Culmination of a month of DOF research

[Dennis Wood]

Link (http://z13.zupload.com/download.php?file=getfile&filepath=4362)
Alternate (http://www.filefactory.com/get/v3/f2.php?f=2597ae8b86ca0c402ebdb8f3)

DOF sample footage...cool stuff! Done with info from here and dvinfo.

[d4v1dz33]

very nice, veerry pretty!

[RoamingBobert]

This is a DIY adapter I am assuming?
Nice footage!

[Dennis Wood]

Thanks! It's loosely based on the M2 DIY, with a bunch of "improvements". The rail system is my design to mount the GS400 inverted, or upright. It also allows balancing on my tripod.

[rook]

The image looks clean. but it has a very distinctive look. Which, depending on your project could be good or bad.

I'm really impressed with the focus. It looks pretty clean but the haze of the out of focus sections is a bit to "dreamy" for me.

Nice work as a whole. And the unit looks pro.

-rook

[Dennis Wood]

Thanks for your comments Rook. Would you believe that several folks have commented on the lack of diffusion in the out of focus areas? It's amazing what you can go with a few ABS plumbing parts, filter rings, ebay $2.50 teleconverter flange....and a crap-load of time.

I guess this provides what I've been yearning for on the video side, the option to control interest in your shots. I've always loved taking portrait shots with my trusty old SLR, capturing fleeting expressions and knowing that the viewer is looking at the face, not the scene behind it! I just wish the CCD on that cam was 24x36mm instead of the measly 1/4.6". Of course if it was, we wouldn't be strapping these rigs on our cams.

[the joel]

That footage looks really fantastic! Are you going to post any instructions on that baby? I'd love to finally begin fiddling around with my own rig, knowing the results could look this amazing!

[Norbert]

Is this clip shot with a GS400 or a DVX100?

[Dennis Wood]

This is a GS400 in pro-cinema mode. "Pro-cinema" mode grabs a 16:9 section of the CCDs, using 30fps frame mode, with cinne-gamma applied. I've reduced contrast and sharpness slightly using the cam's manual image controls. Otherwise the footage is untouched in post. It's interesting that you asked.

[Norbert]

Wow, that's impressive. I thought the first shot was shot on a DVX. I might have underestimated the GS400.
The question is if 24p, higher resolution, XLR and the improved cine gamma of the DVX is actually worth those extra $2000. :P

[disjecta]

The question is if 24p, higher resolution, XLR and the improved cine gamma of the DVX is actually worth those extra $2000. :P

It is.


I admire your efforts but the diffusion blur is too "stylistic" for me. I could see myself getting tired of it very fast.

[Norbert]

Thanks Disjecta, you really put things in perspective. :D

This is very off topic, and I apologize for that, but I'm not likely to ever blow up my results on film. Is the progressive scan and the extra resolution really necessary for me if I just wanna make great looking movies for tv and internet? After all, it isn't the camera that makes beautiful footage, it's the man behind the camera. :)

[disjecta]

Having no interlacing artifacts and film motion at 24fps were the two absolute deal breakers for me. I have never looked back, nor would I ever buy a non-progressive camera again.

Do a search under "interlace" on this site and you'll get lots of hits. It's a subject that has been discussed to death.

[Norbert]

Indeed, progressive scan is a beautiful thing, but deinterlacing works fine as well if you're not thinking of transfering to film, right? Deinterlacing only reduces the resolution, and often it still looks okay if you're not thinking film transfer.

I'm sure I wouldn't look back after buying a dvx, I love that cam, but instead I would be broke. :huh:

[disjecta]

Basically, it comes down to a number of things. If you are satisfied with the look of deinterlacing, then go for it. I did that for a few years using Magic Bullet software and, although it did a pretty good job, when I saw DVX footage for the first time it was like night and day. Deinterlacing does not get rid of all of your interlacing problems...it does an average job resolving jagged diagonal lines...that alone drove me crazy.

It's a personal preference thing.

[Dennis Wood]

Ahh, disjecta rings in! I've sent dozens to pine lake films to bask in the sun of your cinematography skills. Truthfully, I'm a little surprised you're not playing with an adapter. From what I've seen of your outstanding work/style of shooting, you're achieving the shallow DOF when you want it by using a 2x lens and lots of zoom. By the term "sylistic" I'm not sure what you're referring to? From my (limited) experience the look is just closer to that achieved with film/cinema lenses. The great thing about video is that using an adapter, you at least have a choice over shallow and deep DOF. From what I've read, DP's at times curse the shallow DOF of cinema lenses, and now I understand why.

I also now understand why follow focus units are almost essential when trying to focus a moving shot. The focus markings on SLR lenses are great. I find myself relying on them to mark the beginning and end focus points of my simple transitions. What I wasn't expecting is that these focus changes require a focus ring rotation beyond what is possible with a single twist. So there is no way to do this smoothly without a 2nd person, or a follow focus unit.

Keep in mind that these tests had the camera deliberately setup to achieve shallow DOF with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 and shutter sped up a bit to leave the cam at a low f/stop too (waiting for adapter rings to use my ND and CP). Had I used a higher f/stop on the 35mm lens you would have had a much deeper DOF. From my res tests with EIA1956, there is a slight softening of the image, but very little resolution loss, so this contributes to the look.

From our tests and research over at pana3ccd user, we're pretty sure the GS400 uses a "real" flavour of Panasonic's cinne-gamma program. In 16:9 mode it likely has similar resolution to the DVX100. Where it loses in not having progressive CCDs, it gets back in not having to crop and zoom like the DVX. So in good light, I can understand why the footage might be confused.

As far as the DVX being worth another 2K, I would tend to agree that it is. Having said that, had I shot a short on the GS400 and posted it here as DVX100 footage..one wonders if many would have questioned that. I would cite your work (disjecta) as the best example of how art is far more important than technical specs when playing in the visual world.

Btw, this footage is untouched from the camera, and it is not deinterlaced!

[disjecta]

guskersthecat,

Thanks for the kind words.

I do not think you are getting a typical 35mm look here. It seems like you are using something that is causing your picture to be diffused. This is not a natural look. If you study any film scene that is using narrow depth of field, you will clearly see that it does not look like what you are getting. Now while you can argue that a lot of filmmakers use filters like ProMist, etc., the results of your footage look like two promist filters back to back....do you know what I'm saying?

In fact, I would venture to say this is the most unusual look I've seen from an adapter. This is just a "Look", I'm sure a lot of people will like it but it's not for me.

I will be testing out some of the pre-existing 35mm adapters soon, I'm currently talking with the various makers.

[Dennis Wood]

Ok, I see what you're saying and you're absolutely correct. This adapter uses a very thin GG that I've been experimenting with. It has a fine, but consistent diffusion surface that delivers great sharpness, but not the degree of "fuzziness" that you get with a coarser GG. So far I've done carefull analysis of light loss (1.6 stops loss with 50mm f/1.4 lens), resolution, and distortion with this GG.

My next experiment will be to do a run of the same tests with a much coarser GG and repeat my observations. If I can maintain the desirable qualities that the GG currently has, with better diffusion, I'll likely start using it.

Now that you've mentioned the unusual look of the adapter footage, I hadn't considered that to be a potential positive to some. Were I to make a few, that may very well factor in....a variety of looks to chose from.

[Norbert]

I would cite your work (disjecta) as the best example of how art is far more important than technical specs when playing in the visual world.Exactly, so it shouldn't matter if you have a DVX or a GS400. A good cinematographer can get awesome results out of both cameras, or any other camera that has manual controls and settings.

[Dennis Wood]

Ok Mr. Dempsey et al, here's a brief shot with a coarse finish (really coarse) GG. What do you folks think of this look as contrasted with the fine GG clip posted above?

coarse:
http://www.filefactory.com/get/f.php?f=0818ab7d3a6fb618fc3ccfea

fine:
http://www.filefactory.com/get/v3/f2.php?f=2597ae8b86ca0c402ebdb8f3

[Jim Brennan]

Exactly, so it shouldn't matter if you have a DVX or a GS400. A good cinematographer can get awesome results out of both cameras, or any other camera that has manual controls and settings.


That's true, but some cameras can do things that others can not. A good carpenter can make a house without a hammer, but I am sure he'd rather have one.

[Norbert]

Good point, but what if he had to pay an extra $2000 for that hammer? :P

[Jim Brennan]

I guess it would depend on if it got him the desired resuts :-)

I looked at a lot of cameras before bought my DVX. Everything from a zr-20 to a GL-2 to an XL-1 (I know, I'm dating myself) At the time there was NO other camera on the market that could touch the DVX. Now there are more options. But I never regretted spending the dough, and it will be quite a while before I feel the need to upgrade. I compared the raw footage, and never looked back.

In the end, if what you are getting is giving the result you want, stick with it.

[Norbert]

So, if you had to make that decision today, do you think you would've gone for the DVX?

[Dennis Wood]

So I guess that means you like the adapter footage? :huh:

I may in fact be selling the adapter shortly.....

[Norbert]

Hehe, sorry. Back to the topic. The adapter footage looks nice in the sharp areas, but I have to agree with disjecta on the blurred areas. They seem to have a soft glow to them.

[Dennis Wood]

I'm assuming you were referring to the fine GG example and not this: http://www.filefactory.com/get/f.php?f=0818ab7d3a6fb618fc3ccfea

That last clip done with a coarse GG.

[Norbert]

Yes, this clip looks better.

[Dennis Wood]

What do you folks think of this look? I've experimented with a lot of GG finishes....hopefully this is the final.

http://www.pana3ccduser.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1182&stc=1

[Ted Ramasola]

Thats a good frame shallow DOF shot with sharp image, I assume your using a spinning GG?
Could you post a short, perhaps 2-3 sec clip of that shot in full MSDV resolution?

guskersthecat, I'm also in final stages of my own DIY spinner, I wish to see how those tiny grains in the shadow areas"move" around the image as an effect of this method.

I just tweaked mine yesterday by adjusting the spin speed by increasing the battery voltage. It significantly cut down that "effect."

I also noticed in your highlights on the glass there is no noticeable CA. Thats also good.

[Dennis Wood]

Here's a high bit rate wmv of the rack. It looks pretty much identical to the DV in terms of noise.

Final GG??
http://www.filefactory.com/get/f.php?f=4933017b44cd61e9299bcbce

Too Coarse:
http://www.filefactory.com/get/f.php?f=0818ab7d3a6fb618fc3ccfea

Too Fine (but low noise):
http://www.filefactory.com/get/v3/f2.php?f=2597ae8b86ca0c402ebdb8f3

The last two were posted previously in this thread.


Thoughts on the "final" GG?

[disjecta]

guskersthecat,

The final file seems to be exhibiting some subtle "glowing" (diffusion, halo) around the figurine, which distracts me somewhat.

The one you are saying is "too coarse" is very pleasing to my eye. I checked it out on a studio monitor and I am seeing very little grain and a pretty sharp picture.

My vote is for the "too coarse" one, it has the most natural looking 35mm look to it IMO.

Good work...

[scharky]

Hey, heres an Idea, why not inlcude multiple versions of the ground glass? Is it easy to swap in an out? It's almost like working with different filters, different GG for whatever shot you are working on. Shots that have alot of background light might be too "bloomy" for the fine GG, but indoor shots, may flourish. just an idea.

[Dennis Wood]

Steve, thanks for your input. I've seen the same glow issue in some of Dan's MPIC screen grabs...so I'm not sure if these are just inherent in taping a diffusion surface. I tend to look to his footage as a reference. Very little of the sample footage I've seen online includes bright point source lights like this...so it's hard to compare. I had a couple undiffused 500 watters direcly illuminating the subjects so the reflected light was quite strong. Either way, I'm trying to "torture test" the adapter.

The problem with the coarsest GG is that at 1/120s, very bright areas (like white snow) show rotational grain. If the cam was used at 1/60s, no problem...speed it up and you can see the GG. Thanks for lending your very discerning eye to my little project. It seems that most folks who've seen the GG clip agree with you. It's exactly the feedback I'm looking for.

Sharky, multiple GG's are exactly what I'm thinking. It's taken a lot of time and a fair bit of cash to get where I am now. I believe that including a set of 3 GG's would add relatively little cost, but give the "pick yer bokeh" option.

[Ted Ramasola]

guskersthecat
I agree with disjecta about the halo on the figurine, but to be more objective, post a clip on the same subject, with diff GGs. A well lighted still life perhaps with variations on even lighted and shadow areas and matte and shiny objects.
I think you should pin down the BEST gg to use this way.
Are you using a variable speed motor?
Check if you can inrease its rotational speed by experimenting with diff, voltage.
I use a 12 volt dynamo motor, not a brushless motor, which allows me to vary voltage.
We look forward to your success.

Ted

[Dennis Wood]

Just curious Teddy. Would you consider posting a grab of footage where a strong light source is being reflected from a glass..(out of focus) from your adapter? It's a medium format solution right?

I have a theory that this "effect" is inevitable when capturing a diffuse GG surface. Some of Dan's MPIC screen grabs (candles, street lamps ect) show the same halo....but at a farther range.

[Dennis Wood]

One of my forum mates tried the same test (wine glass, point source) today and got exactly the same thing using an M1 GG. I'm pretty convinced after searching dvinfo that all diffuse surfaces will demonstrate the halo under these conditions. This issue would need to be addressed with proper lighting.

[Ted Ramasola]

guskerthecat,

Personally, the reflected light source on the glass and the bokeh it produced when out of focus didnt bother me at all aesthetically. I think what disjecta meant, and me in my previous post, is the halo or the subtle soft diffused glow on the image, obvious on the figurine on the left side of your shot. Its presence is obvious when its in focus.

If your doing test comparison regarding specular highlights bokeh, these are grabs i took a while ago. Medium format lens for RB645 80mm at f 1.9

Glasses in focus;
http://www.stickypod.com/stickypod_upload/uploads/specularhighlight1.jpg

Out of focus;
http://www.stickypod.com/stickypod_upload/uploads/specularhighlight2.jpg

Hope this helps your tests. Just email me for more setting details or if you need other tests that will help you make a comparison to improve your device.

Good luck

Ted

e-mail link (ramasola@globelines.com.ph)

[Dennis Wood]

I think we're seeing an advantage here of large format images. My theory on the "halo" is that it is caused by internal GG reflection of the diffused image, much like emulsion passthru in film (same halo). The size and nature of this will depend on how out of focus your images are, and the thickness of GG in relation to the image size. So a 4x6 image in a 1.5mm GG will have far less than a 24x36 image on a 1.5mm glass due to higher incident angles. In my case the figurine was 1.5 ft away, the glass about 4 at f1.4 ... which is as bad as you could get really under those lighting situations. So I see a few solutions:

1. Use a larger projected image on the same thickness GG
2. Reduce contrast in your shot (like the ones' you posted)

The GG halo has been discussed over at dvinfo, and I don't believe there is a solution. If I hadn't seen it myself on an M1 (micro35) GG I probably would be madly trying to find a solution. The solution is proper lighting.

Teddy, try a lightbulb reflection from a glass in a dark room fully in focus, and then completely out of focus. I'd try it with the lens fully open, at closest focus range. I'm interested to see if the med format theory plays out.

If you check the clip again, you'll find that the DOF is so shallow at 1.5ft with this F1.4 , that the arm of the figurine is slightly out of the focus on the right side, when the little plaque on the left is...watch as I rack through it. I think the halo with the image in focus may in fact be bokeh from parts of it that are not. Have a look and let me know.

[Dennis Wood]

Here's a great set of samples on bokeh. http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Who would have thought that an adapter project would lead to so many variables.....

I'm hoping the shootout includes racks like these....I'm very curious.

[Ted Ramasola]

guskersthecat

The bokeh doesn't bother me from your footage because I know its dependent, at times, on your 35mm lens.
As for the 'soft glow' I have experienced that in "Version1" of my adapter which used a cheap magnifying lens instead of the present stack of 3pcs +3 close up filters. My suggestion to yours is, try changing your macro or close up to a diff brand to remove the softening or subtle halo.
Also, I noticed that the close up filters, when not placed close to the videocam lens, softens the sides of the image, or gives an uneven focus.

[Dennis Wood]

Ok, thanks for your feedback Ted. I've got a few more experiments to try out. We used fairly expensive lenses for this setup...the DCX condenser and 120mm achromat. I'm going to try a version without both of these, as I may not need them with the GS400. The condenser reduces frame size, but the 400 has a 1.6 inch focus distance...which would cover a 24x36 frame. Hotspots will the issue.

Did you check out the racked focus in the clip? I'm seeing a definite DOF issue extending across the figurine. So am I missing something?

Just a caveat. I went through a day of experimentation to address some colour blooming, only to find you that it was the GS400, and not the adapter! Folks critiquing the footage suggested ghosting due to insufficient diffusion. I later tested the camera alone to find the same ghosting (blooming in this case). I guess it's just a suggestion to others working on these things to make sure you're troubleshooting an adapter issue, and not a DV compression/camera artifact issue.

Thanks again, I appreciate your feedback!

[dan]

Just a caveat. I went through a day of experimentation to address some colour blooming, only to find you that it was the GS400, and not the adapter! Folks critiquing the footage suggested ghosting due to insufficient diffusion. I later tested the camera alone to find the same ghosting (blooming in this case). I guess it's just a suggestion to others working on these things to make sure you're troubleshooting an adapter issue, and not a DV compression/camera artifact issue
That's right! But how can one discuss the adapter's performance when the camcorder itself is in question?
Cameras by themselves take lousier pictures (still or video) here than they do using the image converter. Here is a repost of two stills 2.3Mp from GS200:
This is the camcorder:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0486?full=1
and here is the same camcorder photographing the GG (Nikkor 4/200 on adapter)
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0485?full=1

[Dennis Wood]

Dan, very interesting. Any idea what the cam was using for f/stop and shutter for each of these?

[dan]

not a clue. (one year ago... one test of who knows how many..)
wild guess: ? wide open (camcorder) Nikkor @4 (wide open as well) shutter could have been @15 or 30. (I can see the gain noise and that's why I guess I must have had the aperture wide open) Both had the same settings though (whatever they were)

[Ted Ramasola]

Dan,
Are those sample pics from a static GG? or already the occilating one you developed?

[Dennis Wood]

I'll have to try this out with my GS400. At close range it takes very respectable stills (but nowhere close to the 4Mp Panasonic claims). I've taken some stills with my adapter attached, and of course they looked just like pics from my SLR, but not as good of course. I have not tried the same scene with and without the adapter.

[dan]

Tedd, the previous pics are 2.3M stills with/wo MPIC and moving. I have some static to demo the difference (grain on soft areas) like this: (static)
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A_static?full=1
vs. this: (motion)
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album13/A_motion?full=1
The above two are 720/480 frames from the footage.
I noticed ALL stills/footage being SHARPER using the adapter. Reason?
The gg itself reduces the light's contrast ratio bringing it within the camcorder's limited response range. End result? The "sharpening" circuit does not "trigger" unless there is a high contrast between reflecting surfaces. Going down to pixel level, a white line will "bloom" in the adjacent line of pixels thereby reducing the resolution of the CCD in HALF!(if not worse) Talk about resolution charts. See countless examples when the lens of Z1 is blamed for the CCD's inability to respond to highlights and so on.

[Ted Ramasola]

Thanks for the clear samples Dan, I also noticed the quality of your GG is apparent when it is not moving.

[dan]

Thanks Teddy, the quality is neither better nor worse than a Beattie can display and a camcorder can record. They make the best screen (I am aware of) and I move it. That's all.

[Ted Ramasola]

It seems the beattie has the same optical quality as the focusing screens on the hasselblad cameras, like when you look through them it seems brighter than the actual scene!
Im trying to finish an occilating frame Dan,than can hold the focusing screen of the mamiya rb67. I hope it turns out ok. Im closely supervising our craftsmen thats making a magnet based ocillating device. It would make the adapter smaller.

[dan]

Beattie is actually one step forward from original Hasselblad screens.

I have two Kowa medium format lenses (80 and 150) and I contemplated making one but did not have enough interest; not enough lens options for the format.

Why not order a medium format MPIC from me? (I do custom work as well).That would be the first and last one I would make.

[limo991]

Hi Dan. A prime or even a cheap low zoom ratio lens will be superior to any video large zoom ratio lens regardless of cost. It's just physics. All good cine lenses are primes for a reason. The ENG style 20x (or any type of camcorder 12x or 20x lenses) are a huge compromise and have got tons of abberations in most parts of the zoom even when you pay $30,000 for them. Nobody makes large zoom ratio professional photography lenses for the same reason. Better than 3x zoom ratio like 24-70 or 70-200 would be a very bad design. And primes are always preferred of course. Some have 0.2 pixel maximum abberations at 11megapixels compared to 5pixels for cheap zooms.

In your adapter setup you are using the camera fixed lens in a very sweet spot and that makes all the difference in abberations. The camera has more resolution without the adapter but nobody would notice that since the output resolution is very small for the capabilities of the optics in both cases and the abberations will be very bad in low quality smaller than 1/3 inch lenses zoomed in. The loss of contrast is also turned into a plus since the digital cameras cannot handle large contrast ratios. So that leaves loss of light as the only real optical minus of an adapter.

Any professional should take care of highlights using ND or gradient filters and proper exposure settings to make it work within the limits of the equipment. Most samples with blooming and blown highlights usually come from kids using automode or having limited knowledge on the subject. Or tiny little $10 sensors on $5000 to $10,000 "prosumer" cameras. Film is better in dynamic range than modern 2/3inch sensors in real cases but is used as a reference in marketing. Every new product is more filmlike:) We don't want it to be the same with film in exposure on motion because then we wouldn't be able to make the next product more film like:) CMOS cameras are very good in the highlight artifact department. Still in the hands of a kid film would produce similar results with digital (probably worse!).

It is interesting that even if I scan and compress a film at 1mbit/sec it still looks film like with all its blocks, low res, terribly low S/N, 8bit best case dynamic range etc etc. Of course. It has productions values and professional photography. The user is not shooting natural light on a bike in auto mode! Some things do not come from B&H in a box.

[Dennis Wood]

This adapter is officially for sale...check the classifieds forum. (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=46317)

[JoshuaNitschke]

Guskers, do you feel that the adapter will perform well enough to work with an Andromeda (uncompressed, HD output) equipped DVX?

[Dennis Wood]

Yes, I believe you would have no problems...here's why:

1. The adapter image is very sharp, free of distortion, and moving grain.

2. Stills taken at 2288x1728 from the camera with adapter attached look very good.

3. I've set up this adapter to work with the GS400 16:9 mode, which uses a wider field of view than the DVX. This means you would have to zoom in 15% or so less than I do, which means more flexibility with shutter speed, and a slightly better image than what you see in the clips. All of the GG's work fine at 1/120s shutter speed, which gives you an idea of how well GG grain is being blended.

[JoshuaNitschke]

Yes, I believe you would have no problems...here's why:

1. The adapter image is very sharp, free of distortion, and moving grain.

2. Stills taken at 2288x1728 from the camera with adapter attached look very good.

3. I've set up this adapter to work with the GS400 16:9 mode, which uses a wider field of view than the DVX. This means you would have to zoom in 15% or so less than I do, which means more flexibility with shutter speed, and a slightly better image than what you see in the clips. All of the GG's work fine at 1/120s shutter speed, which gives you an idea of how well GG grain is being blended.

2) Could I see some of these stills? Or are they in the thread and I missed them?

3) How does zoom affect shutter speed? :embarasse

BTW, your kid is adorable. :)

[Dennis Wood]

Here you go. They are stills captured from the GS400 with the adapter attached at 2278x1728 (resized for web)

GS400 still shot 1, adapter attached. (http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/IMGA0826)
GS400 still shot 2, adapter attached. (http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/IMGA0826)

Note that with the 50mm f1.4 at this range, the DOF is extremely shallow...only about an inch. Keep in mind too that the GS400's so called 4MB stills are more accurately compared to a 2.5ish MB digital camera with respect to actual resolution.

Thankfully our toddler seems to have inherited better looks than her genetic contributor!

The zoom/shutter speed issue is related to grain. The less you zoom in, the higher shutter speed you can use without moving grain showing up. If you are forced to zoom in a great deal and or increase shutter speed, eventually moving grain will become apparent in any moving GG design. The only way to avoid this is to move the GG much faster than 2700 rpm, in which case noise and vibration become an issue.

[JoshuaNitschke]

Here you go. They are stills captured from the GS400 with the adapter attached at 2278x1728 (resized for web)

GS400 still shot 1, adapter attached. (http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/IMGA0826)
GS400 still shot 2, adapter attached. (http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/IMGA0826)

Note that with the 50mm f1.4 at this range, the DOF is extremely shallow...only about an inch. Keep in mind too that the GS400's so called 4MB stills are more accurately compared to a 2.5ish MB digital camera with respect to actual resolution.

Thankfully our toddler seems to have inherited better looks than her genetic contributor!

The zoom/shutter speed issue is related to grain. The less you zoom in, the higher shutter speed you can use without moving grain showing up. If you are forced to zoom in a great deal and or increase shutter speed, eventually moving grain will become apparent in any moving GG design. The only way to avoid this is to move the GG much faster than 2700 rpm, in which case noise and vibration become an issue.
Those stills are beautiful.

I'm pretty much sold...I had been thinking I was gonna get a Guerilla35, but it seems yours competes very well with it for a much lower price. However, I'm also keeping an eye on bklyndv's.

Still waiting for the shootout and for you to finish your final flip version before I make a decision.

Oh, and my next paycheck. :D

[Dennis Wood]

Thanks V. Well, worst case scenario I'll have an adapter collection on my hands! Given the collection of engineered diffusers and carbon fibre on my desk, I suspect the next adapter will be quite different. Heavier, costlier, but likely about .5 to 1 f/stop better with better diffusion, and 0 grain.

[Winston Vargas]

Wow.. Finally somebody said it.. It's the man behind the camera that creates the images, not the camera.. well said. I have been saying that since film school 40 years ago. I also created an adapter, but I don't call it a 35mm adapter because I use larger format lenses on my unit, but it's only an aid to the camera. I still have to create the images.. The video community has to place less emphasis on the equipment and more on the techniques behind the camera. Maybe that's the difference between a filmmaker and a videographer.

[Dennis Wood]

Winston, I'm no artist, nor do I pretend to be one. I've had folks come up to me and tell me that I "have an eye" after viewing some of my productions (not DOF test footage obviously). I politely thank them, them point them to pinelakefilms (of Disjecta fame) as an example of someone who actually "has an eye."

I like building stuff. I'm a tech head. I'm not a filmmaker or a videographer. Now if we were all artists, you'd be presenting your work with chalk on a slate. On the good side, we wouldn't have global warming. (Removes tongue from cheek :p )

I will say this. Using an adapter has forced me to think a lot more about compostion, lighting, focus, camera movement etc. etc. Being that you're a film school graduate, I'm guessing you'll appreciate that cuz a few hacks like me are being forced to get a bit more educated.

[JoshuaNitschke]

Thanks V. Well, worst case scenario I'll have an adapter collection on my hands! Given the collection of engineered diffusers and carbon fibre on my desk, I suspect the next adapter will be quite different. Heavier, costlier, but likely about .5 to 1 f/stop better with better diffusion, and 0 grain.
How much more are we talkin?

If you can do it for $500, then you've got yourself an order once I get the cash. :thumbup:

[Dennis Wood]

Well, if I can get my toddler to kick in for some cheap labour....

[JoshuaNitschke]

Well, if I can get my toddler to kick in for some cheap labour....
lmao.

What is your estimate?

[Dennis Wood]

Well, the big question at this point is what the CNC machining costs will be.

At this point, a package with invert/revert and basic rails is likely doable for under $600.

[bklyndv]

Do you have to rotate the engineered diffuser to lose the grain completely, or is it a good static solution in your opinion?

[JoshuaNitschke]

Well, the big question at this point is what the CNC machining costs will be.

At this point, a package with invert/revert and basic rails is likely doable for under $600.
With or sans rails?

[Dennis Wood]

That's rails included.

[JoshuaNitschke]

One more question!

Which lens mount are you using? Canon? Nikon? Switchable (this would be preferred)? Can we request which mount we want for a few extra $$ when we order?

[Unix]

sorry, so how much was this again?