfect from day one? Sure no! But can you point a single product that ever was? Remember about the DVX100 followed by the DVX100A and now B? Would you say Panasonic rushed the DVX100 out?

"had to fix everything"? Hum! I don't believe we share the same definition of what "everything" means! I was one of the first to get a M35, and I use it every week! Never had to fix ANYTHING! Granted, I don't use the M2 that often (BTW: M2 and M3 simply refers to ground glasses, nothing more. The whole system is still called Micro35, as far as I am aware of). But the M1, the original ground glass, is quite good! The only thing is you need lots of light! That's it!

I just don't get why so many people, who haven't even used the Micro35 keep bashing it all the time! This is very strange IMHO! I have seen that kind of Micro35 bashing on several other forums (including a famous French speaking forum), and I just don't get it! It seems the G35 community is kinda "brainwashed", or even fanatics belonging to some sort of dangerous "cult" :D (just kidding)

Let's face it: the Micro35 is a very good system for the money. The rods alone are already worth many hundreds of US$, in my opinion! And, just to be clear again, I won't use the G35 without rods! At least not with the heavy cine lenses I am usually working with!

[arkham]

That's correct. I'm not sure why people are getting this misconception. The G35 has several different ways to connect to a camera. 58mm threads that can be stepped up or down and camera specific bayonet mounts. Also there is a 3/8" boss on the bottom to allow for a mini-bridge support for rods. We will be producing rod system, however any ArriMini spec system will work. What we do say is you do not have to use rods. With smaller primes such as Zeiss MkII or Nikon you are just fine. Hope this clears up any confusion.


Just to clarify something: people are getting misconceptions because of a lack of information. Don't take any offense, but your website (although quite improved recently) never was a prime example of efficient communication from a technical point-of-view. Sure, there always was plenty of footage shot with G35 prototypes, but as far as I am concerned, that doesn't mean much at all. A single footage would have been sufficient to demonstrate the sharpness of the G35. After that, we all know that experienced hands can make a picture shine... I know this is a DVX forum, but you would be surprised if I showed you some of the pictures I have made for a documentary with a tiny (and crappy) Sony PC-100. Some people even believe I shot these pictures on film... (true!)

We all speak about tools over here! But what really matters in the end is what we all make with those tools, doesn't it?

Obviously, you chose experienced shooters to play around with your G35 prototype. But I personally will be very interested to see what comes out of inexperienced people shooting with these adapters. Because, let's face it again: if you've never shot 35mm, you will have a difficult time shooting nice and sharp (fiction) pictures with these adapters. Especially if your actors are moving, which is usualy the case isn't it?

[rgdfilms]

They Bash the m2 Arkham because it doesn't take three Einsteins to figure out that this, http://www.tampahighdef.com/swinglifeaway.html is crap when you compare it to this, http://imagenfilms.imagen-worlds.com/videos/CLEMENCY_FINAL.mov - or how about this video here, http://redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/fan.mov to this video here, http://www.jonalden.com/rosten/montereyweb.mov


I don't need a $40,000 Plasma monitor to tell the difference between the amount of focus and dedication to overall image quality that these two companies have invested in


If I'm going to drop bling bling in the 1K arena, I want to make sure I'm buying a solid piece of equipment, like the dvx - I've seen the m2 in action, i've seen the design, i've followed both of these guys and one's clearly the leader, the one with no product on the market as of yet

sell your Mwhatever it is

[rgdfilms]

And to respond to your new quote, if you've ever picked up a 35mm still camera and have snapped a picture, that's ALL the training you will ever need for shooting nice (fiction) and sharp pictures with these adapters. And what does inexperienced people actually mean ? Do you mean like my kid brother or my grandma or my florist from Russia ? Who is the inexperienced user that would really buy a 1K lens adapter that shoots upside nonetheless.....

[Ralph Oshiro]

Now of course they have issued a new version 3 of the GG, which is by far the best yet and has no (virtually no) light loss.Once you mount even a fast still lens, say, a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, I thought you still lose at MINIMUM, TWO STOPS. Is this not true?

[arkham]

And to respond to your new quote, if you've ever picked up a 35mm still camera and have snapped a picture, that's ALL the training you will ever need for shooting nice (fiction) and sharp pictures with these adapters. And what does inexperienced people actually mean ? Do you mean like my kid brother or my grandma or my florist from Russia ? Who is the inexperienced user that would really buy a 1K lens adapter that shoots upside nonetheless.....

Are you serious? Do you really believe all the training you need to shoot with these 35mm adapters consists "to snap a picture with a 35mm still camera"?

I don't! Because I know there is a big difference between shooting still pictures and pull a good focus for moving pictures...

And when I talk about "inexperienced users" who invest in those adapters, I have some people in mind. Some people I know who really were disapointed because they thought it was very easy to get "film like" DOF and make a whole movie with these adapters... Exactly like many people bought a DVX100 and thought that tool was all they needed to make a beautiful movie...

Regarding your suggestion to sell the "Mwhatever", let me tell you I won't, if only for the excellent rods and case it came with. And I have yet to make a personal test of the G35 before I can come to any conclusion about its so-called "superiority".

[arkham]

And if you want to get nicely shot Micro35 footage, let me point you toward Obin's footage on the reel-stream website :

http://www.reel-stream.com/clips

Again, these adapters are tools! Just tools! What matters is what you make with these tools! And Obin sure seems to know how to use his Micro35!

[Steve Shovlar]

Once you mount even a fast still lens, say, a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, I thought you still lose at MINIMUM, TWO STOPS. Is this not true?

No you don't. With the original GG you lost two stops. With the M3G you don't lose any stops at all, and it's a vast improvement over the M1G.

[Steve Shovlar]

They Bash the m2 Arkham because it doesn't take three Einsteins to figure out that this, http://www.tampahighdef.com/swinglifeaway.html is crap when you compare it to this, http://imagenfilms.imagen-worlds.com/videos/CLEMENCY_FINAL.mov - or how about this video here, http://redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/fan.mov to this video here, http://www.jonalden.com/rosten/montereyweb.mov


I don't need a $40,000 Plasma monitor to tell the difference between the amount of focus and dedication to overall image quality that these two companies have invested in


If I'm going to drop bling bling in the 1K arena, I want to make sure I'm buying a solid piece of equipment, like the dvx - I've seen the m2 in action, i've seen the design, i've followed both of these guys and one's clearly the leader, the one with no product on the market as of yet

sell your Mwhatever it is

So then what about this?
http://www.firre.com/new_m/frail_m.mov
You think that is crap? Shot with the Micro35, or M2 as it is now known.

I think you have a personal dislike of the M2 without even having seen or used one. You have nailed your flag to the mast by backing a product yet to see the light of day, calling it superior, but the G35 is yet to even surface!

So tell me, what's wrong with the above clip you so dislike?

[Alex Leith]

And to respond to your new quote, if you've ever picked up a 35mm still camera and have snapped a picture, that's ALL the training you will ever need for shooting nice (fiction) and sharp pictures with these adapters...

Except that most people who have "snapped" with a 35mm camera have either had it in auto or at best shutter/aperture priority mode...

You need to understand what a lens does to get the best out of it.

Plus it's about a million times easier to capture a single 125th of a second than track focus on moving targets.

[Alex Leith]

...the G35 is yet to even surface!

Yeah, but there is some gorgeous footage shot with a protoype on their website...

Personally I think the M2 looks great too.

Myself, I'm considering marketing a range of low budget 35mm adaptors using the cardboard tube from a toilet roll, some tracing paper and a whole heap of gaffer tape.

[Steve Shovlar]

Alex, I agree with the G35 footage looking good, and I am not anti the G35 at all. In fact I am looking forward to hearing the first reviews when it actually hits the streets.

So, when can I pay for one and when is delivery expected?

[arkham]

No you don't. With the original GG you lost two stops. With the M3G you don't lose any stops at all, and it's a vast improvement over the M1G.


Steve, don't forget about the loss caused by the lens itself. NBC is right: even if the lens is quite fast (let's say f/1.4) you still loose at the very least 1.4 stops. Most probably 2 Stops in fact!

What is great about the M3 is that, unlike with any other 35mm adapter, you pretty much don't loose any more stops than what the lens is causing.

I would say that, with an M3, a typical interior scene doesn't need much more light than what is typically available. A couple of 800W is more than enough. Whereas with a Mini35 (and I guess a G35), you definitly would need more light to be safe. This is a great advantage for the Micro35 in my humble opinion.

[Alex Leith]

Okay... something just struck me. With really, really, really differential focus and HD you're definately going to need some external monitoring to get anything at all in focus, right?

Um... not that I'd try an get away without some sort of monitor at every shoot I do... ahem! Heh! Heh! Heh! Hey, I come from a news background... The faster you can get in and get out, the more time you have for a cup of tea afterwards! :-D

---------

I specifically mean some sort of heavy-weight HD monitoring, not a poxy 7" LCD mounted on top of the camera? Opinions?

[arkham]

Alex, I think you're perfectly right! In fact, this is what I am desperatly trying to say: shooting with these adapters is MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult and time-consuming than what we, DVXUSERs, are used to. First, you need an experienced focus puller! Next, you need a follow focus, unless you want many more takes to be ruined because of a poor focus or because you caused vibrations when you touched the lens! Then you must get a very good (a real HD monitor is a must, IMHO) monitor system, which can flip the picture on both axis!

I really find it amusing to see people getting excited by all these adapters (esp. the G35)! Most of them obviously have NO IDEA about what they are really getting into :)

[Alex Leith]

shooting with these adapters is MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult and time-consuming than what we, DVXUSERs, are used to.

You're absolutely right! Why are there so many people on a 35mm shoot? Because the audience can see any technical imperfections with great clarity! Everyone on the shoot does just one thing so they can focus on getting that thing perfect.

The same is true of HD - especially with 35mm adaptors, which put constraints on the way you work in exchange for an aesthetic - an aesthetic which is only really going to work if the right amount of time and artistry (and money for equipment) is put into it.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Steve, don't forget about the loss caused by the lens itself. NBC is right: even if the lens is quite fast (let's say f/1.4) you still lose at the very least 1.4 stops. Most probably 2 Stops in fact! What is great about the M3 is that, unlike with any other 35mm adapter, you pretty much don't loose any more stops than what the lens is causing.So, is this true, then? Does that mean that the G35 (Cinemek) adapter, which, according to their site FAQ, loses "less than 1 stop of light" needs to ADD a minimum of 1.4 stops of light loss to THAT? Does this mean that the micro35 is the "fastest" of all the adapters? Of all the adapters on the market (including those not yet on the market) what are the known aggregate light loss figures INCLUDING, say, a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens? Of all the adapters on the market (including those not yet on the market) which is the fastest?

[Ralph Oshiro]

How about some quantitative figures? For a caucasion actor, at f/1.4 on a Nikkor 50mm lens, using your 35 adapter of choice, how many footcandles are required (taking an incident reading from the actor's chin) to attain a 70% IRE on the face?

For a Sony BVW600, it's about 20 footcandles, using a Fuji 4.8mm wide angle zoom lens at f/1.8.

[Steve Shovlar]

Okay... something just struck me. With really, really, really differential focus and HD you're definately going to need some external monitoring to get anything at all in focus, right?

Um... not that I'd try an get away without some sort of monitor at every shoot I do... ahem! Heh! Heh! Heh! Hey, I come from a news background... The faster you can get in and get out, the more time you have for a cup of tea afterwards! :-D

---------

I specifically mean some sort of heavy-weight HD monitoring, not a poxy 7" LCD mounted on top of the camera? Opinions?


I use the 7 inch teletest 16:9 monitor. It has flip and mirror, and mounts onto the camera perfectly and is bilt like brick sh*thouse.
http://www.teletest.co.uk/productinfo.asp?id=44
Only downside is that it's not High res, but its bright and focus is easier than using a 3 inch lcd on the FX1. Luckily you can flip the LCD on a sony over and just don't quite close it to see the image up the right way. But a monitor is an absolute MUST HAVE to use with an adaptor.

[The Machinist]

You're absolutely right! Why are there so many people on a 35mm shoot? Because the audience can see any technical imperfections with great clarity! Everyone on the shoot does just one thing so they can focus on getting that thing perfect.

There are lots of reasons for large crews and given the hollywood system not everyone is focused on getting everything perfect. One of the reasons being union regulations and standard on-set practices that have developed over the years. However the implication that you need a large crew in order to shoot a good 35mm project is something i would disagree with. I'd say an experienced 3 person team on camera is sufficient to produce the 35mm look.

Some of the greatest directors produced amazing 35mm results with incredibly small crews of less than 20 people sometimes less than 15 on-set. You want an example go to IMDB and look up Cassavettes' Faces or Scorsese's Who's that Knocking at my Door? These were small crews who produced amazing results in the 35mm medium.

I don't mean to say that the large crews of big-budget productions are excessive because alot of hands are definately needed on some of these massive sets. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that a large crew is not necessary (in certain 35mm situations) if you have a condensed group of hardcore experienced professionals.

[arkham]

Thanks for your link, Steve!



Only downside is that it's not High res


And that is a big problem in my opinion. Don't get me wrong: I know how to make a good focus on an HD camera without an HD monitor. But once you start toying around with 35mm adapters and HD, I wouldn't really trust a non HD monitor!

To be perfectly honest, I have to admit the fact that, after a couple of months (2 shorts, 1 commercial and 2 music videos shot with my adapter) of experience with my micro35 (and I do own a follow focus too), I came to the conclusion I will probably NEVER use my Micro35 again for Fiction work, unless I have a real budget. That means: I can afford to pay everyone on my set! Why? Simply because it is consuming too much time, which is NOT something you easily get when people (especially actors) are working for you for free. Indeed, if the actor makes a little mistake (is 10 inches too close or too far from the camera, which is next to nothing when the camera is 10 foot away from the actor), the take is bad and we have to start all over. Some shots needed 20-30 takes with my M35 whereas if I didn't use it, it would have been fine in 4 to 5 takes. And, BTW, I did work with professional actors...

Thus, I will keep my M35 for commercials and/or music videos (where I always get a comfortable budget). But I won't use it for fiction anymore (unless I get MANY thousands of $ for it :) ! It's not a problem of picture quality (which ridiculously seems to be the only concern for many people on this board): it's a problem of TIME! The picture quality from the Micro35 is quite comparable to the quality you get with the Mini35, from my own experience at least!



Does that mean that the G35 (Cinemek) adapter, which, according to their site FAQ, loses "less than 1 stop of light" needs to ADD a minimum of 1.4 stops of light loss to THAT?

That is correct! With the G35, as with the Mini35, or the M1, you loose at the
VERY LEAST 2.4 stops in total! Ouch! That is the little "dirty secret" many of these companies never dare to speak about (on their web sites' marketing data at least)...

So yes, that also means the Micro35 WITH ITS M3 ground-glass (!!!) is the "fastest" of all these adapters.

[Isaac_Brody]

That is correct! With the G35, as with the Mini35, or the M1, you loose at the VERY LEAST 2.4 stops in total! Ouch! That is the little "dirty secret" many of these companies never dare to speak about (on their web sites' marketing data at least)...

So yes, that also means the Micro35 WITH ITS M3 ground-glass (!!!) is the "fastest" of all these adapters.

Are you guessing or do you know for certain how many stops are lost with all the available adaptors?

[arkham]

Are you guessing or do you know for certain how many stops are lost with all the available adaptors?

I am not guessing at all! Unless you have Kubrick's fame and you get access to Nasa optics (cfr. Barry Lyndon), I really doubt you will get a faster lens than f/1.4!

Simply add about one stop of loss due to the adapter (that's what they claim anyway, we should mesure it because I believe the actual number might be a little higher) and here you go: 2.4 Stops lost!

So, I am not guessing: quite the contrary, I am very conservative in my conclusion! Actual numbers with typical lenses will be much closer to 3 to 4 stops of loss!

[Isaac_Brody]

I would kill for Kubrick's optics.

[lboyce]

(and I do own a follow focus too)

Hey Arkham, just wondering what follow focus you use? I know Chroziel makes one for about $2200, but I was wondering what other options are out there and if there's anything a little cheaper?

[Steve Shovlar]

Redrock are launching one for around $500 in the next couple of months.

[Policar]

Arkham, nice math. Next time stop talking out of your ass, especially in support of an inferior product. The difference between f1.4 and f1 is one stop. Stops are powers of root two, so 1,1.4,2,2.8,4,etc. are all single stops apart. You're right that light loss will be much higher than most people expect it to be, and who wants to shoot at f1.4 anyhow? Nobody; even the best DPs dread it and that's with a 24mmX18mm frame.

Although arrived at incorrectly, 2 and a half stops is not a bad guess. The G35 requires you to zoom in so that wide open is f2.0 (from f1.6) then if there's half to a full stop of loss from the GG and a stop lost from the f1.4 SLR lens, you're losing about two and a half stops.

And regarding all the amazing "low light" shots I've seen, sure it's impressive that any detail shows through, but they are all horribly underexposed. If you want to shoot a movie, buy lights, and learn to light. A well lit movie without a 35mm adapter will look infinitely better than a poorly lit movie without one.

[The Machinist]

Arkham, nice math. Next time stop talking out of your ass, especially in support of an inferior product.

That bitchslap made my screen flicker.

[Angrius]

Calm down children. I'm not sure what the excitement is all about. The G35 has been around for over a year. Are you guys just learning about it now? Go read the forum and find answers to your questions or contact JHouser.

Oh ya..this was funny..

There are lots of reasons for large crews and given the hollywood system not everyone is focused on getting everything perfect. One of the reasons being union regulations and standard on-set practices that have developed over the years. However the implication that you need a large crew in order to shoot a good 35mm project is something i would disagree with. I'd say an experienced 3 person team on camera is sufficient to produce the 35mm look.
Give me a f**king break. Have you ever actually worked on a film set (sorry being a P.A doesn't count). I've worked on them for over 6 years and I'd love to see a 3 person shoot done in time or on budget. Get a grip.:)

[Angrius]

Hahahahaha

[Emanuel]

However the implication that you need a large crew in order to shoot a good 35mm project is something i would disagree with. I'd say an experienced 3 person team on camera is sufficient to produce the 35mm look.:thumbsup:

[The Machinist]

Actually Angrius you misunderstood me.

I said a three person team ON CAMERA (DP, Camera operator, Focus puller/Camera Assistant). Not for the entire shoot, we aren't all discussing student films here.

So no f**king break for you.

It's all right though I've gotten real excited about making a point and putting other people down before only to later realize i was the one mistaken. It happens.

In retrospect i should have been more clear in my statements knowing how certain members of the board love to pounce at the first sign of weakness, and/or inexperience.

Ohh and all the G35 excitement is just over the new website. Most of us have been following the adapter for months or more. There's always a spark of activity on a topic even when the smallest new detail or news is announced. For example if someone started a thread that announced Panasonic would be offering P2 cards in different colors we'd see countless posts and bantering and all kinds of chatter.

[Alex Leith]

Calm down children. I'm not sure what the excitement is all about. The G35 has been around for over a year. Are you guys just learning about it now? Go read the forum and find answers to your questions or contact JHouser.

No, you calm down :grin: Just because you're not excited doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be excited...


Give me a f**king break. Have you ever actually worked on a film set (sorry being a P.A doesn't count). I've worked on them for over 6 years and I'd love to see a 3 person shoot done in time or on budget. Get a grip.:)

So you're suggesting we need a Key Grip in addition to the 3 man crew :grin:

I have to take issue with one thing you say. Why wouldn't the experience of being a PA count towards being able to make a judgement about what's going on on set? I know many dedicated and focussed PAs. To get the best performance out of your crew you need to appreciate and value everyone's contribution. Chill dude!

[arkham]

Wow! This forum isn't the quiet and friendly place it used to be. This is very sad, IMHO. But thanks for the clarification anyway, Policar :) We all have to learn (or, in my case, be reminded some of the things I've learned many years ago indeed)!

What I know is that you really need MUCH more light when you shoot with these adapters. And yes, you're right: nobody wants to shoot at f/1.4! The fact of the matter is that you have to add the loss of light caused by the lens (no matter how much you close the Iris) to the loss caused by the adapter itself.

As for your "inferior product" statement, let me laugh out loud. Inferior to what? The G35 IS VAPORWARE as far as I am concerned! Period! And showing very nice footage isn't gonna change the fact I can't get one right now! Plus: the G35 is MUCH more expensive than the M35, if you keep in mind the fact you get a whole system, with rods and suitcase. Plus some of the footage shot with the Micro35 isn't "bloody awful" (just have a look to the links provided throughout this discussion. Obin's footage comes to mind). That's all I wanted to say! I am very sorry to have caused such an aggressive reaction, obviously, I must have offended you but I just can't see how...

[JHouser]

It's not worth arguing for or against products that are not even on the market yet. So let's just chill a bit.

[Policar]

No, it's okay. Sorry I was so mean, it's been a REALLY long week and I just think product bashing isn't fair, especially if the math behind it is wrong...

Anyhow, the M2 footage looked unacceptably awful with ghosting, the original Micro35 footage looked okay (Obin's adapter is home built and he's using the andromeda system which makes the milky footage look acceptable), and the new "M3" footage looks promising, but the unit seems to have some issues still. Sure it's "upgradeable" but that's only because it NEEDS to be.

Not being released yet doesn't make the G35 vaporware in my mind, just "not-yet-released-ware." Jonathan hasn't met his informal deadlines by a long shot, but he hasn't broken any promises either. Remember the micro35 guide fiasco? That was worse by comparison...

But from having used a mini35 I will agree that light loss is bad and will be far more of an issue (and we shot at t1.3!). If people want their footage to look like 35mm film, they'd better shoot like it. If 35mm adapters do nothing but encourage better lighting, then that's a good thing at least...

[arkham]

"It's not worth arguing for or against products that are not even on the market yet. So let's just chill a bit."

Thanks Jonathan! It's exactly what I think! But that doesn't mean I am not expecting to put my hands on your product as soon as possible :)

Oh, and BTW, Policar, I may have some problems with my maths, but you have some problems with your logic:

"A well lit movie without a 35mm adapter will look infinitely better than a poorly lit movie without one." That is some of the dumbest and/or funniest comment I've read so far ;) Just kidding of course, I got what you meant, and you're just probably a little tired, that's it :)

Oh, BTW, regarding the FF I am using: typically, I use a chrosziel FF, but I recently aquired a "Foccalizzare" FF for 150$, and it is not too bad for the money :) Unfortunately, the company "Foccalizzare" is now out of business...

Also, I have bought a "whip" for my FF on JBKcinequipt, and I highly recommend JBK! Excellent customer service! And excellent product (although it's just a "whip")

[Emanuel]

...or I must say...
However the implication that you need a large crew in order to shoot a good 35mm project is something i would disagree with. I'd say an experienced 3 person team on camera is sufficient to produce the 35mm look....:thumbsup: :thumbsup:



There are lots of reasons for large crews and given the hollywood system not everyone is focused on getting everything perfect. One of the reasons being union regulations and standard on-set practices that have developed over the years. (...)

Some of the greatest directors produced amazing 35mm results with incredibly small crews of less than 20 people sometimes less than 15 on-set. You want an example go to IMDB and look up Cassavettes' Faces or Scorsese's Who's that Knocking at my Door? These were small crews who produced amazing results in the 35mm medium.

I don't mean to say that the large crews of big-budget productions are excessive because alot of hands are definately needed on some of these massive sets. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that a large crew is not necessary (in certain 35mm situations)Any doubt?...and I was never P.A....

[arkham]

Anyhow, the M2 footage looked unacceptably awful with ghosting, the original Micro35 footage looked okay (Obin's adapter is home built and he's using the andromeda system which makes the milky footage look acceptable), and the new "M3" footage looks promising, but the unit seems to have some issues still. Sure it's "upgradeable" but that's only because it NEEDS to be.

I don't use the M2, precisely because of these awful ghosting! But if the look of the original micro35 was "OK" for you, then there is no reason to be upset about anything, because the M1 (that's how I call the original GG) is delivered with the adapter. And in my opinion, it is quite comparable to the Mini35! I love it!


But from having used a mini35 I will agree that light loss is bad and will be far more of an issue (and we shot at t1.3!). If people want their footage to look like 35mm film, they'd better shoot like it. If 35mm adapters do nothing but encourage better lighting, then that's a good thing at least...

Then at least, we agree on the essential message I wanted to communicate over here! People who have never used a Mini35 are going to be surprised by the amount of light they need to use! Plus a good focus puller is a MUST in my opinion.

[Emanuel]

Jonathan, I've been one of the more enthusiastic fans of your device solution, as probably you well know, since I saw the first footage (macgregor's and so on). In a neighbour thread of this one, someone asks regarding "the permagrain effect" (link (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=40071)). What do you think about a 35mm film-out test with macgregor's stuff or even HVX (when available) as big screen solution? (with or without permagrain?)

[Mediacre]

My choices would be:

http://www.dandiaconu.com
http://www.redrockmicro.com
http://www.cinemek.com

I have the MPIC with follow focus and gears for Nikon lenses, on order from Dan and awaiting.

Yes, I agree. From all those adapters, this MPIC seems to be the best. It’s the most professionally made, at least it looks, meaning it looks to have the best craftsmanship. It’s not just a tube or a box. It’s the best design, since it’s so compact, has the best features and has the best sharpness by looking at the samples. Second comes the G35 and third the M2. I guess the saying is true. You really get what you pay for.
The problem with the M2 is not much the quality but redrockmicro’s customer service. It seems it stinks. All you see on their forums and others are people complaining they have ordered it for over 12 weeks and haven't got the M2 or a reply to their emails. I wonder why they promise it in 6 weeks if they can't deliver.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Certainly, the MPIC looks the best. It's also $8,000! I think I'll give the Cinemek G35 a try when it comes out.

[Ralph Oshiro]

. . . and who wants to shoot at f1.4 anyhow? Nobody; even the best DPs dread it and that's with a 24mmX18mm frame.I DO! Good f-stop math, there, Policar. Thanks, that helps clear some things up for me. By the way, what exactly IS the projected frame size on the ground glass of these adapters?

[Isaac_Brody]

There's one advantage to all this attention on 35 adaptors. Less attention on the lack of any HVX news. Sorry Jonathan for all the carving knives, but it's a nice change from beating the proverbial chip count discussion to death. :beer:

[Steve Shovlar]

Shot with the M2.
http://www.whatismine.com/html/showreel/reel_musicvideos_NSG.htm
Still think it's rubbish?

[arkham]

For some reason, Policar claimed I was bashing the G35, which I never did (except I said it was "vaporware" AFTER his message, where he did claim the Micro35 was "inferior"). I really feel stupid about my F-stops math mistake (esp. now that I am awake and sober :) ), but I still don't like people trashing the micro35 for no reason, especially when they NEVER even used that product. So, this whole thread seems to be about how "inferior" the micro35 is, which makes Policar "anti-G35-bashing" comments absolutely ridiculous...

Thus, let's follow the "m35 bashing" trend: Steve, I have to admit the video you've provided isn't the best example of what you can do with a Micro35: lots of vignetting and soft edges in the beginning of the video! And you know what? I have to admit this is one of the REAL problems I faced with my m35: it is hard to get a perfect back-focus with that adapter. You really have to spend some time to find the proper distance between the camera and the adapter, even if you use a DVX100A (I have found it works best if you set the camera about 1 inch appart from the adapter. Of course, you need even more space if you have the original DVX100)

In fact, if the G35 works as well as Cinemek's claim with my old DVX100 (the original model), if I really only have to mount the G35 to it, set the proper focus and then start shooting, I am obviously going to use it very often! Because I don't have that much time when I am shooting!

That is a REAL problem with the micro35, unlike the ghosting which seems to obsess inexperienced people over here (simply swap your GG, and the ghosting is all gone! In less than 2 minutes! Easy, isn't it?)!

[Ralph Oshiro]

. . . I really feel stupid about my F-stops math mistake (esp. now that I am awake and sober.Thanks for sharing your experience with the micro35, warts and all. Relax, arkham, everyone gets screwed up on f-stop math once in a while. Anyway, you've all shared some valuable information about all of these adapters. For the aesthetic they bring to a small format, they may be worth investing in for serious narrative shooters here. Me, I'm just deciding between a full-sized 2/3" camera (for native, shallow depth-of-field) and the HVX200. That's a lot of stops to give up for shallow focus, and all of this is making the decision even tougher.

[Mr. Blonde]

U thinkin about the HDX400 or the new sony cam that's comin out NBCshooter?

[arkham]

Thanks for your comments NBC.

Regarding your difficult choice for a camera, I think you should use a "Multi-criteria analysis" (it's the kinda stuff I learned when I did my business management degree a while ago).

Basically, you start by writing down the list of all the parameters that matter for your choice (Shallow DOF is one of them). Be very creative: don't forget anything!

Let's say the list is something like this:

-Shallow DOF
-Purchasing Price
-Cost of maintenance
-Definition
-Latitude

etc.

Next you give a weight to each parameter (from 1 to X, X being the total number of parameters you came up with). The higher the number the more important that parameter is for your business.

Then you give a score (from 1 to 5 for instance) for each parameter and each camera (of course). You multiply each scor by the associated weight, sum it all and the highest number gives you the best choice! Easy isn't it?

Let's say you came up with the above 5 parameters and associated weight:

1- Cost of maintenance
2- Purchasing price
3- Definition
4- Latitude
5- Shallow DOF

Then you gave the following scores:
HVX Sony(2/3")
1- 5 4
2- 5 3
3- 5 4
4- 3 5
5- 2 5

This gives a total score of
(5x1)+(5x2)+(5x3)+(3x4)+(2x5)=52 to the HVX
(4x1)+(3x2)+(4x3)+(5x4)+(5x5)=67 to the Sony

Winner: Sony! Of course, this is a pretty simplified MCA (it can be much more complex than that), but I usually use this kind of tool when I face a difficult choice like yours. Something you might want to adapt is the weight though: the cost of maintenance is unlikely to be 5 times less important than shallow DOF. Simply adjust the weights accordingly. The more parameters you get, the better the final result.

And, yes, if I was willing to get shallow DOF, while keeping a reasonably practical way to shoot (esp. under low light conditions), I would take a 2/3" and forget about ALL these 35mm adapters!

BTW, sorry if you knew all this. It's just that I had the impression you were constantly changing your mind regarding the choice of your future camera ;)

[Ralph Oshiro]

arkham:

Thanks for the detailed post! I have a busness degree as well, and have really been meaning to apply some formal decision analysis to my girlfriend issues! I've been deciding THAT one for EXACTLY one year!

Seriously, I can't deny the benefits of the HVX200 for miniature and compositing work. I'll probably buy the HVX200 and later beg/borrow/steal an XDCAM-HD camera for my live action location stuff. Thanks again!

[Ralph Oshiro]

U thinkin about the HDX400 or the new sony cam that's comin out NBCshooter?No, the HDX400 is not 24P. I'm thinking about the "shoulder-mount" 2/3" version of the HVX200 coming out next year, but I'm afraid that'll be upwards of $30K with glass. Here's my choices:

1. Panasonic HVX200
2. Panasonic XXX000 (shoulder-mount 2/3" version--price unknown)
3. Sony standard-definition, 2/3" DSR450WSL 16:9 24P DVCAM (only $16K w/glass)
4. Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM-HD (about $20-25K with glass, coming out next year)

(Sorry for taking this thread off-topic, to my ongoing, never-ending, "beat-a-dead-horse" dilemma of my "new" camera choice)

[Mediacre]

Certainly, the MPIC looks the best. It's also $8,000! I think I'll give the Cinemek G35 a try when it comes out.

Yeah, but quality cost money. No wonder it looks the best.
Did you see the low light tests? No other adapter can claim such good performance. It's zero light lost with this MPIC. It also produces the best looking boke(sp?) and it’s razor sharp. The best thing is that it's compact, even smaller the long tube that is the G35, but it's not a static adapter, which has disadvantages when compared to moving glass ones. I heard it even has solar batteries. Just too cool.

[Angrius]

Ya I always found the need for an experienced PA on set. Somebody needs to keep track of the Starbucks orders! Point taken. And yes you do need some lazy ass sittin in their lawn chairs until the shlt hits the fan grips for cabling and pushing around those crazy dollys.

This was a hoot. Okay let's all calm down!!!!

[Angrius]

[QUOTE=arkham]"It's not worth arguing for or against products that are not even on the market yet. So let's just chill a bit."
Thanks Jonathan! It's exactly what I think! But that doesn't mean I am not expecting to put my hands on your product as soon as possible :)

Arkham you ass kissing monkey. You're still not going to get a discount on the G35.:thumbsup:

[arkham]

:)